Interview with Dick Sawle, Falklands MLA

 

The holding of a self-determination referendum in the Falklands Islands in March this year attracted media attention all over the world. Once more, British democratic culture and the concept of self-determination clashed with government by decree and the use of force to impose a certain political system. Some weeks later, with the Islands out of the limelight but while tensions remain, Help Catalonia talked to Hon. Dick Sawle, one of the members of the local Legislative Assembly.

 

Help Catalonia.- Three months after the referendum, would you say that the notion that it is the Falkland islanders who are responsible for deciding their constitutional status is now firmly rooted in British political culture?

Hon. Dick Sawle: British political culture is firmly rooted in the Westminster democratic system wich is widely regarded as the home of modern democracy. It is true that Britain was once a colonial power and many books have been written about the pros and the cons of Britain's colonial past. But in the case of the Falkland Islands, the colonial relationship with Britain is simply a part of our history and Britain's history. We have evolved as a country, and our relationship now, as an Overseas Territory, is one of mutual respect. Our Constitution has had three distinct stages of evolution and is still very much work in progress and will continue to develop as time goes by. Yes, that principle that we are responsible and free to decide our constitutional status is firmly rooted in British political culture and the support for that is across all political parties.

2.- More widely, do you see the concept of self-determination gradually taking root in international law and practice?

Yes I do, where fundamental human rights and freedoms are accepted in all modern democratic systems. The United Nations recognises this principle as a fundamental human right of all peoples, so much so that it is enshrined in the UN charter. The UN fourth Committee in 2008, after a prolonged discussion on whether or not this fundamental right could be conditioned where there was a sovereignty dispute, voted  that any sovereignty dispute could not condition this right as the right of self-determination was too fundamental a human right to have conditions placed upon it.

The concept of self-determination is not simply a philosophical concept, it is very much a practical one. How can a country which states that it follows modern democratic principles deny this right to a people that sociologically, politically and culturally are defined in their own right, live in a defined territory and have their own system of internal self-governance. To deny us that right is to fly in the face of modern democratic principles.

3.- There have been some proposals to have the Falklands Islands and other British Overseas Territories elect MPs to Westminster. To what extent do people in the Islands support such proposals? If implemented, would they make it easier to get the Falklands delisted from the UN catalogue of non-self-governing territories?

Whether or not it would gain support from other Overseas Territories is a difficult one for me to answer. In the case of the Falkland Islands, I do not believe that we would wish to have one of us elected to Westminster. This does not mean that we do not wish to have our views represented in Westminster - we do. We have an all party parliamentary group (APPG) which consists of MPs from a variety of backgrounds and political interests who represent us in London. We maintain close ties with this group and they come to the Falklands on a regular basis. Our elected members meet with them in London also on a regular basis. I firmly believe that greater strength lies with the APPG than with a single MP.

 

4.- Is this an issue where coordination with Gibraltar may be advisable?

We have close ties as it is with Gibraltar, together with all of the other Overseas Territories and discuss with them all matters of mutual interest. Our collaboration with St Helena and Ascension Island in developing tourism for example is evidence of such collaboration. We meet and discuss matters of mutual interest together with Britain and all other OT's. In relation to Gibraltar specifically, we have very close ties and similar political models which have evolved in different ways and for different reasons.

5.- Do you see any shift in attitudes among Latin American countries, following the referendum? What about among ordinary Argentine citizens?

 

This is a very interesting question. I have travelled to many Latin American countries in recent times and have met with a variety of politicians, opinion formers, journalists and people in the street. There has been little movement in official lines taken over the Falklands, that is true. But I have noticed a big change in unofficial attitudes. People I have met have been surprised to learn the truth. They have been used to hearing Argentine official propaganda for so long that they had long accepted it as truth. People were surprised to hear that I was not based, for example, in London. They were surprised to hear that we have our own elected government and that we have no financial dependency on Britain.  

Unofficially I believe there has been a huge shift in attitude. We are not seen as belligerent but as reasonable and intelligent people who simply wish to exercise our rights.  Many had seen this dispute as a dispute between Britain and Argentina. It is not. It involves us, and perhaps the greatest force of the referendum was the emphasis it gave to the fundamental fact that we have our own voice and that it cannot be ignored.

Many of the politicians, whilst unprepared to change their official stance over the Falklands for fear of reprisals from Argentina, privately were happy to show their discontent with the Argentine President and her foreign policy which seems fixated on an issue which they know stands no chance of being resolved to her satisfaction. All of the countries I have visited are more keen to treat us as neighbours and have closer economic and cultural ties to the benefit of all.

