Wednesday, February 1, 2012 - 5:01 PM

My, how the times have changed.
In 1992, ten years after Britain beat back an Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands and two years after the two sides resumed diplomatic relations, Argentine President Carlos Menem delivered a speech on the anniversary of the bloody conflict. "Sooner or later, maybe before the year 2000, we will recover the Malvinas Islands without shedding a drop of blood," he pledged, using his country's term for the South Atlantic islands off Argentina's eastern coast, which Britain has controlled since 1833. The Los Angeles Times observed at the time that both Britain and Argentina seemed eager to "negotiate patiently" on everything from trade to petroleum exploration to the conservation of fisheries around the Falklands.
Fast forward to 2012, the 30th anniversary of the war. Prince William, a Royal Air Force helicopter pilot, is flying to the Falklands tonight to begin a six-week mission as Britain prepares to dispatch an advanced warship to the islands, prompting Argentina's Foreign Ministry to declare that Britain is "militariz[ing]" the conflict and sending Queen Elizabeth II's grandson "in the uniform of a conquistador."
The row comes after Argentina persuaded a South American trading bloc to prevent ships flying the Falklands flag from docking in their ports, threatened to cut the only air link between the islands and South America, and started a "squid war" by instructing Argentine fishermen to catch the creatures (which, along with sheep, are critical to the archipelago's economy) before they reached the Falklands. British Prime Minister David Cameron responded to these actions by accusing Argentina of "colonialism" since Falkland Islanders "want to remain British."
So what explains this bellicose, nationalistic behavior by both sides regarding a territory with a mere 3,000 inhabitants? Britain's decision to authorize offshore oil prospecting in the Falklands in 2010 has surely played a role, as has the United Kingdom's economic malaise coupled with Argentina's rapid (if checkered) economic growth. In 2002 -- the 20th anniversary of the Falklands War -- the roles were reversed. As Argentina struggled to recover from a crippling economic crisis, Reuters reported that many Argentine politicians "skipped public ceremonies commemorating the war because they were afraid of being heckled by angry crowds suffering from rising unemployment and bank account freezes."
Now Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, emboldened by a resounding reelection victory, has made the Falklands a centerpiece of her foreign policy. In its statement this week, Argentina's Foreign Ministry accused Britain of taking an aggressive stance toward the Falklands to distract the public from spending cuts related to "structural crisis and high unemployment." And indeed, the Financial Times notes that some analysts believe Britain -- and particularly its Falklands air base -- may be vulnerable to an Argentine invasion because of Royal Navy cuts and the government's decision to scrap its only aircraft carrier. By sending the HMS Dauntless destroyer to the Falklands, the paper explains, Britain may be leaving "nothing to chance" as the anniversary of the war approaches this spring.
In fact, the anniversaries have been growing tenser for some time, as Britain has repeatedly refused to acquiesce to Argentine demands for U.N.-sponsored negotiations on the sovereignty of the islands. In 2007 -- the 25th anniversary of the conflict -- frustration over Britain's rejection of talks spurred the Argentine government to reassert its claim to the Falklands, in a move that seemed rather toothless since the claim was already baked into Argentina's constitution.
But Argentina's current measures are packing more of a punch. And while a renewal of hostilities may be unlikely, more than just squid has already been caught in the diplomatic crossfire. As the Guardian points out today, Falkland Islanders are contending with "higher food prices and a growing sense of encirclement" even as Kirchner and Cameron score political points. As John Fowler, deputy editor of the Falklands Island-based Penguin News, wrote earlier this month:
You could say we feel like the duck in the basket in the traditional gaucho game of 'pato.' This poor creature used to end up belonging to one side or the other, but was likely to be battered to death in the process.
Sergio Goya/AFP/Getty Images
interesting how the article doesn't quote a single argentinian newspaper or magazine, but it does quote a few british ones..
also the title should read falkland/malvinas since the territory is in dispute and the dispute is backed by a UN resolution as its mention.
Anyways, is good to know that there isn't a chance of war.
If I lay claim to your house because it's next door to mine, does that make it 'disputed'? When were the Falklands Argentinian? For that matter, aren't the current Argentinians rather closer to conquistadors than the British?
I did link to a La Nacion article in quoting the Argentine Foreign Ministry statement, but you're right -- I could have improved the post by bringing in a couple Argentine news sources. I'll make sure to keep that in mind for a follow up!
sorry i did not thank you before, i just noticed your reply!
when were they argentinian? argentina even had a governor in the islands...
Generally if countries fight a war over something and then continue making threats, it's "disputed." "Disputed" does not imply that one side's claims are more legitimate than the others.
The British media uses this kind of language to refer to the rest of the world all the time- in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and elsewhere. Britons really have no right to complain, especially as the article points out that Britain has controlled the islands before Argentina even existed.
Very odd article: much blather about the UK supposedly using the crisis to 'distract attention' from their economic problems, without one word of the far worse state of the Argentine economy.
So, which country is it with stringent capital controls, prosecuting journalists who challenge bogus state figures on inflation? Following Friedman, the reader would be confused...
Yes, new era, but both men remain bald. And--should things come again to a fight--not much doubt which baldy will remain criminally inadequate in the military virtues (So much harder to engage military forces than torture hapless university student/"revolutionaries"--Who knew?).
Thanks for the comment. See my link about Argentina's "checkered" economic growth, which discusses a slowdown in growth, subsidy cuts, and inflationary pressures in the country.
That is a long time ago. I doubt there are many countries still demanding territories they held in 1833.
That's a bit like Turkey asking for the return of Greece, or the Netherlands asking for Belgium, or Mexico asking for Texas and California.
It is up to the Falkland Islanders
I find it astonishing that this is still happening.
The Falkland Islanders are of British descent, they have clearly expressed a will to remain British citizens and the Falkland Isles have been British territory since 1833.
Even before 1833, ownership of the isles was contested. Argentina has never had recognised sovereignty over the Falklands - they simply claim it because it is 'near' to Argentina.
I don't try to claim that Britain is an exemplary country - but I think Cameron was right to point out that Argentina is being colonial. The rights of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination and to live on their own land are important - and Kirchner shouldn't ignore them just because she is having a tough time running Argentina.
Actually Argentina's claim is a bit more complicated. They claim that England illegitimately took the Islands from Spain (there is some truth to this; England settled one side of them after Spain had already reached the other side, and England once abandoned them leaving only a plaque behind.) Since they were ceded all Spanish territory in the area upon independence, they claim this should include territory that was de jure but not de facto Spanish.
Granted, common sense tells rational people that self-determination is a bit more important then the technicalities of land transfer when the conflict dates back so far. But there is no clear standard in weighing between self-determination and other criteria of international law. Argentina's nationalists try to exploit this ambiguity.
Would it be possible to borrow one of your aircraft carriers? We promise to bring it back in one piece.
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(13)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE