MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 3rd 2016 - 04:37 UTC

What do the Falkland Islands continue to tell us about territorial world views?

Monday, April 8th 2013 - 00:40 UTC
Full article 25 comments
Dr Dodds was accredited as an observer at the Falklands referendum Dr Dodds was accredited as an observer at the Falklands referendum

By Klaus Dodds (*) - The last couple of weeks have been busy ones when it comes to news about the Falkland Islands. Or Islas Malvinas as Argentine and other readers might insist upon. For others, the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) is the preferred naming option — highlighting as it does their continued contested status.

We have had the Falkland Islands referendum. I was fortunate enough to be an accredited observer and spent a very interesting few days watching the voting and counting unfold in Stanley and the wider Islands. Shortly afterwards, an Argentine bishop was appointed the next Pope, Francis I, and this encouraged speculation about what the pontiff might have to say on the question of the Islas Malvinas. President Cristina Kirchner of Argentina was quick off the mark and paid her respects at the Vatican. Whatever special powers the Pope possesses, it won’t be enough to alter the sovereignty dynamic in the case of these South Atlantic islands. As Margaret Thatcher might have said the current UK government is not for turning — sovereignty is not up for discussion. And, most recently, new archival papers released in the UK revealed that members of the Thatcher government were divided over how to respond to the Argentine invasion of April 1982. For all the talk of an ‘Iron Lady’ and dispatching a ‘task force’ to recover the Islands, there was clearly the possibility at one stage or another of a deal being done. Raising in the process the enticing question of how British politics, let alone the fate of the Falkland Islanders, might have been different if war was avoided and some kind of settlement secured.

But that was April 1982 and things have moved on since then. Indeed, in the last two years, relations between Britain and Argentina have worsened and there is no reason to think that any settlement will be forthcoming. Whatever some newspaper columnists might think, the referendum was intended to send a clear message to Argentina and the wider world that the Falklands community is not looking to its nearest neighbour when considering future options. And, at the moment, it does not need to. The UK government has reiterated its support for respecting the ‘wishes’ of the Falkland Islands community and that other neighbours such as Chile and Uruguay are a benign presence. Brazil, while offering some rhetorical support to Argentina, is not unhelpful to the UK position. So the imbroglio continues.

At this stage, attention often turns to other kinds of options, beyond the continuation of the status quo i.e. the Falklands continuing as a UK overseas territory. While laudable, I think what continues to fascinate me about these Islands is perhaps what insights they have to offer us more generally. As other geographers such as Alec Murphy note, territory continues to exercise an extraordinary ‘allure’ in our contemporary world. Noting all the claims made in the 1990s about globalization and border-free worlds, the idea of territory remains popular with political leaders and publics alike. For one thing, and perhaps other islands such as Cyprus animate this issue as well, territory helps to consolidate a view of political life being container like. Islands, with their apparently clear-cut distinctions between land and sea seem to lend themselves well to the containerization of political thought.

Second, we might think about territory as a flexible resource, which enables the socio-spatial education of citizens. In the case of the Falklands, there is a vast array of materials ranging from postage stamps, computer games and atlases to commemoration and museum displays that play their part in the geographical education of citizenry. They play their part in creating regimes of territorial legitimation and reinforce particular spatial commitments. The end result is to remind us perhaps that states rarely give up territory and usually only do so under extreme circumstances. Even when the territory in question was poorly understood and arguably neglected, as was the case of the Falklands in 1982, there was still sufficient allure in the territory itself combined with a sense of protecting the small resident community to ensure that the UK committed itself to resisting the Argentine occupation. The invading Argentine forces, on the other hand, while undoubtedly aware of the Falklands as a geographical component of Argentina, were remarkably ignorant of the English speaking community residing on the Islands. Islanders still recall of Argentine amazement when they discovered that their first language was English and not Spanish.

What was striking in the aftermath of the 1982 conflict, was the billions of pounds the UK was prepared to invest in the Falklands, and the wider commitment to bolster a presence in the South Atlantic and Antarctic. The idea of giving up the territory in question was now unthinkable, and if anything the Falklands is more embedded in UK stories about its extra-territorial scope and responsibilities (as well as histories of war and commemoration). UK governments use the term ‘overseas territories’ to acknowledge that distance need not be any kind of barrier to their continued connection with the UK.

