On 2 April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
The ensuing two-month conflict left almost a thousand British and Argentinian soldiers dead
and the Islands still in British hands.
Forty years later, the issue remains unresolved
and still serves as a source of tension between the two countries.
But can it ever be settled?
Hello and welcome. If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and
here I take an informed look at international relations, conflict, security and statehood.
Many conflicts in international relations are centered on seemingly irreconcilable positions.
The sides disagree on fundamental principles of international law and politics
that make finding a workable compromise difficult, if not all but impossible.
A good example is the long-standing dispute over the Falkland Islands.
For almost 200 years, the issue has been a source of
tension between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
Indeed, just 40 years ago, it even led to an undeclared war between them.
For Argentina, the dispute is a matter of territorial integrity.
It regards the islands, which it calls Las Malvinas, as a fundamental part of the country.
For Britain, it's about self-determination.
For as long as the Falkland Islanders
want to live under British rule, they should be allowed to do so.
So, in the face of what seems to be a clash of basic principles in international relations,
is there any realistic way to reach a mutually acceptable settlement?
The Falkland Islands lie in the South Atlantic Ocean,
approximately 480 kilometres, or 300 miles, east of Argentina.
The United Kingdom lies around 13,000 kilometres, or 8,000 miles to their north.
In total they're around 12,200 square kilometres, or 4,700 square miles, in area.
Put in perspective, as an independent country
this would make the islands the 158th largest member of the United Nations.
As for their population, according to the most recent census, carried out in 2016,
there were 3,398 people living on the island.
First settled by the French and British around 1765, the Islands were conquered by Spain in 1770.
Although a British colony was briefly restored on the islands,
it left soon afterwards leaving the islands in Spanish hands.
In 1820, the government of the newly independent United Provinces of Rio de la Plata,
which eventually evolved into the Argentine Republic, claimed sovereignty over the islands.
However, in 1833, Britain seized control expelling the remaining Argentinians
and establishing its own settlements.
In the years that followed, the population grew - reaching a high point of around 2400 by 1931.
Despite this, Argentina continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, later extending
its claims to include South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the east.
And in the early 1960s it brought the issue before the United Nations.
On 16 December 1965, the General Assembly passed Resolution 2065.
Reiterating the need for an end to colonialism,
it called on Britain and Argentina to begin negotiations.
However, and crucially, it also noted that any
settlement should respect the wish of the Islanders.
Although the two countries in fact held talks over the next 15 years,
these made little progress and by the start of the 1980s Argentinian frustration was growing.
Against the backdrop of economic problems and domestic instability,
the country's ruling military junta began preparations to seize the islands by force.
Argentina's military invasion began on the 2 April 1982.
Quickly overwhelming the 70 Royal Marines on the islands,
Argentina then moved in to take South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
In response, Britain immediately announced its intention to retake the islands.
Indeed, the first elements of a naval task force - eventually made up of 127 ships,
including two aircraft carriers - set sail just three days later.
At the same time, London launched a diplomatic offensive.
With the United States leading on efforts to broker a peace agreement between the sides,
the UN Security Council passed Resolution 502..
This demanded that Argentina immediately withdraw its forces from the islands
and called for a negotiated settlement.
However, Argentina continued to consolidate its position and by
the end of April it had around 13,000 troops on the islands.
By now, most outside observers believed that
Britain stood little chance of winning back the islands.
However, just weeks later British forces retook South Georgia with minimal bloodshed.
Meanwhile, as it prepared to retake the islands,
Britain declared a 200 nautical mile exclusion zone around the Falklands.
This led to one of the most controversial incidents of the conflict.
On 2 May 1982, a British submarine sank the General Belgrano,
an Argentine warship sailing just outside the exclusion zone, killing 368 crew members.
While the incident dented wider international support for the British operation,
by mid-May British forces began landing on the islands.
Led by elite units, they quickly made headway and on the 14 June,
just 10 weeks after the invasion began, Argentina surrendered.
Needless to say, the political effects of the conflict were huge.
While Margaret Thatcher sailed to a second term as British prime minister, in Argentina mass
protests broke out that led to the fall of the military regime and the restoration of democracy.
Although Britain and Argentina restored diplomatic relations in 1989,
there was little sign that they could now reach an agreement over the islands.
Indeed, positions seem to harden.
In 1994, Argentina wrote a claim over the islands into its new constitution.
Meanwhile, Britain insisted that it was up to the Islanders to decide their own fate;
a principle that was also enshrined in the new Falkland Islands constitution, in 2009..
Meanwhile, Britain's commitment to defend the rights of the islanders to make their own choice
was again underscored at the time of the 30th anniversary of the conflict, in 2012.
Speaking before the British Parliament. the then prime minister, David Cameron,
insisted that his government was clear
that the future of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the people themselves.
