MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Falklands’ dispute controversy reaches The Washington Post

UK Ambassador Peter Westmacott. (Photo: AFP)

The Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute has reached the US capital triggering an interesting exchange in the Washington Post, involving the newspaper and the ambassadors from Argentina and the UK.

The influential daily wrote an editorial on the anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, April 2, which started the South Atlantic war and ultimately helped speed a collapse of military dictatorships not only in Argentina but also in several neighboring countries.

The editorial suggests a more intelligent and cooperative approach towards the Islanders if Argentina wants to conquer minds and hearts and recalls the British have been in the Falklands for over two centuries.

The editorial brought an immediate reaction from Argentine ambassador Jorge Argüello and later a reply from UK Ambassador Peter Westmacott.

We offer our readers the three positions (chronologically):

Argentina is still fighting a losing battle for the Falklands

Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands, which began 30 years ago Monday, was a monumental blunder that led to war with Britain and the death of some 650 Argentine and 255 British servicemen. Yet the conflict did the perpetually unstable South American country some good. It caused the collapse of a brutal military dictatorship and, as it turned out, broke a long history of military interventions in politics. For the past three decades, Argentina has been a democracy.

Proof that the maladies of Argentine politics have not been cured, however, can be found in the latest Falklands campaign ginned up by the government of President Cristina Fernández. To its credit, Ms. Fernández’s government has not only sworn off the use of military force in the Falklands but cut military spending so sharply that it’s doubtful Argentina could mount another invasion. But like the military junta of 1982, it seeks to distract attention from a host of domestic ills by catering to the curious jingoism provoked by the island chain, which Argentina calls the Malvinas. In pursuit of its demand that Britain open negotiations on sovereignty, it has begun turning away ships from the Falklands and cutting back on British imports; it’s also pressuring Chile to cut off the sole air link from South America to the islands.

The Argentine cause, which has been drummed into schoolchildren for generations, is odd because Argentina has no modern connection or claim to the windswept islands other than relative geographical proximity. They are about 300 miles from the southern Argentine coast, but Britain has controlled them since 1833. Their some 3,000 inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, which means that Argentine demands for “decolonization” are at odds with the principle of self-determination. Though it toyed with the idea of handing over the Falklands before the war, Britain now is firmly committed to the Falklanders’ rights, and it spends about $300 million annually on their defense. The Obama administration, which unsettled London by supporting the idea of negotiations two years ago, has wisely refrained from pushing that position.

More than in 1982, Argentina has pragmatic reason for its lust for the Falklands: Oil has been found off the coast. Yet the best way for Ms. Fernández to pursue those interests would be to pursue something like the opposite of her current policy. Were Buenos Aires to cultivate economic and travel links to the Falklands, as it did before 1982, it could become a supplier of the growing economy there; if residents could visit and study in Argentina, they might grow more fond of the place. Better yet, Argentina could begin to attract investors to explore its own coastal waters for oil and develop its substantial shale deposits on land.

As it is, Ms. Fernández’s pointless drumbeating only reminds foreign investors of why they steer clear of Argentina. Though generals may no longer bait rabid crowds from the balcony of the presidential palace, the vacuous populism that has hamstrung a potentially rich country lives on.

There’s nothing legal about Britain’s possession of the Malvinas

Contrary to what the April 3 editorial “A war’s anniversary” argued, the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina did Argentina no good. It added nearly 700 casualties to the darkest and bloodiest period in our history. The conflict only postponed the inevitable fall of the dictatorship.

Further, there can be no comparison between this last-ditch effort of the dictatorship and the current state policies of a democratic country, which are supported by all parties and based on creating the political conditions to peacefully discuss the sovereignty dispute over the islands.

How can The Post argue that an illegal occupation of the Malvinas Islands has become a legal possession because it has persisted for two centuries, by force, with inhabitants “established” by the usurper country? Has the United Nations been mistaken in its many resolutions over decades calling for Argentina and Britain to negotiate on their dispute over the Malvinas?

In 1966, Great Britain leased the island of Diego Garcia to the United States. To do this, the British displaced the island’s entire population. Was this self-determination for the islanders? No, Britain no longer needed them. It is Argentina that respects the interests of the inhabitants of the Malvinas, as enshrined in the Constitution of 1994.

As our President (Cristina Fernandez) said in her April 2 speech: “We are not here to commemorate war.” Not only have 30 years passed since the war, but there also have been 179 years of British occupation. Today, only the truth should be told.

Jorge Argüello, Washington

Self-determination for Falkland Islanders

In his April 10 letter [“There’s nothing legal about Britain’s possession of the Malvinas”], my Argentine colleague, Ambassador Jorge Argüello, misrepresented history, the relationship between Great Britain and Argentina, and the fundamental principles of the United Nations.

British possession of the Falklands began in 1765 and led to the establishment of settlements over the next half-century before the state of Argentina even existed. The only Argentine presence was a brief military occupation in 1832, which British forces removed the following year. No civilians were expelled, and the population of 30 or so civilians chose to stay under British rule. In 1850, Britain and Argentina signed an agreement settling their outstanding differences.

For Argentine spokesmen to speak today of “illegal occupation” is to disregard past history, present reality and international law. The descendents of the original settlers and those who have joined them since remain British because that is their wish, exercised under the principle of self-determination enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. Britain cannot and will not enter into negotiations over sovereignty unless and until that is the wish of the Falkland Islanders.

As British Foreign Secretary William Hague put it recently, “If anniversaries provide moments for reflection, it is surely time to reflect on how we can all work together in our common interest in the years ahead.” Britain looks forward to doing so with Argentina in a dialogue that accepts the facts of history and acknowledges the express will of the Falkland Islanders.

Peter Westmacott, Washington