An article by Neil Tweedie, titled, “Falkland islands referendum: who were the three 'No' votes? discussing the issues surrounding the Falklands, including the fact that three Falklanders voted “No to the Falkland Islands remaining as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom.”
There are three large islands and almost 800 smaller islands that make up the Falklands, with a population of approximately 2,900. Of 1,518 votes cast during the two-day poll, 1,513 came out in favor of maintaining the islands' current political status, representing 99.8 per cent of the vote. One ballot paper was rejected and one remained unaccounted for after the count on Monday night. That left three people who desire either immediate independence from Britain or a transfer of sovereignty, presumably to Argentina, which claims the islands as its own.
This isn't going away and I think it would be important to come to some kind of understanding about the Falklands through an historical lens.
Who discovered the Falklands? It is believed that there may have been Patagonians from the mainland at one point, but they didn’t stay. When Europeans discovered the islands they were uninhabited, so no one has any prior claim as a result of occupancy. The Spanish and Portuguese made earlier claims, the first reliable report of discovery was from the Dutch in 1600 and named them the Sebald Islands.
Who first colonized the islands? The first colonizers were the French in 1764 on Berkley Sound, in what is now East Falkland. However, unaware of the French settlement the English in 1766 explored and established a settlement on Saunders Island on West Falkland.
So how did Argentina get involved in this? The French turned their settlement over to Spain in 1767. This was then placed under the control of a governor subordinate to the colonial administration of Buenos Aires. Three years later the Spanish attacked the British colony; however war was averted by a treaty with the Spanish King saying that he:
....disavows the expedition against port Egmont, and engages to restore it, in the state in which it stood before the 10th of June, 1770, his Britannick majesty will look upon the said declaration, together with the full performance of the engagement on the part of his catholick majesty, as a satisfaction for the injury done to the crown of Great Britain."
War was averted. However, the British pulled out in 1774 and by 1811 all inhabitants, both English and Spanish were withdrawn with both nations leaving plaques declaring their continued sovereignty. How did the Falklands come under complete British control? Apparently Argentina kept ignoring diplomatic protests regarding fishing rights and after Argentina’s appointment of a governor over the islands the British sent two of their naval ships in 1832 and made it clear they owned the Falklands, and Argentina was out. In 1840 the British decided to create a permanent colony.
So then, who are the inhabitants of the Falklands? About 70 percent are of British descent, a few of French, Gibraltarian, Portuguese, Scandinavian and a few of Chilean descent, but there appears to be absolutely no one from Argentina, yet sovereignty over these islands continues to be an issue. The question is why?
To understand the story fully it might be a good intellectual exercise to view Argentina through an historical lens also. At the beginning of the 20th century it was one of the richest countries in the world and as an industrialized nation outpaced many European countries with automobiles and telephone being commonplace. After 1916 all things changed with the election of Hipolito Irigoyen who was elected under the slogan “fundamental change” as an appeal to the middle class, pushing all sorts of social reforms that soon became underfunded.
The economic problems this caused brought in Juan Peron, who ultimately expanded government control of the economy and spending went even higher. Even after the consequences of this hit home the Argentine government continued to spend by printing money that sent inflation over 3000 percent followed by the expected violence and rioting. In the early 90’s their pension plans failed and taxes were increased so high they crushed the private sector. Eventually the government raided what was left of the pension funds and replaced the money from the funds with defaulted government bonds. That was in 2001. Things have always been chaotic in Argentina, which has a penchant for socialist concepts in spite of the clear historical failure of the socialism. As of November 2012 the “Credit rating agency Fitch has downgraded Argentina, which is locked in a court battle in New York over its debt, and said the country would probably default.”
“Fitch cut its long-term rating for Argentina to "CC" from "B," a downgrade of five notches, and cut its short-term rating to "C" from "B". A rating of "C" is one step above default, AP reported. US judge Thomas Griesa of Manhattan federal court last week ordered Argentina to set aside $1.3bn for certain investors in its bonds by December 15, even as Argentina pursues appeals. Those investors don't want to go along with a debt restructuring that followed an Argentine default in 2002. If Argentina is forced to pay in full, other holders of debt totaling more than $11bn are expected to demand immediate payment as well.”:......To Read More…..
Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982 eventually being defeated by British forces at a waste of life on both sides. Argentina has made this claim of what they call the Malvinas Islands an official open ended issue by adding their claim to their constitution when it was reformed in 1994, and they show no sign of easing their position. Recently the President of Argentina made the claim that “her country had been forcibly stripped of “Las Malvinas” and accused Britain of colonialism. I guess the vote by the Falklanders and the fact that there are no Argentineans living there has no impact on her thinking. So why does this continue? The economy of Argentina is in serious trouble, and often when governments get themselves in these situations they need a distraction and war generally does it. But what about their economy!
And now oil may have been discovered in the Falklands.
Prime Minister David Cameron insisted Britain would fight to keep the Falklands stating; “we have strong defenses in place on the Falkland islands, that is absolutely key, that we have fast jets stationed there, we have troops stationed on the Falklands.”
If I were a Falklander I wouldn’t view this as an absolute commitment. Why? The last time the islands were invaded Margret Thatcher was the Prime Minister, and Cameron is not the Iron Lady. But even in the 80's they couldn’t do it without American support and since then the British have seriously reduced their military capability. England is 8000 thousand miles away and Argentina is 300. They may not be able to help. Furthermore, privately they may not want to help.
“The Times in its obituary of Rex Hunt (who died in November of 2012) states that it was generally accepted by the Foreign Office that when Hunt was appointed governor part of his brief was "to soften up the island's 1800 inhabitants to the idea that British sovereignty could not be taken as given in perpetuity". In his first dispatch back to the Foreign Office he wrote "There is no way we will convince these islanders that they will be better off as part of Argentina".
That clearly shows they have a view that they aren’t all that excited about defending the Falklands, even if it is a privately held view.
The Falklanders are in a difficult situation. After understanding what goes on in Argentina who in their right mind would want to be controlled by them, and it is my opinon that the British government is at best a leaky vessel as an ally, and if the British and the Falklanders expect help from the U.S. they may find this administration represents an even leakier vessel as an ally. The British lack an "Iron Lady" and the U.S. lacks a Ronald Reagan. If I were a Falklander I would be worried.
I do have a question. Why is it the United Nations has its shorts all in a knot over the Palestinians right to self determination and are totally quiet on what seems to me to be the Falklander's same right? I have the answer. The United Nations is filled with thugs, thieves, fools and tyrants and is run by bureaucracies that are as corrupt and incompetent as the members they serve.
Editor's Note: Please take some time and review My Argentina File, which goes back to 2012. RK
No comments:
Post a Comment