A strong
wind is blowing from the South Atlantic, a wind of democracy. It comes from
from the Falkland Islands, which on 10-11 March will hold a self-determination
referendum. The issue at stake is whether to retain their status as a largely
self-governing entity (a UK overseas territory, with London just responsible
for defence and foreign affairs). Across the sea, Argentina is threatening the
islands and refusing to recognize that it is the people living there who have a
right to decide their own future. Instead of campaigning in favour of
integration into Argentina, explaining the advantages (if any) of such course
of action, Buenos Aires is mixing threats with claims that the referendum is
“irrelevant”, treating the Islands’ population as minors unable to choose their
own future.
Unfortunately,
this comes as no surprise. In a recent visit to London, Argentine Foreign
Minister Hector Timerman refused to speak to Dick Sawle, a member of the
Falklands Islands Legislative Assembly. The head of the Argentine Diplomacy
went so far as claiming that “There is no such thing as Falkland islanders”.
Needless to
say, this stands in stark contrast with London’s impeccable democratic
credentials. The British Government is supporting the referendum and has made
it repeatedly clear that the Falklands will remain a British Overseas Territory
for as long as their inhabitants wish. This is British democracy at its best,
from bottom up, with government based on the consent of the governed, and
institutions the servants and not the masters of the people.
Argentinians
once assaulted the Islands by force and were soundly defeated, but they do not
seem to have learnt the lesson. It is very simple: if they ever want the
Falklands to join their country, they have to convince a majority of their
population. Not threaten, or intimidate, or insult them, but to convince them.
The opposite policy will only widen the gulf between the two societies.
Furthermore,
can Argentina be a true democracy if she persists in ignoring the Falklanders’
right to decide their own future? It is very doubtful. Countries which try to
impose their will on others find themselves unable to enjoy true representative
government within their own territory. It is perhaps no coincidence that
Argentina goes from crisis to crisis, not only in the economic but also in the
political realm. If all the energies devoted to the “Malvinas cause” went into
economic development and political regeneration, the country would look very
different in a few years time.
As a
country seeking to restore its sovereignty through peaceful, democratic means,
Catalonia cannot but admire this exercise of the right to self-determination,
recognized by the UN Charter and myriad other international treaties. Catalans
are closely following events in the Falklands and admire the fortitude of the
local population in the face of constant threats, their commitment to the
development and wellbeing of the Islands, and the democratic attitude of the
British Government, based on democracy and the right of peoples to decide their
own future.
We should
conclude these lines remembering the 255 British servicemen, and 3 local
civilians, who died in 1982. Liberty never comes free, and it is thanks to their
willingness to pay the ultimate price that a referendum can now take place.
Alex Calvo is a Professor of International
Relations and International Law, Head of the IR Department, and Postgraduate
Research Director, European University (Barcelona Campus). An expert on Asian
security and defence issues, he got his LLB from the School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS, University of London) and is currently doing an MA in
Second World War Studies at the University of Birmingham. He is a former
teaching and research fellow at the OSCE Academy in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan).
I'm a strong supporter of Catalan independence but, this is an erroneous analogy. Catalunya has hundreds and hundreds of years as a country/region with a distinct language, culture and customs. The Falklands/malvinas are a colonial outpost of the UK left over from the Empire. The Falklands are as if the US had kept a small previously uninhabited island of the Philippines when giving the islands back to the Philippine people. If the US then populates that small island with its own people, would it be logical to say that the new US inhabitants have the right to determine what happens to the little island??? No. The Falklands are that little island. It should be part Argentina or a protectorate. At the very least no ties to the UK.
Dear Adam,
We have received the next comment from the author:
If we look at history, we cannot fail to observe that a British presence in the Falklands predates the emergence of Argentina as a sovereign state. Furthermore, her current borders were not fixed until much later, with a number of territories incorporated by force. It is Argentina which is a true colonial remnant, as clear from her opposition to the principle of self-determination.
Concerning the Philippines and the US, you may find it useful to have a look at http://warstudies.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-more-flexible-approach-to-the-issue-of-us-military-bases-the-cases-of-australia-and-the-philippines/