In the interest of providing further information, I have done a bit of research into the official British side of this equation, which many will no
doubt find enlightening, as well as a look into the official UN position.
Everyone should realize that before the Falklands War, diplomats from both Britain and Argentina, for quite some time, had been talking about an
eventual Hong Kong-like handover of the colony which Britain has occupied since 1833. The Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document
dating back to 1940 called, "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina, and to agree to a leaseback."
This document has been sealed until 2015. The world was at war at the time, and this plan was put on hold.
Not only has the British government considered the issue but also the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization has promoted the situation by calling
annually on Britain and Argentina to resume negotiations for the peaceful resolution of the "sovereignty dispute." It should be noted that the UN
failed to mention the critical words "self-determination." This self determination detail, and the UN's deliberate decision not to mention it, is
quite important and I will get back to it later on.
In 1965 the UN’s General assembly urged Britain and Argentina through Resolution 2065 to "proceed without delay" with negotiations. These
negotiations began almost immediately and were kept mostly in secret and away from the public eye.
The negotiations included a British sponsored plan to promote the idea to the islanders, by showing them the benefits which a link to the mainland
would bring. As part of the British plan, Argentina and Britain were to jointly build an airport for the islands. The Falklands are a very isolated
place, and the addition of an airport was a significant improvement. Sadly, Britain failed to meet with it's obligations and Argentina built the
entire airport on it's own. In addition to the airport, which Argentina continues to support, Argentina was happy to provide guarantees of
"continuity of customs and lifestyle." It is sovereignty, not colonization, that is the issue for Argentina. Two years into the negotiations, and
not a word had been said about them either to the British Parliament or Port Stanley in the Falklands. The Foreign Office policy had been to quietly
prepare a satisfactory package of safeguards, as well as economic benefits, to be presented to the islanders in a manner in which was acceptable to
them and minimized any negative associations. Declassified Foreign Office documents show that, by 1968, a "memorandum of understanding" was in the
final stages in which Britain would agree to hand back the islands to Argentina. The basis of the talks were a "transfer and leaseback" based on the
Hong Kong model or even perhaps a joint temporary British-Argentine sovereignty known as
condominum Unfortunately, politics are a fickle business and diplomacy often
suffers the consequences.
Additional released documents show that James Callaghan, when he was foreign secretary in the 1970s, stated "We must yield some ground and ... be
prepared to discuss a leaseback arrangement."
On November 4, 1982, there was another UN resolution requesting a resumption of the negotiations. The United States was included among the nations
which voted in favor of this. Although Britain won the Falklands war, they did not win the argument over sovereignty.
Britain's current
PUBLIC position on the sovereignty of the Falklands is one of self-determination. Britain says publicly, that it is for the
islanders themselves to decide where their future should lie. However, the self-determination principle is only applicable to people who were
"oppressed" and not to those who were "transplanted," thus legally, Argentina's territorial integrity takes precedence over
self-determination.
When Britain invaded the islands, all the Argentinean settlers were removed. Yes, contrary to earlier statements, there were indeed Argentinean
settlers on the islands and not just pirates and prisoners. In addition to this, a law established by Britain forbade any Argentinean immigration to
the islands, or any land purchase by Argentinean citizens. If the current population of the islands were a wide mixture of various nationalities, as
would be the case with free immigration, the principle of self determination would have more validity. It is clear that the population has been
artificially kept British or pro Anglo-Saxon. The Argentine position is to treat the land, separately from the inhabitants, to take into account the
islanders interests and well being, but not their determination. This is specifically why the UN left out any mention of self determination, when it
called for negotiations.
Given that there has been considerable discussion for a British hand back over the years, I feel it is only a matter of time before this comes to
pass. Clearly, it will have to be a situation that has favorable public outcome for both parties involved and will be a considerable challenge.
Britain wishes to 'save face' in the matter and minimize any negative fallout. This does not mean that it won't eventually happen.
"No country in the world has more experience dealing with the issues of decolonization than the United Kingdom. For the last hundred years,
this once vast Empire, has been busy extracting itself from various corners of the world.....From India, to Hong Kong, to Zimbabwe, the British have
turned over government to someone else." (Joseph Allen McCullough)
[edit on 10-4-2007 by Terapin]
[edit on 10-4-2007 by Terapin]
[edit on 10-4-2007 by Terapin]