The Wool over Argentina’s Eyes

More on Argentina and “hotly contested” rocks. Only this time the topic is not news anymore, and it didn’t even capture the headlines while it was. But it’s interesting nevertheless, and also a recurring source of tension between the United Kingdom and Argentina. The case in question is the dispute over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, owned by the former and claimed by the latter.

The archipelago is located 300 miles east of Argentina’s southern tip at Tierra del Fuego. Unlike the Senkakus or Perejil, the Falklands—more on why I stick to the British name ahead—are inhabited: around 3,000 British citizens live in the archipelago’s two main islands, in the company of a million penguins and 670,000 sheep.

(For those who have taken courses with Mark Blyth, the human/ovine ratio inevitably raises the question of whether the Falklands are the Aberdeen of the southern hemisphere. Also keep in mind the sheep roam an archipelago strewn with mines from the 1982 Falklands War… Warcraft, anyone?)

Buenos Aires’ claim on the islands is based on their relative proximity to the Argentine mainland, but is not historically grounded. Since the 18^th Century the archipelago has switched hands between Spain, France, Britain, and Argentina. For most of this time, however, it has remained under British control. In spite of this, the Argentine junta attempted to annex the islands in the early 1980s. The invasion, launched in a desperate attempt to distract Argentines from the junta’s murderous dirty war and its mismanagement of the country’s economy, ended in a humiliating defeat. Unfortunately this saved Margaret Thatcher’s career, and led to the premature death of the British welfare state. But it also dealt a coup de grace to the dictatorship and paved the way for a process of democratic rupture. So while Thatcher’s government and legacy are as inspiring as a bowl of porridge or a plate of haggis, there is some truth to the—otherwise profoundly obnoxious—claim that Argentines should be grateful to her.

Yet spats over ownership of the Falklands still take place. As usual, there is oil in the equation. And the archipelago is also a tax haven of sorts, which hosts the occasional nuclear submarine –much like other British Overseas Territories. In spite of this President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s constant calls—now conducted via the Pope—for the UK to hand back the islands are misplaced, for the simple reason that 99% of Falklanders want to remain British. Such was the result of a recent referendum, which comes as a slap in the face of Argentine aspirations.

Kirchner has reacted by qualifying the referendum as “a parody,” and promising an “eternal battle” to retake the Falklands. Yet there is little substance to such threats. Spring is a favorite season for the government’s flag-waving. The 2013 topic is the Falklands, just as the one in 2012 was Repsol. The Spanish oil company—an emblematic new conquistador—was expropriated from its Argentine branch on April 2012, following the discovery of untapped reserves in eastern Argentina and in spite of the fact that it gladly accommodated one of the Kirchner’s campaign financers, lending him more than a billion dollars so that he could own 25% of the company.

The underlying problem is the same in both cases: the fact that Cristina Kirchner prefers stirring nationalism to rethinking its economic policies or addressing corruption. The Falklands, however, are a much harder nut to crack than Repsol. So while embarking on a journey to nowhere abroad, Argentines will keep suffering corruption and inflation at home. This is déjà vu all over again, but at least today’s spat is unlikely to scale into a military conflict –or rescue David Cameron’s career.