MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
What can Argentina gain from another Falklands dispute?
Cristina Kirchner must set aside the toxic mix of populism and crony capitalism The Washington Post published this week an editorial on the current Falkland Islands situation arguing that “you know that an Argentine leader must be in political trouble” if the subject of the South Atlantic Islands comes up again.
In this case it is President Cristina Kirchner whose populist administration has lost the support of most of the country and “has seized on the episode to stoke the curious jingoism that the Islands inspire in her country”.
The Washington Post suggests that Mrs. Kirchner set aside its senseless nationalism and persuade oil firms to begin exploration in Argentina’s coastal waters empty of the rigs now lining up off the coast of Brazil.
But for this Mrs. Kirchner must regain the confidence of foreign investors driven off by “the toxic mix of populism and crony capitalism”.
The full text follows:
You know that an Argentine leader must be in political trouble if the subject of the Falkland Islands has come up again. In this case the beleaguered president is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, whose populist administration in Buenos Aires has lost the support of most of the country. Hosting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Buenos Aires on Monday, Ms. Fernández de Kirchner requested that the United States mediate Argentina's dispute with Britain over the islands, which lie about 400 miles off Argentina's southern coast but have been governed from London since 1833.
Ms. Clinton responded by urging the two sides to talk, while wisely sidestepping the mediation suggestion. Such studied neutrality is in keeping with traditional U.S. policy on the Falklands -- though it's worth remembering that mistaken interpretation of signals from Washington helped produce Argentina’s disastrous 1982 invasion. In this case, it's hard to see why the Obama administration should throw any lifelines to Ms Fernandez de Kirchner, who hasn’t shrunk from playing to anti-American sentiment around the region.
Ms. Fernández de Kirchner is not threatening force, and she points to a provocation -- the arrival in the islands' territorial waters of a British company's oil rig. Most experts seem to be sceptical that the drilling will produce a big find. But the president has seized on the episode to stoke the curious jingoism that the islands inspire in her country. The weirdness lies in the fact that there is no modern history of an Argentine connection to the “Malvinas,” as they are called in Buenos Aires. The 3,000-odd inhabitants are mostly descendants of immigrants from Britain, and they overwhelmingly support continued British rule. That means that Argentina's claim that the territory should be “decolonized” into its hands is fundamentally at odds with the principle of self-determination.
Were oil to be found in the Falklands, Argentina could be a prime beneficiary, if it could set aside its senseless nationalism. Its ports and firms could provide a staging ground and supplies for the industry. Even better, Ms. Fernández de Kirchner could persuade oil firms to begin exploration in Argentina's coastal waters, which are empty of the rigs now lining up off the coast of Brazil. This, of course, would require the Argentine government to regain the confidence of foreign investors it has driven off with its toxic mix of populism and crony capitalism. For Ms. Fernández de Kirchner, it's easier to make speeches about colonialism -- even if they don't bring much return.
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules-
-
-
Read all commentsA very balanced and rational article.
Mar 04th, 2010 - 11:19 pm 0I imagine the numerours Argentine comments will take the form of obscenities, accusations and name calling.
This response appears to be standard fare on these forums.
Argntina may have the most beautifull and pretty president in the The world. If that was a qualifikation, they would be second to none.
Mar 04th, 2010 - 11:56 pm 0The problem is , than an external good looking can`t compensate an internal lack of intelligence.
“It is wellknown , that an argentinian leader must be in political trouble, if the subject of Falkland Isl. has cume up again.....”
Have we forgotten L. Galtieri or......
Several factual inaccuracies in this editorial betray this author’s bias. There are two outright mistakes and at least one intellectually dishonest argument: the geographical data, the U.S.’s historical stance, and the so-called “self-determination” of the island’s residents.
Mar 05th, 2010 - 07:32 am 0The Falklands rest about 480 kilometers off Argentina’s shores. That’s 300 miles, not 400. Unsurprisingly, the author neglects to mention that they are about 8,000 miles from English soil.
Secondly, the article refers to alleged U.S. neutrality on the Falklands issue as its “traditional policy.” Yet, during the height of Argentine-British tension, the Falkland Islands War of 1982, “U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom.” (wikipedia.com) Does that sound like “studied neutrality,” as the author puts it? The fact is that a slew of political observers criticized Reagan’s outright support of the UK as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Today, the U.S. can be called neutral on the subject of the Falklands, technically speaking. However, regarding this oil-drilling venture, the Obama administration’s current attitude towards the UK is cool, at best.
Finally, the “self-determination” argument is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Of course the primarily British Islanders would support British sovereignty. It’s like arguing that the issue of sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay can be settled once and for all by taking a referendum of the American soldiers stationed there. Besides, it’s not as if the UK (or this author) would change its tune if the Islanders suddenly favored Argentine control.
There is no “weirdness” about Argentina’s claim on its Malvinas. If there is weirdness, it’s in the UK’s stubborn claim on islands that lie so close to Argentina’s shores that they are within her continental shelf, and very nearly within her exclusive economic zone. The truth is that President Kirchner, her popularity notwithstanding, should be praised for committing to only peaceful responses to the UK’s controversial (not to mention environmentally irresponsible) overtures. Her stance is a welcome departure from the foolishness, on both sides, that led to the 1982 war.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!