Last Monday, I asked one of my friends from Movimiento Sur if we had any stickers that I could use. He pulled out two, “Binner, Presidente” and “Malvinas Argentinas Siempre” Malvinas, Forever Argentine
Las Islas Malvinas, better known in the English-speaking world as the Falkland Islands, are one thing that almost-all Argentines will wholeheartedly agree upon. Ever since the British illegally took them in 1833, Argentines have not for one minute eased their grip on the issue. Every Argentine border crossing has a giant sign which says “Las Malvinas son Argentinas,” The Malvinas are Argentine. Every map purchased in Argentina reads “Las Islas Malvinas (Arg.),” with no indication that the islands are in fact governed by the UK. For the longest time, this issue did not make any sense to me. There are no comparable cases in the world. The population is overwhelmingly British, (1% Argentine) and 1833 was so, so long ago. After almost 180 years, why can’t they just let go and let life go on?
Then a couple weeks ago, someone mentioned to me the visa issue. Until quite recently, (5-10ish years) it was nearly impossible for Argentines to travel to the Malvinas for tourism. It still is nearly impossible for Argentines to move there. Compare this to the ease with which I or a Briton could move to Argentina. The ease with which we could receive citizenship. Not only is this relationship not reciprocated for Argentines wishing to move to the US or the UK, it is not reciprocated for Argentines wishing to move to their own islands.
The Malvinas are Argentine: geographically, historically, culturally. They are not indigenous, as they were uninhabited upon European discovery. They are not British. They belong to Argentina, just as America belongs to its indigenous peoples. This is no to say that everyone else must leave, just to say that these considerations ought to have some precedence in how we conduct our affairs.
1833 was a long time ago, but that doesn’t mean we should just pretend it didn ´t happen. There is right and there is wrong. Excluding Argentines from the Malvinas plainly falls into the latter category; the islands are not the exclusive domain of the British. To quote my sticker, “who here speaks of forgetting, of giving up, of forgiveness.” Malvinas Argentinas Siempre.
John • Feb 4, 2012 at 4:14 am
There are a set of maps showing how Argentina was effectively a landlocked country at the far end of the River Plate when it first claimed the Falklands. Click on:
Las Malvinas son Argentinas.
There is no claim by “proximity”.
robertlund • Feb 1, 2012 at 6:09 am
You state that these islands ” belong to Argentina geographically ” What precisely does this mean ? Does it mean that any small island territory automatically “belongs” to the nearest larger territory ? The islands are around 300 miles from the coast of Argentina . By this definition Cuba “belongs” to the USA ( 90 miles away ) , The Canary Islands ” belong ” to Morocco ( 50 miles away ) not Spain , and Sri Lanka “belongs” to India . It is this type of illogical thinking that has prevented the problem being resolved .
We can all debate/distort history for ever and never agree . The only parameter to apply in the 21st century is democratic self determination. Maybe because Argentina has only a tenuous link with democratic ideals it cannot grasp this point .
John Forsyth • Feb 1, 2012 at 5:49 am
Mr. Gales,
First, let me apologise for the capital letters, I don’t know why i can’t write in lower case, please don’t interpret it as aggression.
You are wrong in your assertions. Argentines are perfectly within their rights to visit the Falklands, indeed a large number who do come back with a more informed opinion.
Right of Tourism and immigration, or whatever it is you are complaining about, does not supersede the right of the Falkland Islanders to self determination. I notice in the Argentine press there is a lot of misquoting of David Cameron on this issue. He said that “the Argentine approach is far more like colonialism than ours, because the people who live there do not want to be run by the Argentines”.
Maybe one day the Islanders will want to be Argentine, but its looking unlikely what with Argentina trying to destroy their economy through various blockades. Don’t forget many of the Islanders are still traumatised by the brutal occupation of 1982. Maybe Argentina should try a charm offensive. The current hostility doesn’t seem to be working.
The “liberty and democracy” argument is convoluted. The simple fact is that the Islanders have a democratic right to choose who they are run by (same as Patagonia (who want to be Argentine, obviously) , Northern Ireland (who want to be British) , Hong Kong (who want to be Chinese), and any other territory). Enforced Argentine sovereignty without respect to the wishes of the Islanders does undermine this principle, and screaming “colonialism” doesn’t change the fact that this isn’t really about colonialism at all. It is about self-determination. We British were obviously late converts to this principle, only coming round properly in the 1930s, but just because we have sinned in the past, doesn’t mean we should sin again just to pacify Argentine vitriol.
I agree its unfair and impolite to treat visitors to the Falklands with hostility, but what do you expect in a place littered with Argentine landmines and memories of occupation by a military dictatorship? Attitudes take time to soften.
Your version of 1833 history is also wrong. The commandant of the settlement (who had settled with British permission) was expelled after the settlers harassed American shipping. The settlers were asked to stay and indeed, many did.
In addition I think you misunderstood Paul, London. When he mentioned the Italians and Conquistadors he wasn’t being racist, he was pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the Argentine population is not “indigenous” (however you define it) to Argentina. It is hypocritical to claim that the inhabitants “should go back to where they came from” when they have lived there for 180 years. No-one seriously suggests that anyone who cannot prove 180 year history of Argentine blood should go back to Europe or wherever. The same principle applies here. Argentina is not innocent of colonialism, and I think sometimes this past colours their attitudes to the Falklands.
