Britain's Dangerous Displays to Argentina Opens Old Wounds

TENSIONS CONTINUED to rise between Argentina and the UK this week as debate regarding the rightful ownership of the Falkland Islands heated up. Diplomats in Buenos Aires showed concern over decisions in Britain to deploy HMS Dauntless to the Islands in what Downing Street called a “routine” exercise. Argentine President Cristina Fernández described the display as a move to “militarise the Falklands”.

This is over-reaction by Ms Fernández- the deployment of Dauntless is likely to be nothing more than a mere flexing of military muscle- but it is a worryingly callous, perhaps a worryingly reckless, decision by Downing Street, particularly as the 30^th anniversary of the Falklands War looms only a couple of months away. The reason for such insensitivity, undoubtedly, is the recent discovery of oil in the area, and the decision over who gets what slice of the crude treasure when drilling begins in 2016.

Would it be out of order to wonder whether David Cameron would be flattered by any comparisons to Margaret Thatcher? It surely would have crossed his mind when deploying the Destroyer. But the Prime Minister should remember that the War that won Thatcher a second election victory was considerably different. Crucially, Argentina would not be alone in defending what they call Las Malvinas: Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has vehemently promised his country’s military support if the bloody conflict resurfaced- and where Mr Chávez goes, you can be sure others will follow. Secondly, public opinion has changed since the 80s, and with oil involved Mr Cameron is unlikely to get the support he needs outside of his own far-right backbenchers.

The Falklands are a relic to Britain’s seedy past, and British Overseas Territories should be put into context to really understand why the Argentine people feel so passionately about their ownership of the land. If Argentina had colonised the Isle of Wight 200 years ago, you would expect that it would have been relinquished back to its obvious owners in modern times- more than that, the same Britons now calling for the UK to hold on to the Falkland Islands would surely be foaming at the mouth to retain the Channel Island if the colonial shoe was on the other foot.

Nevertheless, we care less for the Falklands (precious oil notwithstanding) than the Argentine people do- the top flight football league in Argentina is purposefully named after the islands, whereas in England that privilege is reserved for major International banking firms. On the islands themselves, there are twice as many English speaking people willing to call themselves Falkland Islanders than British.

A successful compromise would have to divide the profits from future oil production, as well as conceding ownership of the Falkland Islands to Argentina, under a constitutional reform that both supports inhabitants preferred nationality and respects the rights of all of the island’s occupants, regardless of any previous links to imperialism.

If David Cameron desires peaceful reconciliation, this would be fair to both parties. If Mr Cameron is looking for his own personal “Falklands factor” in time for the next general election, he would be advised to look elsewhere.