Luisa Lafuente
Analyst at think-tank Article 30
It will soon be the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War, the conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina, the consequences of which are still latent today. Since then, British diplomacy has repeatedly refused to resume any kind of negotiation, despite several calls for dialogue from the United Nations. The defence of the territory’s sovereignty responds to the fact that it is “part of the British family”. This dispute has been particularly relevant following China’s positioning in favour of Argentina in its sovereignty claim over the territory, just as Argentina has done in the case of China’s claim over Taiwan.
Recently, Buenos Aires disagreed with the British military’s deployment of weapons in the area, as well as the installation of the Sky Sabre anti-aircraft system, describing it as “a new and unjustified show of force and a deliberate departure from the calls of UN resolutions and other bodies urging the resumption of negotiations”. The question is whether it is acting contrary to General Assembly resolution 31/49, which dictates that both parties refrain from taking unilateral decisions that alter the status of the territory, and whether it is violating resolution 41/11, on treating the South Atlantic area as a zone of peace and cooperation by reducing and eventually eliminating its military presence.
Argentina’s claim enjoys strong international support, given that the UN has issued numerous resolutions, identifying the issue as a “sovereignty dispute”, so that a diplomatic and peaceful agreement can be reached between the two sides. But the truth is that London will not budge and refuses to negotiate. Both countries invoke different arguments in international law: some invoke the principle of “self-determination of peoples”, which is debatable given that this is not a colonised people as the population is native to the UK; others invoke the principle of “unity and territorial integrity”. If the case is to be closed positively, a negotiation would imply diplomatic benefits for both sides.
From a geopolitical point of view, it is important to note the special importance and relevance of the Falklands for Britain. It is a fundamental strategic point, from a logistical point of view, as a necessary route to Antarctica and the South Seas – the only alternative to the Panama Canal – as well as for access to the natural resources of the White Continent. One example has been the funding and political support of the Falkland Islands Dependencies, with the creation of the Britihs Antarctic Survey, which provides logistical assistance, by sea and air, to British bases in Antarctica.
With hindsight, and taking into account the strategic interests in the region, the conflict experienced four decades ago in defence of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands can be defined as the first war over Antarctica.
© Article 30 / All rights reserved