I take issue with your assertion that “Malvinas are Argentine, geographically, historically and culturally”.
Culturally they are British. There isn’t really much argument about that. The people there eat Fish and Chips for a start… Historically there is obviously a lot of debate, but the inhabitants have been British for 180 years, Argentine historical claims lay dormant for the first 90 years of this period. I don’t really see how your assertion works. Geographically, yes, they are close to Argentina, but this is universally recognised as not being relevant in matters of self-determination. Kosovo is close to Serbia, Tibet to China, Strasbourg to Germany….. They are close but still 500km from the Argentine mainland. Its equivalent to Britain deciding that purely on the basis of geographic closeness, Hamburg should be British.
The sad thing is, before the invasion of 1982 there probably would have been closer ties and more integration in the future. Now its a bit like a rapist insisting a rape victim marry him, even if the rapist has reformed and done his time, it still seems unreasonable. The Falklands are an historical oddity, but I think often a lot of the nationalism on both sides ignores the simple fact that people who live in a place should decide how it is run. If the Scots decide they want independence (and I hope they don’t), we would not try to stop them. We have learnt, through a long history, that forcing people to live under rulers they do not want to never leads to a happy ending.
What is the solution? I don’t know. Obviously Argentine sovereignty isn’t possible while the islanders resist it. Perhaps if oil is discovered they will opt for independence. That would be a good end to the saga. But while they want to remain British it would be a cruel British government that went over their heads and denied them that right.
John • Jan 29, 2012 at 4:15 am
PS: Click here for the review.
John • Jan 29, 2012 at 4:13 am
Americans are prone to see the Falklands conflict in terms of their own history but the Falklands is more complex. Did you know, for instance, that it was the USA that kicked the South Americans off the islands in the early 19th century? Readers may be interested in a brief but in depth analysis of the problem of Las Malvinas, especially the UN Resolutions and sovereignty claims, at Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Las Malvinas.
Fabian Encinas • Jan 8, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Dear Mr Henry Wales
Appreciate his words with regard to the question of the Islas Malvinas.
My respect for you for the way that deals with the topic and how that is expressed. Without offending and demonstrating your education and what you know of the topic.
My most sinseros greetings and I hope to continue reading your comments.
My name is Fabian Encinas, I am from Argentina, BsAs. And temporarily live in the USA.
Like says your comment
Malvinas Argentinas por Siempre !!!!
Henry Gales • Dec 7, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Also, “London†or “Paul†or whatever your real name is. Your comments are shamelessly paternalistic and a racist. “I’m glad European nations no longer behave like Argentina.†Give me a break. Cut the superiority complex. If there´s anything we should be thankful for, it’s the fact that most other countries haven´t tried to take over the world the way that Britain has (and the U.S. is doing currently).
“Another issue is that Argentinians are hypocritical. Do we need to mention their Conquistador and Italian heritage?†I don´t believe in blood corruption, but if I did, upper-class British blood would be pretty dirty, as it is very conquistador. Personally, I don´t see how someone´s ancestry is a character flaw or how it can make someone hypocritical. That´s just plain old racism. Anyway, what do you have against Italians?
Henry Gales • Dec 7, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Alright, there´s a big difference that you’re failing to mention. Germans can go to Strasbourg. And now with the EU, Germans can live anywhere in France if they feel so inclined.
Argentines can do neither in the Malvinas. In general, they can not afford to travel their own country, much less travel to the Malvinas, where the unjust exchange rate makes everything unaffordable. And, while you or I could easily move to Argentina and obtain residency, an Argentine could not do the same in the US or the UK. And they can not even do the same in islands which sit right of their coast. This is plainly wrong and unjust. It is wrong for someone who lives in London to have more rights in the islands than someone who lives in Buenos Aires.
I don´t see how Argentina poses a threat the “liberty and democracy†of the islanders. What exactly does Britain need to protect them from? Argentina has a pithy military, and almost no economic or political influence. And I´m not sure where you´re getting this idea of Britain as a protector of liberty and democracy in the Malvinas. I know someone here whose dad went to the Malvinas, and he was treated like a fucking spy. He was not allowed to bring or wear anything with reference to Argentina, no flag, no nothing. Liberty and democracy? As if.
Argentina has had a continuous claim on the Malvinas since 1833, which the never once suspended. The 1850 Convention does not contain the word Falklands or the word Malvinas, and makes no reference to the islands. It is a restoration of diplomatic relations and a truce. Read it: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement
But now we´re getting beside the point and talking about silly diplomatic agreements. The point is that it´s wrong to exclude Argentines from the Malvinas. Argentines don´t exclude anyone from their country, and if Britain isn´t going to reciprocate that relationship than it should at least give them the right to live and work in the Malvinas. Or better yet, give them back so that everyone can enjoy liberty and democracy in the Malvinas instead of just the British.
Paul, London • Dec 6, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I’m glad European nations no longer behave like Argentina. For example Germany has more right (historical) to part of France (Strasbourg) than Argentina has to the Falklands.
That is apart from the fact the sovereignty issue was settled in the 1850 Convention of Settlement. The first recorded official discussion of sovereignty was only then raised by the Argentine government 1941 – a full 91 years later!!
Another issue is that Argentinians are hypocritical. Do we need to mention their Conquistador and Italian heritage?
Britain will always defend the liberty and democracy of the islanders.