The Falklands rhetoric that's made-up hundreds of column inches over the past few months continues unabated, yet the rhetoric from both sides remains unabated. This article from the Argentine Ambassador to the UK does a good job of regurgitating false rhetoric and casually omitting history to justify the Argentine position.
Frankly all that is irrelevant though; the current population has lived there continuously for almost 180 years, and their wishes must come first if we are to be truly post-colonial.
The Ambassador is right in saying the UK should negotiate, I agree and think the government is silly for not doing so. Cameron is foolishly failing to show alter his position while Argentine President Christina Kirchner steadily works to diplomatically isolate him on the issue.
It is time for David Cameron to call her bluff. Cameron should call for a highly publicised UN administered negotiation on the issue, where Cameron, Kirchner, and the Chief Executive of the Falklands can sit down and discuss the issue. Surely as a representative democratically elected by the people of the Falklands, the Chief Executive should be present, it is only consistent with Argentina's stated desire to not take away the Britishness and the way of life of the 3,000 inhabitants of the islands. I am sure the UN would support this. Cameron should then open this meeting by calling on Argentina and the UN agree that no deal can be reached without the approval of the Falklands executive. This is the best way to outflank Kirchner; she cannot disagree without appearing imperialist, and she cannot agree without losing the the argument.
However things go Cameron needs to accept that to end the issue some sort of negotiation must take place. Whatever shape these negotiations take, the Falklands should have their own separate delegation and no agreement should exist without their agreement. That is democracy, that is justice, and that is what Argentina should be pushing for.
I would not more trust Cameron to negotiate on behalf of the Faulkland Islanders than I trust Ed Balls to run the UK economy. Anyway, there is nothing to negotiate. The islanders have made their wishes plain to everyone so it would just be a waste of hot air.
ReplyDeleteThe point wouldn't so much be to negotiate anything away as to isolate Argentina diplomatically. This would publicly force them to either declare opposition to Falkland Islanders rights or declare in favour of British sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteCorbishley, unlike you I am not a student of international relations and do not know enough about international law. Therefore, I cannot comment on the legitimacy of either the UK’s or Argentina’s claim to the Falklands/Malvinas but seeing as you are an IR student, I would have enjoyed you to enlighten us on that aspect.
ReplyDeleteHowever, all you have done is regurgitate a portion of the mainstream discourse. As always, I do agree with a negotiation process to end dispute. I nevertheless question your support for negotiation. It seems that you support negotiation because it will serve your/the mainstream ideal outcome, which I assume to be continued British control of the islands. You do not mention any of the political economy issues behind the territorial dispute.
Are the reasons of the dispute familiar enough to the readers of those “hundreds of column inches” in mainstream newspapers for them to be omitted from your piece?
Your subtitle is “Thoughts on our times from a libertarian”. Are these your thoughts or those of the hand which is rammed up your backside, moving your mouth like a puppet?
Interesting comment. These are my thoughts, I assumed that would be obvious. I am coming from the British position and support British control of the Falklands.
DeleteThis post is on a political strategy the British government might employ to end the dispute, it is not intended to give readers a wide-ranging understanding of the history of the dispute.