Argentina's current policy on the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty is a losing option because it is a 'maximalist' attitude with the purpose of ‘full recovery' of the disputed islands, said Argentine political scientist and writer Carlos Escudé.
It's not leading anywhere, it's pure rhetoric. It's useful to attract votes of those less educated and that's all insisted Escudé who argued that ”if we are going to impose on the poor Islanders the same fortune as the Argentines, it is non democratic nor wished by the Islanders or understandable for western peoples which they see this Argentine 'thing' as an eccentricity, more appropriate of Macondo (*) from deep South America.
Given this background Escudé proposes for the dispute a territorial agreement and compensation
Before giving up the territory, the counterpart should be a British acknowledgement that Argentina has a 50% right over the fisheries surrounding the Malvinas. This is pure logic because trying to dislodge the Islanders of their soil, after eight generations is unfair. They have been shepherds all their lives and since the Islands history, argued Escudé.
But fisheries are something in which Argentina should participate and it is perfectly attainable because there are numerous examples in international Law by which maritime jurisdiction is split ad hoc.
Escudé then mentioned the Channel islands as a case to look at and which involves Britain and France.
The islands are next to the French coast, like the Malvinas are on the Patagonia shelf. Britain and France reached an ad hoc agreement by which the maritime space surrounding the channel islands is a narrow circumference and the rest French. They are British enclaves surrounded by French sea.
Escudé went on to say that if we are willing to be reasonable and start to demand a solution on those terms, the proposal will look more reasonable not only for the third world countries that gang-support us, but also for the French, Germans. The British will find it difficult to explain why the channel islands solution is valid for UK and France and not for Argentina and Britain.
When asked about a possible solution to the conflict by which Argentina fully recovers all the Islands territories and surrounding sea but in 100 years, Escudé was rather ironic.
A hundred years from now many things can happen, including that Argentina ceases to exist. To talk in these terms is like having a crystal ball.
Argentina is an entirely defenseless country. Since the Malvinas conflict the defense capacity has been degraded to infinity. Currently in military terms Argentina is a midget but not before UK, but before Chile. In a hundred years time I don't know if Argentina will exist because we exist thanks to Brazil and Chile that are in agreement that we can continue to exist, underlined the Argentine political analyst.
Likewise if Argentina was strong, I wouldn't be making these proposals, but pretending to apply power policies when you don't have them, it is clearly counterproductive, because your are condemned to lose more than what you win in a systemic approach.
Argentina is in no position to impose absolutely nothing, but if policy was intelligent we could discuss agreements that could bring certain benefits to Argentina. What we have currently generates no benefit at all. It has become a problem for a long list of governments to come”, concluded Escudé.
(*) Macondo refers to the small Colombian town in the Amazon jungle on which Nobel Prize winner Gabriel Garcia Marquez books are inspired.