Ordinary Argentine citizens are, from what I read in the press, becoming more and more disenchanted with their political masters. There will always be those who ignore the true facts and see the Falklands as the "holy grail" of national pride. However, having done many radio interviews now on Argentine radio stations, I notice that the questions are more ones of genuine interest in the Falklands - how we live, our economy and our way of life. I have never had abuse thrown at me, and whilst there is still a long way to go before we are truly recognised and left in peace, I do believe that the majority of the ordinary Argentine people would prefer their President concern herself with more important domestic matters that would improve their desperate personal situation. As one Argentine said to me recently "In Argentina we commit political suicide every ten years, and right now that is what we are doing yet again"  

6.- A recent visit by a European Parliament committee to Argentina saw a Spanish MEP say that “British sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands as such is not accepted by the European Parliament”. Have there been any contacts with the European Parliament to clarify this?

The Spanish MEP has no authority to speak on behalf of the European Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty is clear regarding our relationship with the EU. EU officials that I have met with and MEP's that I have spoken to are very clear and unambiguous that comments such as that are not official statements of EU policy. His comments do not concern me.

7.- Within the European Union, Spain has been vocal in supporting Argentina’s position, whereas British Prime Minister David Cameron recently warned Spain not to settle sovereignty disputes by force, in reference to Catalonia. Would you like to see a stronger stance by London?

It is hard for me to comment on Catalonia as I have little knowledge of the details of the Catalan situation. A stronger stance from Britain over a  problem that affects Spain and Catalunya would, I imagine,  be politically difficult.

With regard to the Falklands, I believe that Britain's stance over the Falklands is as strong as it can be. We were invaded in 1982 by Argentine despite a UN Security Council resolution calling on Argentina to withdraw their troops. Since 1982, Britain has maintained a deterrent military force in the Islands which has ensured that this can never happen again. Argentina's reaction has been to place their claim in their Constitution in 1994. This effectively makes it impossible to negotiate anything at all as the Argentine aim is simply one of taking the Falklands rather than achieving normal relations. Whilst that Constitutional claim over us exists, Britain's stance has to remain strong. 

8.- The Argentines claim to be anti-colonial, but their rhetoric and political culture are surprisingly similar to that of their former Spanish masters. Both countries dismiss the right to self-determination and refuse to rule out the resort to force in sovereignty disputes. In which ways do you believe such messages could be countered?

This is the paradox of the situation and you have summed it up very well. There are two counters to this and from two parties to the dispute. Britain has made it very clear that it will defend us against any aggression from Argentina and it has been very clear that there will be no negotiations unless we agree and are party to them. That position is as clear and as unequivocal as it can be.

From our side, we need to constantly reinforce the key points about who we are, our history, our people, how we have evolved, our economy and our wishes for the future. We have, in recent years, increased our efforts in this respect, and I believe that we have been effective in making our voice heard. Going forward into the future, we need to keep this up and double our efforts. It is only by getting out there and speaking, meeting and addressing the world that we will have any impact.  

 

9.- Concerning the economy of the islands, could you tell us what the current state of oil exploration is? Is this industry going to become a major pillar of the Island’s economy?

Oil exploration and subsequent development has the potential to become a game-changer for the Falklands in both economic and geo-political terms. There are two major oil companies active at present in the Falklands and others that are poised to do further exploratory work. Some exploration has already taken place and has been successful in finding oil reserves. One field- the Sea Lion field is currently in the early stages of development and another area is undergoing a further two year exploratory programme. Other exploration work may well continue with other companies.

There is little doubt that the exploratory phase of oil to date has had beneficial effects on our economy. If development of oil is successful (and it is too early to say whether or not that will be the case), then there is little doubt that revenues from such development will dwarf the current status quo in terms of GDP.

However, it is early days yet.  

10.- Last year you travelled to Norway to learn more about that country’s oil fund. Have the Falkland Islands already set up their own such fund?

 

Norway was an interesting experience and we learned much from the Norwegian model.

We are some way from setting up a sovereign wealth fund based on the Norwegian system as we have yet to have revenues from oil development. However, we have placed all oil revenues to date in a fund which is earmarked for use in oil-related development. Developing the necessary infrastructure, legislation and a plethora of other oil - related matters is a costly exercise and to meet these costs from recurring normal operating expenditure would have placed a heavy strain on our recurring budget. 

11.- Another big industry for the islands is tourism, with a clear concern for the environment and sustainability. What lessons can other countries learn from the Falklands in this area?

We are very fortunate in the Falkland Islands in that we have a large country (almost the size of Wales) with a relatively small population and few points of entry and exit. As such, there are large areas of unspoilt natural beauty which we carefully manage. The numbers of tourists who stay with us for a week or more are a few thousand per year and so the human impact on our pristine environment is very small. Falkland islanders take their concern for the environment very seriously and it forms a part of our national character.

