History reveals the right response to the proposed Chagos Islands deal, says DAN McNAY – specifically the Falklands War of 1982
For over two hundred years, British citizens have lived on the Falkland Islands. They have lived there peacefully and happily, having first arrived when the islands were unpopulated and unclaimed. Not only this, but the first British civilians made the Falklands their home decades before the nation of Argentina was even born. Nevertheless, with every change of Argentine government, worrying threats of conquest are presented by the incoming regime, in attempts to scoop up support from fanatical and patriotic elements of the Argentinian population.
Be it Kirchner of the left or a Libertarian like Milei, Argentinian leaders display an obsession with the British territory. Despite not even being a nation when Great Britain obtained the islands, Argentina has continually pressed its claims over the Falklands. The idea of retaking the islands is romantically burned into the minds of many Argentinians. The issue with this attitude is the fact that the islands were never theirs to begin with.
The history of the Falklands is an interesting one, but the simplest way of putting it is to state that ownership passed between France, Britain and Spain, sometimes peacefully, sometimes through aggression, with Britain emerging as the eventual occupants. Argentina did briefly seize control of the islands in the 1830s, before British rule was restored. Today, the only nations that could potentially have any semi-legitimate claim to the islands are France and Spain. Both choose not to make such a claim, and recognises Britain’s sovereignty over the Falklands.
Argentinian claims seem to be based in desperation and hypocrisy. Firstly, they state that the islands should be Argentine due to proximity. By that logic, Alaska should be transferred to Canada. They also state that the Falklands were obtained by Britain during a period of colonial expansion. Yes, this is true, as is the case with almost every single instance of land-expansion by any nation. Would the US now be expected to hand back California, New Mexico and Arizona, among other areas, to Mexico? Should New Caledonia be stripped from France and handed to Australia? Should the Dominican Republic demand that the US hand them Puerto Rico? Should the UK demand that Denmark hand over the Faroe Islands, and should France seize Guernsey from the UK? This list could go on and on. Respect for the status quo is important. Respect for the wishes of local populations is even more important. Lack of respect for either or both matters can only result in anger, anarchy, violence and confusion.
Moreover, many Argentinians base their claim on the 15th century Treaty of Tordesillas. This was a treaty which arrogantly split the world between Spanish and Portuguese ownership – a treaty ignored and ridiculed by most observers even at the time it was written. Despite the fact no one at the time knew the islands existed, since the treaty placed the area which holds the Falklands in Spanish hands, Argentinian arguments claim that as they are a state born of the Spanish Empire, the Falklands must therefore belong to Argentina. Arguably, the treaty is the most pro-imperial, pro-colonial piece of legislation ever drafted. Nevertheless, we see ‘anti-colonial’ Argentinians, clamouring to accuse Britain of imperialism, hypocritically pointing to it as legitimate legislation backing up their own claim.
British claims, conversely, are based on democracy and logic. Firstly, over 99 percent of the islanders wish to be British, as proven in the recent 2013 referendum. Moreover, any Argentinian overthrow of British rule would then result in a genuine case of colonialism, with a population dominated and governed by an unwelcome foreign power. Secondly, the islands were simply Britain’s before they were ever Argentina’s. This is a very simple but very factual and powerful point.
In addition to the points made, it can not be ignored that Argentina did invade the islands in 1982. They started a war which caused the deaths of almost 1000 men from Argentina, the United Kingdom and Nepal. This war resulted in a hard-fought victory for Britain. Hundreds of British military personnel died to defend their soil and their fellow citizens. This act of heroism must always be admired. By even tolerating the notion of relinquishing the islands, this is incredibly disrespectful to those who died fighting to save them. If ever Britain was to hand over the islands, heroes will have died for nothing.
Moreover, it should not be ignored – though it is rarely mentioned – that the war was not simply a war between two sovereign nations over some islands. It was a war between two completely opposite forms of government and society. On the one hand, the attacking Argentinian contingent was led by an authoritarian military dictatorship, void of democracy and free speech. On the other, the British defenders were representatives of a liberal democracy which promoted tolerance, freedom of expression and the freedom to disagree. Rarely does a war clearly have a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ side. However, despite that fact that Argentina largely conducted itself in a respectable and civilised manner throughout the war, from a political and societal point of view, this conflict could certainly be a contender for such binary descriptions.
Sadly, as the years pass by, more and more people are beginning to forget, or simply stop caring. Even people who lived during the conflict seem to be turning their backs on their fellow countrymen across the globe. We have recently seen this with regards to the surrendering of the Chagos Islands by the recently elected Labour government. By offering up British territory into the hands of a nation which is far from a stable ally of Britain, apparently all so the current government can appear heroic to indignant social media activists, all overseas land is now at risk of being offered up. First, we gave up the Chagos Islands. Already, there is shameful talk of abandoning Gibraltar and its British citizens. How long until the Falklands matter changes from a non-negotiable issue to a debate? How long until we offer them up to Argentina, while simultaneously asking for their forgives for not having done so sooner?
Therefore, while angry Argentinian voices will often be heard, with erroneous arguments made, British governments and civilians alike have both the honour and the duty of defending the islands, the history of the islands and the islanders themselves. No quarter must ever be given to the angry demands of the illogical fanatics and the already defeated aggressors. Many paid the ultimate sacrifice for the islands. Our responsibility is a much easier one. We need only never forget.
