It is no good, compatriots, you who know of all those crimes committed in our name, it really is no good that you utter not one single word to anyone, not even to your own soul, out of fear of having to judge yourselves. Jean Paul Sartre, prologue to The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon
Last year, Pro Dialogue Groups from eighteen European Union countries asked the United Kingdom to resume negotiations with the Argentine Republic over the Malvinas Question. In a document dated 6 February 2013 in London, they highlight Latin America’s position, which views the British occupation of the archipelago as “the persistence of a colonial enclave in the region” and that “the British military escalation is a cause for concern in all countries”. They conclude by stating: “Those who sign here wish to call on the government of the United Kingdom to resume dialogue with Argentina”. I applaud this initiative.
Is it possible that the United Kingdom would be willing to engage in dialogue with Argentina? To be open to dialogue is to be open to fi nding an agreed solution “through talks”. Unfortunately, competing interests leave little room for the Socratic tradition. At the risk of appearing naive, let us nevertheless make an attempt at opening a dialogue based on the most simple premise upon which we could agree. There is one encouraging point: that “dialogue” shares the same Greek and Latin root in both English and Spanish. Yet there is a diffi culty: in cases such as these, truth and virtue are not always the aim.
The Malvinas archipelago is part of South America
Let us begin with a simple and demonstrable fact to which perhaps even David Cameron himself might assent: The Malvinas are a South American archipelago. This is like stating that the British Isles are a European archipelago, or that they are part of Europe. We are not yet speaking of national anthems, countries or borders.
that separates dialogue from debate. Debate (disputatio in Latin) implies a dispute; the confrontation of opposing ideas. It is a combat (fortunately a verbal one) where the aim, as with any combat, is to win.
For us, there is nothing more natural than that the destiny of this island territory should be tied to that of South America. And still I am not speaking about Nations, States or sovereignty. I am merely pointing out that what happens there aff ects us directly. For instance, if a nation from outside the South American region sets up a powerful military base there, and we are unable to talk or debate with them, then this seriously aff ects us. It jeopardises nothing less than the peace of our region.
Today, the South American Malvinas archipelago is inhabited by citizens of the United Kingdom
But let us get back to our attempt at dialogue with an assertion that can be easily corroborated and which even Queen Elizabeth II herself would welcome. As far as UK law is concerned, those inhabitants who were born in South America possess full British citizenship. According to the latest census (2012) 2,931 people - the majority British - live on the Malvinas. Just over 50% are descendants of the early British settlers, with the rest having arrived more recently. This fi gure includes civilian staff providing services as contractors on the Mount Pleasant military base (13%), but does not take into account the soldiers posted there, whose precise number is unknown (some documents speak of there being 1,500 support and military personnel).
Here we ought to include a clarifi cation: as far as Argentine law is concerned, those born on the islands are Argentine (though not prevented from retaining their British citizenship) for the simple reason that they were born on Argentine soil. They are every bit as Argentine as those 250,000 plus Argentines living in our country whose ancestors were Scottish, Welsh or English. Many of these Argentines also possess British nationality, as well as retaining their language and their culture. I mention this point deliberately since it is a matter upon which both sides could fully agree. As historical experience shows, neither Argentine legislation nor custom prevent anyone from retaining their British citizenship or identity. It is moreover a typical and commonplace occurrence: in my neighbourhood there are more “Britons” than on the Malvinas Islands. They are my neighbours.
If we want to gain a greater understanding, to know how these fellow countrymen of ours came to arrive here, these South Americans of British nationality, we must delve into the vast depths of American history, which overfl ows with wonders, hardships and contradictions.
The fi rst ancestors of the British inhabitants of the Malvinas began to arrive in 1833
Fortunately, this date is widely documented. What diff er are the judgments about it and some hidden details.
The 3 January 2013 marked the 180th year since the warship HMS Clio forcibly expelled the Argentine authorities from Puerto de la Soledad in the Malvinas. The fi rst thing to note is that, despite the length of this period, it represents merely one chapter in the archipelago’s long history, dating back over four centuries.
