MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Argentine analysts rule out a real shift by Washington on the Falklands

Political scientist Andrés Malamud, of the Institute of Social Sciences in Lisbon, summarised his forecast by saying the same thing will happen as with Greenland, namely nothing

Argentine specialists in international affairs consulted this week agree that Donald Trump's statement about a possible review of the US position on the Falklands responds to pressure on London rather than to any substantive change on sovereignty over the archipelago.

The US president replied on Monday, when asked about the matter in the Oval Office: “I always review every position. That's just one of many.” Argentine President Javier Milei described the remarks as “very significant” and announced an address to the nation for Thursday.

Political scientist Claudio Fantini argues it should be read “as a warning, not an announcement”. In his view the motive is not the debate over NATO defence spending but Britain's refusal to authorise the use of bases on its territory for operations against Iran, with an added ideological element, given that both governments are Labour. He recalled that when South Korea declined to cooperate in the same conflict, Washington threatened to scale back joint military exercises on the peninsula. Even so, he believes Argentina should highlight the statement rather than let it pass.

Gabriel Puricelli, of the Public Policy Laboratory, describes the archipelago as “the handiest pretext” to force Andy Burnham's government to raise military spending to 3% of gross domestic product. “Argentina's interests do not come into consideration at all in his possible review of the position on the legal status of the South Atlantic islands,” he said.

Political scientist Andrés Malamud, of the Institute of Social Sciences in Lisbon, summarised his forecast by saying the same thing will happen as with Greenland, namely nothing. Former ambassador Diego Guelar, who represented Argentina in Washington, Brasília and Beijing, argues that a strategic change of that nature would require consulting the US Congress and that “his opinion alone is not enough”, though he accepts that if it happened it would weaken the British position.

Different registers coexist within the Argentine government. Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno adopted a restrained tone: “On what we do not control, we do not operate,” he said, adding that the task is to “do our homework” so the claim is heard. Presidential adviser Santiago Caputo, by contrast, posted on social media that “England is the past, Argentina is the future” and that it would be odd if the United States did not review its stance.

Argentine diplomats cited by the newspaper Infobae qualified that a favourable US vote at the United Nations would be “more symbolic than political” and that “in practical terms it changes nothing”. In June, the Decolonisation Committee approved by consensus a resolution urging the United Kingdom to negotiate, the same one London has disregarded since 1965.

The British government has reiterated that its position has not changed and that its commitment to the islanders is “unwavering”.