Finally, we should not under-estimate the power of territorially based world-views and the ease in which many territorial disputes seem unable to make much progress when it comes to promoting alternative imaginations — joint sovereignty, parallel statehood, cross citizenships, and other kinds of free associations. This does not mean such things are not possible or even desirable in the case of some of the most violent and apparently intractable disputes. But one should not under-estimate how keenly many people feel around the world about lines on the maps and barriers on the ground. Perhaps they offer a modicum of reassurance in a world, where to paraphrase Marx and Engels, all that appears solid melts into air. And this would apply to both Britain and Argentina.

(*) Klaus Dodds is Professor of Geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Visiting Fellow at St Cross College, University of Oxford. He is editor of The Geographical Journal and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. He is the author and editor of a number of books including the Geopolitics: a very short introduction (OUP, 2007) and The Antarctic: a very short introduction (OUP, 2012). He was a visiting fellow at Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury and has worked with national and international polar organizations including British Antarctic Survey, Antarctica New Zealand, International Polar Foundation, and the Australian Antarctic Division.
 

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Devolverislas

    It would seem that the purpose of Klaus Dodd’s article was to explore the geopolitical significance of territory. In the case of the dispute over the teritory of the Falkland Islands|Malvinas there are two sides, are there not? Bar mentioning that the Argentine forces were “undoubtedly aware of the Falklands as a geographical component of Argentina”, Dodds surprisingly gives no consideration to the Argentinian and the South American perspectives.

    The islands may be the subject of postage stamps, computer games and tourist souvenirs for the islanders and the British. They have a much deeper historical significance here in the south of south America. Hence the profusion of public squares and streets, just in Argentina, which are named after the Islas Malvinas. Not to mention the many monuments, through-out the country, to the “gesto” (gesture) of 1982 and Argentina’s fallen. Then there is a hymn and a march to the Malvinas,both pre-dating the conflict. The national cause of Argentina, inscribed in the revised Constitution of 1994, is the recovery of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. There is a sense, which goes much deeper than the poltical banter, that the islands belong to Argentina by right and that the present population are “usurpadores”.

    From the mainland of South American and from the standpoint of history, it is easy to see why the territory of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas will always be regarded as a British colony, as a thorn in the side, so long as its sovereignty is not returned to Argentina. The islanders’ tampering with the historical and legal facts through devices like a doctored constitution, self-determination and the referendum cannot conceal that essential truth

    Apr 08th, 2013 - 01:48 am 0
  • La Patria

    The essential truth is that the level of indoctrination in Argentine schools and society has led to brainwashed nation unable to accept any view that differs from theirs. Your mention of street names, public square and hymns etc underlines my point. Just because you have been constantly told the Malvinas son argentinas, doesn’t mean that they are.

    History sides with the British claim, the referendum result reinforces the UN line that the islanders are a people with the right to choose for themselves. Being as belligerent and pig-headed as CFK has been just removes any logic from the Argentine argument.

    If Argentinians seriously believe their own argument, why don’t they offer to give back land to the indigenous Indians who were massacred when the European colonists took their land?

    Apr 08th, 2013 - 03:43 am 0
  • Monkeymagic

    @1

    “the essential truth” now there is a novel philosophy..and until the “essential truth” is explained to the Argentine population in the same manner, for the same period of time, with the same shrill determination as the “doctored” version of events is currently, then the false idea of the islands being “argentine by right” will not change.

    This is the sadness.

    Argenina was usurped by the current population in the 16th-17th century through genocide. At the time, based on morality of the time, ok...and the world recognised their rights to self-determination in 1814.

    Patagonia was usurped in the genocide of the desert in the 1880s, based on the morality of the time, dodgy at best, yet again, today, we recognise that the land can only be owned by the current population through self-determination.

    However, to suggest that Argentine could usurp the Falklands at the expense of the current population in the 21st century, would deny the islanders the self-same rights that Argenina used to justify its own existence in 1814 and 1880.

    To suggest that the islanders are usurpadores for the eviction of Argentine authorities in 1833 (or 50 murdering rapists who'd been there 2 months) and not to see the hypocrisy of Argentines far far worse usurption is brainwashing greed and dismorphia that is hard to hide.

    you can put up as many street names and hold as many cermonies as you like, the genocidal usurption of Argentina is many millions of times more profound and shameful than the events of january 6th 1833, and that is where the “essential truth” really lies.

    Apr 08th, 2013 - 06:44 am 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!