How do representatives and spokespersons for the UK government refer to this history? For years the British government has employed a tactic of concealing certain elements of the Malvinas’ past (an attitude unhelpful to dialogue). The strategy is simple and consists of two simultaneous actions; fi rstly denying and distorting the history of the Malvinas prior to the 1833 takeover in order to present it as a “res nullius” (if the land belonged to nobody, then nobody was expelled, a nation’s territory was not occupied, and its territorial integrity was not violated); secondly, ignoring the long history of Argentina’s peaceful claim for the Malvinas from 1833, with the aim of presenting Argentina as the instigating, bellicose and threatening country against which a military defence has been required following the war in 1982. Never mind that in 1982 a genocidal military dictatorship was ruling Argentina; a dictatorship that had seized power by force and whose main victim was in fact the Argentine people.
Eff orts to raise awareness over a number of relevant historical facts which are extensively documented have thus far proved fruitless. These include extensive documentation attesting to the constant presence of authorities and population from Buenos Aires since 1767, the natural continuation of control over the archipelago by the newly-formed Argentine Republic once the process of independence from Spain had begun, the appointment from 1820 of governing authorities, the systematic Argentine settling of the islands from 1823 with licences being granted for fi shing and wild cattle herding as well as land concessions; the appointment of a Political and Military governor on the Malvinas Islands in 1829, which completed this process and fi rmly established a stable population.
So then, let us call upon an irrefutable testimony to resolve the matter. Philip Gore, British Chargé d’aff aires in Buenos Aires at the time when the events occurred, sent a report of the situation to London on 17 January 1833: “… on 3rd (January) the British fl ag was hoisted on the island (...) that the individual styling himself Buenos Ayrean Commandant, Pinedo, protested; but fi nally yielded, as my informant states, ‘to the right of the strongest’; and that he forthwith set sail for Buenos Aires in the War Schooner Sarandí, so as to lay the proceeding before his Government. The remainder of the Buenos Ayrean colonists were to follow in a few days in an English schooner, the Rapid. (...) Neither the Government nor the public of Buenos Aires having been prepared for this measure on the part of Great Britain, very considerable excitement was manifested upon the event becoming known; and still continues”. 1
So we can recall, then, that today’s residents on the Malvinas, British citizens, are here, on this South American archipelago 13,000 kilometres from the British Isles, because in 1833 an English warship expelled the Argentine authorities using the “right of the strongest” and ousted the population of “Buenos Ayrean colonists”, thus beginning a gradual process of transferring the population of the usurping nation to the usurped territory. This factor in no way refl ects badly upon this population. They are not responsible for the crime and, in many ways, they have been victims of the same power that carried out the usurpation.
In the “Malvinas Islands Question” it is the territory that is under dispute
Today it is diffi cult to fi nd offi cial voices within the UK government who are prepared to subscribe to this simple and irrefutable truth.
Recently, British Foreign Minister William Hague made a curious statement in reference to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas: “To believe that this is a territorial issue is the old colonial way of thinking. In the modern world, we believe in the self-determination of peoples in a democratic society”.
The UK government has been issuing a whole battery of sophisms, fi reworks and vague democratic disquisitions, removed from any form of grounded thinking, in order to deny the true nature of the confl ict, clearly defi ned by the United Nations as of 1965: there exists
“a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Brit- ain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said islands” (“Malvinas Islands Question”, General Assembly Resolution 2065 (XX)). I cannot see how one can consider a sovereignty dispute between two nations without considering the territorial aspect. On 10 and 11 March 2013, British citizens living on the Malvinas were called to participate in a bizarre referendum which sparked, before and after the event, heated arguments and confusing interpretations. In one example, James Dauris, The British Ambassador in Peru, on 8 March published the following in the offi cial blog Global Conversation: “On 10th and 11th March voters in the Falkland Islands will be taking part in a referendum on whether they want to remain British”. This was, of course, not what they were being asked. They were asked to make a decision about the territory; to respond, in other words, with a “yes” or a “no” to the question “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an overseas territory?”