The Falklands will probably always be a niche market and high value destination  something that perhaps other countries cannot emulate due to the demand placed on them.

12.- Concerning infrastructure, and given the Argentine blockade, which projects do you believe are most important to guarantee the economic development of the Islands and the welfare of their inhabitants?

The illegal blockade of the Falklands (Decree 256 is contrary to the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas) has in fact had very little effect. Neighbouring countries have been clear that while they may support Argentina, they stop short of contravening international law.

In short, our infrastructure development is less to do with protection from Argentina and more to do with our own desire to take our economy forward.

Given the above, we have had plans to replace our current port with a new deep water port for many years. Oil exploration and development has been the catalyst for this. We cannot support exploration for much longer with our current facilities, and oil development is out of the question. We now have preliminary designs and high level costings for a new port close to Stanley in Port William. This will allow oil exploration and development to continue and eventually form a base from which our traditional industries based on fishing and agriculture can also operate.

Air and shipping links are also subject to much study at present. Again, the critical mass of oil personnel and services is assisting these plans for development.

 

We already have strong and regular links with Britain with regard to air and shipping, and the jigsaw puzzle pieces that go to make up an interesting picture for the future are slowly coming into place.

13.- Current defence plans for the Falklands rely to a great extent on Mount Pleasant, and the ability to hold it while reinforcements fly in. A number of voices are cautioning, however, that defence cuts have prompted a loss of amphibious capabilities. Are you happy with the current defence posture or do you believe it to be too dependent on the static defence of a single base?

Mount Pleasant is a capable deterrent force. The situation now is far from the situation that existed in 1982. Rapid reinforcement of the military base is easily achieved. The threat of armed action from Argentina is highly unlikely given the fact that their armed forces have had their budgets cut year on year with the intention of making a military coup within Argentina impossible. We have sufficient force to maintain the peace.

I have no doubt whatsoever that our forces are up for the task and proportionate to the threat. 

14.- The defence of the Islands is also partly the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Defence Force. Could you tell us a bit about its structure?. Are young people eager to serve part-time?

Our own defence force is well trained, well equipped and of course know the ground. It forms an integral part of the defence of the Falkland Islands, and our young people are eager to join as volunteers. There are many in our community who are very willing volunteers and drawn from all walks of life and who are prepared to defend their home if needed.

15.- Japan refused to impose an embargo on Argentina in 1982 but is now suffering territorial claims by a continental power which explicitly supports Argentine claims. Do you believe this may set the stage for growing diplomatic coordination between the UK and Japan?

An interesting question, but probably one which I am not best qualified to answer. The dispute between China and Japan over the Senkaku Islands, the dispute between Spain and Morocco over Ceuta and Melilla...all of these have some parallels with the Falklands but are also quite different in many respects. If we look at the Montevideo Convention of 1933 for example, which defined a "state", the Falklands meet almost all of those conditions in that we have a defined territory, a permanent population, a defined system of self-governance but only have the ability to enter into agreements with other states via the UK (as these relate to foreign policy). As such, I would argue that this puts us in a completely different category from the dispute between China and Japan.

16.- Concerning Chinese diplomatic support for Argentina. What are, in your view, the reasons for this?

Clearly the Chinese see a common thread with their dispute with Japan. However, for the reasons above I believe that there are major differences, and it is most likely that China is not aware of all of the facts concerning the Falklands.

17.- Would you expect the holding of a referendum in Catalonia to provide additional momentum to the idea that it is up to a population to decide its political status, free from force or threats to use force?

Many years ago I mingled with people from Catalonia and so perhaps understand more than most the burning desire they have for independence from Spain. I would refer back once again to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 as a basis for whether or not independence is achievable.

What is clear to me is that the situation of Catalonia is very different to that of the Falklands. For example, there is no territorial integrity argument with regard to the Falklands, but a powerful argument perhaps with Catalonia. Our economy is completely separated from that of the UK (apart from the costs of defence), whereas that of Catalonia is arguably hard to extricate.

It is also clear though that neither side in disputes such as these should resort to violence to impose a system of governance on a people that do not wish it. History shows us that the imposition of a political system by force never works.  

18.- In addition to diplomatic support at the UN, and cooperation with the Royal Navy in the event of a crisis, is there any other way in which you would expect an independent Catalonia to be in the interest of the Falklands?

I understand that the Catalans have been following the events in the Falklands this year with great interest and I note David Cameron's support for the principle of letting the people decide for themselves. The big difference here though is that 99.8% of people in the Falklands voted to remain an overseas territory of Great Britain. Whether or not the three people who voted "no" were voting for independence or some other political system we shall probably never know.

If the UN were to recognise a referendum held in Catalonia, then there can be little doubt that this would support our case for self-determination.