One evening in November 2019, I went to a bar with some British classmates. Of course, as the only international student, one of them asked where I was from. After hearing ‘Argentina’, something snapped within her brain and automatically asked: “The Falklands. What are you doing here?”. The way she said it sounded like I was some kind of enemy, and that scared me a little bit. Was that all I would ever be in England –a country that fascinates me– because of the place I was born and a past that doesn’t define me? An enemy?
From that on, the topic popped up from time to time, frustrating me: a politician being criticised for praising Margaret Thatcher’s statistical skills (because she was the Prime Minister during the war), a journalist celebrating Queen Elizabeth II’s passing (because she had the crown during the war), and other episodes where if you don’t live by the words ‘Las Malvinas son Argentinas’ (The Falklands are Argentinian in Spanish) you are a traitor to the homeland. Thus, I considered it a good idea to give conflict & reconciliation a thought.
For that matter, we should address the event. According to my classmate, Argentine soldiers arrived on the islands and imposed their culture and ways on British citizens. To my brother, British soldiers invaded the islands and mercilessly killed 18-year-old Argentine boys. Now, what’s the truth? Who’s wrong, and who’s right? Is there a correct answer?
Here’s the short story: An undeclared war between Britain and Argentina for the control of the Falkland Islands, a tiny archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean made up of two main islands and other smaller outcrops, from 2 April (when Argentina occupied the territory) to 14 June (when Argentina surrendered); lasting 74 days and causing the death of 650 Argentinian, 253 British and 3 civilians; not to mention the hundreds that were injured on both sides. But history goes way back. I’m no historian, so I’ll try to keep it as concise, clear and accurate (obviously) as possible. Just bear with me here.
According to Britain, although the Dutchman Sebald de Weerdt made the first undisputed sighting of the Falklands about 1600, the English navigator John Davis on the Desire may have been the first to see them in 1592. Moreover, the English captain John Strong made the first known landing in the Falklands in 1690 and gave them their moniker. In 1764, the French sailor Louis-Antoine de Bougainville established the first settlement on East Falkland, whereas the British were the first to occupy West Falkland in 1765. But the Spanish, who had acquired the French settlement around 1767, drove them out in 1770. Regardless, the British never gave up their claim to the Falklands.
While, from the Argentine perspective, during most of the 16th century, only navigators in the service of Spain travelled the maritime routes along the South American coast, advancing southwards in search of the inter-oceanic passage. This progress included the discovery of the Malvinas Islands by members of Magellan’s expedition in 1520. In the 17th century, the Malvinas Islands were sighted by navigators from other nations (such as Britain and France) who ventured into the Spanish dominions aspiring to have a strategically located settlement overlooking the Strait of Magellan. But the entire southern region of America, with its coasts, seas and islands, was indisputably preserved under Spanish sovereignty through various treaties: the Papal Bulls and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494; the “American” Treaty of 1670; the Peace of Utrecht in 1713, which England accepted and ratified.
The succession of Spanish governors in the Malvinas Islands was continuous until 1811 when the War of Independence was unleashed. In the context of this conflict, the first patriotic governments of the United Provinces considered the Malvinas Islands an integral part of their territory, inherited from Spain. Britain didn’t express any claim to the Malvinas Islands in the process of recognition of the Argentine State, which culminated in the signing of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1825. After remaining silent, in November 1829, the United Kingdom protested the decree. Without firing a shot, a British force drove the few surviving Argentine authorities off the island in the early 1830s (or, from Argentina’s point of view, threatened with the use of superior force and demanded the return and delivery of the plaza). A British civilian lieutenant governor was appointed for the Falklands in 1841, and by 1885, the 1,800-person British settlement there was self-supporting. Argentina repeatedly voiced opposition to Britain’s annexation of the islands.
After World War II, the issue of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands shifted to the United Nations and, in 1964, the UN committee on decolonisation debated the islands’ status. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution in 1965 encouraging discussions between Argentina and Britain to settle the conflict amicably. In February 1982, these drawn-out negotiations were still ongoing, but on 2 April, Argentina’s military government invaded the Falklands. President Leopoldo Galtieri was dealing with popularity issues and an economic crisis; he believed that solving the conflict by force would help him regain the support needed to maintain himself in power. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher was confronting a similar situation. At the end of the Falkland War, the Argentine dictatorship ended and civilian rule was reinstated in the country in 1983. Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister used the strong nationalist sentiment to help her Conservative Party win a resounding victory in the 1983 legislative elections. Lost in the midst of power restoration, the issue of sovereignty wasn’t resolved. Argentina continues to assert its claim to the Falkland Islands despite the two countries’ agreement to normalise relations in a joint declaration in 1989 and the 2013 referendum where the majority of islanders—98%—voted to keep their status as a British overseas territory; an outcome criticised and considered a gimmick by the Argentine government.
This brings us to the present, where both parties haven’t achieved reconciliation. Here’s where I should talk about a way out. But the war is over. After 40 years, the only thing left is hideous scars. Many would say dialogue is the solution to the remaining sovereignty discussion. But, in my opinion, it is the easy answer. None countries are inclined to negotiate. Argentina will only accept the islands are theirs. The same goes for Britain. None of them is willing to swallow their pride, forget about positions, and find mutual interests that can actually help to crack the problem. Oh, and let’s not omit the fact that there are real people on the other side too.
To someone who belongs to a different generation and has a dissimilar standpoint, maybe we should see the conflict as an episode or anecdote; an accident of history. We could even consider it a dirty tactic from those in power to divide us and encourage feelings of hate between us, probably because they found it beneficial. Overall, it can be seen as one of violence’s manifestations that need to be eradicated.
Though it’s hard to let go (after all, lives were lost; family and friends still mourning), we have the freedom to question our lives and reflect on the conditions in which we want to live (Silo, 1994). So, let’s ask ourselves if, in the next 40 years, we want to continue disrespecting each other, keep holding on to anger and resentment, and be seen and defined as enemies.