Pledging to defend the islands, he turned the tables on Argentina
accusing it of colonialism for failing to listen to the wishes of the islanders.
Indeed, to underscore the point, a referendum was held on the islands
just a year later, in march 2013.
Asked whether they wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current position as an overseas
territory of the United Kingdom, 1513 islanders - or 99.8 percent of those who voted - said yes.
There were just three no votes.
In the decades since then, there's been little sign
that the issue has either gone away or is any closer to settlement.
This was highlighted when, in early 2022, China voiced its support for Argentina's position
following a meeting between the Chinese and Argentinian presidents.
This led to a firm response from the British Foreign Secretary,
who insisted that the United Kingdom rejected any questions over the island's sovereignty
and stood by the rights of the islanders to determine their own future.
In the meantime, the Islands remain one of just 17 areas
around the world on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories.
So, can the issue be resolved?
On the face of it, it would seem difficult.
At first glance, there would seem to be
three broad options - none of which seems particularly feasible.
The first will be to retain the status quo.
The islands would remain under British sovereignty.
While this would certainly be the preferred option for the islanders,
and would be accepted by Britain, it's obviously opposed by Argentina.
The second option would be to hand the islands over to Argentina.
However, this would be contrary to the wishes of the islanders
and would violate UN principles of self-determination in cases of colonialism.
Indeed, had Argentina's invasion succeeded in 1982,
the islands would have joined cases such as Western Sahara and East Timor as examples of
invasions and occupations in a colonial context violating the right of self-determination.
So, if either British or Argentinian sovereignty isn't acceptable,
then the third option would seemingly be independence.
Indeed, this would usually be the obvious route for colonial cases like this.
A good example is Cyprus.
Having been a British colony, and facing competing claims by Greece and Turkey,
it became an independent state in 1960.
However, this just doesn't seem a realistic route for the Islands.
With around 3,000 inhabitants, they seem just too small to become a viable independent country.
Put in perspective, Nauru, the world's smallest UN member,
with a population of just 10,800, has almost three times as many inhabitants as the Islands.
So, if none of these three options are feasible, is there any way out?
In fact, there may be a fourth option.
We tend to think of sovereignty as indivisible.
If one state controls the territory, then another state can't.
But can countries in fact share territory?
In most cases, the answer would be no.
Often the land in question is just too large or too heavily populated to be realistically
administered by two different countries, especially if they have a history of antagonism.
However, just sometimes some form of joint sovereignty
is in fact possible - an arrangement that's formerly known as a condominium.
Admittedly, such an arrangement is rare.
In fact, the most notable example of a condominium is Sudan; which was jointly
run by Britain and Egypt between 1899 and 1955, when it became independent.
Another case was the Condominium of the New Hebrides, which was jointly shared
by Britain and France from 1906 until it became independent, in 1980, as Vanuatu.
Of course, such an arrangement can present considerable complications.
Various issues would need to be worked out.
For example, the islanders would inevitably fear
being overwhelmed by a sudden influx of Argentinian settlers.
This could not only alter the demographic balance on the island,
it could also open the way to swing a vote towards full Argentinian sovereignty.
However, this could always be prevented in several ways.
As well as immigration curbs, a defined timeframe
say 50 years, could be established before another change in sovereignty.
Even then, provision could also be made for
the islanders to retain their right to British citizenship.
Then there would be administrative issues.
How would Britain and Argentina assist the islands in a way that would respect
this joint sovereignty, but would also be acceptable to the islanders themselves.
Finally, there's the important question of revenue
and resource sharing, including territorial waters.
All this would need to be carefully considered.
However, when one moves away from the emotional aspect of the issue, it may well be possible to
see how the Islands could in fact be shared by the two countries - if not in perpetuity,
then at least in a way that eases the eventual transfer to full Argentinian sovereignty,
perhaps underpinned by a permanent autonomy arrangement for the Islands.
One of the longest-running territorial disputes in international relations
centres on the Falkland Islands, otherwise known as the Malvinas.
Originally claimed by Argentina they were seized and settled by Britain in the 1830s.
However, since then they've remained a point of contention between the two countries,
leading to a conflict in the early 1980s.
However, while a settlement may seem hard to envisage, there is in fact a way out.
Ultimately, this is a case of colonialism.
But it isn't just about British colonialism.
It's also about Argentina's colonial approach towards the islands.
As noted by the United Nations, in cases of decolonisation
the wishes of those affected - in this instance the Islanders - must be considered.
And since the obvious answer, independence, isn't feasible the next best solution would be
for Britain and Argentina to explore the option of some form of joint sovereignty over the territory.
In the context of extensive self-rule, this would not only acknowledge Argentina's claim
to the territory by virtue of proximity, but would also respect the wishes of the Islanders to retain
their unique identity and their close historical and cultural links to the United Kingdom.
I hope you found that useful. If so, here are some more videos that you might find interesting.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.