British sovereignty over the Falklands is an absurd imperial hangover that must end

[Judi Lynn]

Thu 7 Apr 2022 11.53 EDT

Forty years after the war in the South Atlantic, common sense demands a negotiated settlement with Argentina

Simon Jenkins

This April is the 40th anniversary of the start of the Falklands war. Less well known is that it is the 41st anniversary of a final attempt by the British government to concede sovereignty over the islands to the enemy in that war, Argentina.
Negotiations in New York were in progress, aimed at securing self-government for the islands under a long lease from Argentina. Had they succeeded, it could have avoided war, resolved an archaic imperial dispute, and brought the islanders peace with their neighbours.

This was not to be. The talks ran into opposition both on the islands and on the Tory backbenches in London. At the same time a belligerent military regime under General Galtieri seized power in Buenos Aires and had other ideas. In April 1982, the regime took the islands by force, only to be driven from them by a British taskforce two months later. No peace deal was reached and the Falklands became an embattled fortress in the South Atlantic, with troops, jets and warships on permanent station.

The war cost Britain about £2.8bn (£9.5bn in present value) and the islands’ defence costs upwards of £60m annually. In 2012 it was estimated that British taxpayers paid more than £20,000 per islander for defence alone, and approximately one-third of the population worked for the government. Unlike other former colonies such as Gibraltar, relations with the nearest nation-state are thin. Though living in a technically autonomous British overseas territory, the islanders are wholly dependent on Britain.

The pre-invasion talks in New York were under the UN’s decolonisation auspices and had been continuing on and off since the 1960s. A high-point in relations had been reached in 1971 with a communications deal negotiated by a talented British diplomat, David Scott. This opened a seaplane link to Argentina, with access to tourists, hospitals, schools and trade. The intention on both sides was gradually to normalise relations prior to a more formal deal.

More:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/british-sovereignty-falklands-absurd-imperial-hangover-argentina

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. What is so strategic for England to want the Falklands?

Did a quick survey on Google Earth....not much happening there. A couple of large runways, but not much else going on there. Should be designated a UN territory. Open to all with restrictions on residence.

[Tomconroy]

2. The Falkland Islanders want to be British. They don't want to

be part of Argentina.
It's not imperialism. It's democracy. Argentina's war of conquest was imperialism.

[empedocles]

5. A cite would make this thread more interesting

[Tomconroy]

6. This is a joke, right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. 1,513 to 3 was the latest vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909

[empedocles]

9. Ah, TY

[cos dem]

3. This is not accurate.

Falklands are sovereign over themselves, except for defense, which is "subcontracted" to UK.

The question of strategic value could be asked of Argentina as well. Why would they want it? Argentina could probably have had it had they not invaded. Their invasion was not unlike Putin's invasion of Ukraine (though with less brutality), that is, an unwelcome invasion into a territory where the population overwhelmingly wants to remain part of Britain. And, there are still Argentinian mine fields left over from the war.

Fact is, Falklands is a long-standing British society (not a colony) dating back to the days when ships would use it as a repair and resupply point going around Cape Horn. Argentina claims it based on the idea that Spain owned it, and they inherited it because they were a Spanish colony. Whether it was Spain's to begin with is open to argument, but the fact remains that Britain is the only one to ever establish any kind of permanent settlement. Argentina want to claim it's a colonial holdover, but for them to have any claim also relies on recognizing Argentina as itself being a colony (sort of a pot calling the kettle black).

Furthermore, there are many bad examples of British "colonization" (Chagos Islands is a particularly egregious one), but that is not true in Falklands, since there was no indigenous population. Argentina claims there was an indigenous population, but it was really just small communities of immigrants from Spain, France and Britain, not anyone who had been living there for 100s or 1000s of years. Between Spain, France, and Britain, it really is arguable "who got there first", and is kind of irrelevant.

[relayerbob]

7. So you think that the votes of 90% of the population

Is of no value? They had a referendum on what to do in 2013, and 99% of the roughly 92% turnout said they liked their current status. The debate over who controlled what 200 years ago is about as out of touch as Russia’s arguments re: Ukraine. These islands are hundreds of miles from Argentina, so basically they need to get past it.