Out of the 1,517 residents who cast their vote, 99.8 % chose “yes”. The result was as crushing as it was irrelevant. From a legal point of view, neither the United Nations nor even the most hare-brained of treaty writers in international law granted any legally- binding validity in the sovereignty dispute to the opinion of a group of citizens from one of the disputing parties. From a viewpoint of potentially manipulating it for political purposes – this is what I believe the strategy was aimed at – the result was so self-evident that I do not believe it brought any signifi cant new additions that might aff ect or vindicate existing entrenched positions.
Even so, the plebiscite served to refuel the British government’s monologue on the islanders as a smokescreen for the territorial dispute. British Prime Minister David Cameron announced the result of the plebiscite in a televised address: “The Falkland islanders couldn’t have spoken more clearly. They want to remain British and that view should be respected by everyone, including by Argentina”. As we have already pointed out, the people and laws of Argentina respect any interest the islanders may have in “remaining British”. But that is not all; we encourage it, because we believe that it is a matter of diversity, which is one of the assets that our culture values most highly. However, the UK government’s worries have nothing to do with family names, nationalities or
citizenship. In fact, over 150 years the “British” people who were born on the Malvinas were considered by British law as “citizens of dependent British territories”: a special category that, among other limitations, did not grant them the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. Only as recently as 28 March 1983, via the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act, did they come to be considered as British citizens with full rights. This was one of the benefi ts that the islanders gained from the short war in 1982. It is important to note that Argentine laws have never viewed those Britons who came to live on Argentine land, nor their descendants, as “second class citizens”.
We can agree, then, that the confl ict is based on sovereignty and that there is no sovereignty without territory. And this is the point that is hindering negotiations. In terms of the area covered (5 million square kilometres), natural resource potential and the geopolitical interests at stake including proximity to the Antarctic, it is currently the international community’s most signifi cant territorial dispute.
The principle of “self-determination of peoples” was designed for those subjected to “subjugation, domination and foreign exploitation”.
On 14 December 1960, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1514 (XV), the “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples”. Included among its considerations are: “Recognising the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples”; “Aware of the increasing confl icts resulting from the denial of the freedom of such peoples”; “Recognising that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism”; “Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible”. The International Community was echoing the outcry of the time. That outcry was the heroic struggle of the Algerian people, the awakening of the entire African continent, upheavals in Asia, the Indochina war of independence. In 1961 Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth was published with a prologue by Jean Paul Sartre, the most lucid denunciation of colonialism. That year the UN Special Committee responsible for overseeing and ensuring the application of Resolution 1514 was established. Can anybody honestly believe that Resolution 1514 was designed for, or alludes to, the British citizens living on the disputed territory of the Malvinas Islands, when point number one of the
Resolution states that: “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation”? Can anybody say, in good faith, that the British citizens who, through a referendum, expressed their wish for the disputed territory to be considered a “British overseas territory” are entitled to the right of “self-determination of peoples”?
Nonetheless, on 1 September 1983, a strategy spawned from Margaret Thatcher’s speeches over the months of war and victory celebrations was formalised and cemented. All British government operations relating to the Malvinas revolve around this strategy. A delegation of the brand new British citizens living on the Malvinas appeared before the Decolonisation Committee to request that their wish for the islands to remain a British overseas territory be respected, evoking the right of “the self-determination of peoples”. And they have continued to do so, time and again, over the past 30 years.
With tireless patience, through 30 Resolutions, the Committee has explained to them that, in their case, the principle of self-determination is not applicable. The principle was designed for those peoples that the United Kingdom, among other colonial powers, had been subjugating and pillaging for centuries. For 30 years the Committee has been pointing out, in no uncertain terms, that “the Malvinas Question” falls within the framework of “a sovereignty dispute” between the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic which must be resolved via negotiations between both parties in order to reach a peaceful solution, just as the General Assembly has been insisting since 1965. When a solution is reached it must, naturally, take “the interests of the population of these islands” into account. The British government’s desire to hijack the sacred principle of self-determination of peoples, for which the subjugated peoples of Africa and Asia endured so much blood and pain, in order to perpetuate their colonial interests in the South Atlantic is yet another act of imperialistic plunder, a crime. And it is no good, citizens of Europe, you who know of all those crimes committed in your name, it really is no good that you utter not a single word to anyone.