FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

If Crimea is Not Russia, Why are the Malvinas British?

by CESAR CHELALA

Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea has been strongly condemned by the U.S. and the European Union. Particularly vehement in his opposition has been Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron. His reaction begs the question, “If Crimea is not Russian, why does he claim that the Malvinas are British?

There are several historical and geopolitical reasons that explain why Russia claims Crimea is Russian. On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast (province) from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

This was widely considered a “symbolic gesture” marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Russian Empire, at the time when Nikita Khrushchev -a Ukrainian native- was the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. When asked about the present situation, Mikhail Gorbachev, a darling of the West, stated, “Earlier Crimea was merged with Ukraine under Soviet laws, to be more exact by the [Communist] party laws, without asking the people, and now the people have decided to correct that mistake. This should be welcomed instead of declaring sanctions.”

If the annexation of Crimea was forceful, so was the British annexation of the Falklands.

On Jan. 2, 1833, Captain James Onslow of the brig-sloop HMS Clio reached the Spanish settlement at Port Louis. Onslow requested that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and the Argentine administration was deported to Montevideo.

Because he was under numerical disadvantage, Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo chose to depart without fighting. Despite Argentina’s protests, the colony was established with nationals of the occupying power, and the islands continue under British administration.

The illegality of the seizure of islands was recognized even by British officials.

In October 1936, John Troutbeck, head of the American department at the British Foreign Office stated, “The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”

The United Kingdom thus shaped a made-to-measure community in the islands in a process that was never accepted by Argentina, which firmly and repeatedly rejected it. At the same time, however, Argentina has shown its firm willingness to resume bilateral negotiations in order to find a solution to the dispute in accordance with the United Nations mandate.

The Argentine position is shared by the international community, which has declared itself in favor of the resumption of negotiations in several regional and bi-regional forums such as the Ibero-American Summit, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC,) the Arab and South American Countries Summit (ASPA,) the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA,) the Rio Group (an international organization of Latin American and some Caribbean States), the Group of 77, and the African and South American Countries Summit (ASA.)

The situation is aggravated by the unilateral activities involving exploitation of renewable and nonrenewable resources that the United Kingdom conducts in the area under dispute in violation of a U.N. resolution. These activities are contrary to the letter and spirit of the United Nations relevant resolutions on the question of the Malvinas Islands, in particular resolution 31/49.

This U.N. General Assembly resolution calls upon both parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications into the situation while the islands are going through the process of negotiations recommended by the General Assembly.

In a referendum that took place in the islands on March 10 and 11, 2013, 99.8 percent of their inhabitants chose to remain as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. That referendum, however, goes against 10 resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and more than 30 resolutions of the U.N. Special Committee on Decolonization. They emphasize that only through negotiations between the conflicting parties can an appropriate settlement be reached.

Similar resolutions were put forth by the Organization of American States (OEA) as well as by the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela. All those countries have banned Falklands-flagged ships from docking at their ports.

In addition, member countries of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and MERCOSUR have signed a special declaration where they maintain that the referendum neither changed the essence of the question of the Malvinas Islands nor puts an end to the sovereignty dispute.

Those born on the islands are a minority, and the electoral body was comprised essentially by those who are British citizens. Great Britain insists on the right to self-determination of the inhabitants of the Falklands. Asking British citizens if they want to remain British is a futile exercise that undermines the essence of the dispute on which the United Nations has repeatedly issued resolutions, which have been systematically ignored by Great Britain. Britain continued occupation of the Malvinas doesn’t put an end to the sovereignty dispute over the islands, and only assures the perpetuation of the conflict between Great Britain and Argentina.

Dr. César Chelala is a winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award.

Dr. Cesar Chelala is a co-winner of the 1979 Overseas Press Club of America award for the article “Missing or Disappeared in Argentina: The Desperate Search for Thousands of Abducted Victims.”

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Russell Mokhiber
Sanders Single Payer and Death by Democrat
Roger Harris
The Triumph of Trump and the Specter of Fascism
Louis Proyect
Deepening Contradictions: Identity Politics and Steelworkers
Ralph Nader
Trump and His Betraying Makeover
Dan Bacher
WSPA: The West’s Most Powerful Corporate Lobbying Group
Nile Bowie
Will Trump backpedal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Ron Ridenour
Fidel’s Death Brings Forth Great and Sad Memories
Missy Comley Beattie
By Invitation Only
Fred Gardner
Sword of Damocles: Pot Partisans Fear Trump’s DOJ
Renee Parsons
Obama and Propornot
Dean Baker
Cash and Carrier: Trump and Pence Put on a Show
Jack Rasmus
Taming Trump: From Faux Left to Faux Right Populism
Ron Jacobs
Selling Racism—A Lesson From Pretoria
Julian Vigo
The Hijos of Buenos Aires:  When Identity is Political
Matthew Vernon Whalan
Obama’s Legacy
Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano
By Way of Prologue: On How We Arrived at the Watchtower and What We Saw from There
Aidan O'Brien
Fidel and Spain: A Tale of Right and Wrong
Carol Dansereau
Stop Groveling! How to Thwart Trump and Save the World
Kim Nicolini
Moonlight, The Movie
Evan Jones
Behind GE’s Takeover of Alstom Energy
James A Haught
White Evangelicals are Fading, Powerful, Baffling
Christopher Brauchli
Parallel Lives: Trump and Temer
Joseph Natoli
The Winds at Their Backs
Cesar Chelala
Poverty is Not Only an Ignored Word
David Swanson
75 Years of Pearl Harbor Lies
Nyla Ali Khan
When Faith is the Legacy of One’s Upbringing
Gilbert Mercier
Trump Win: Paradigm Shift or Status Quo?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Emma Jane Kirby’s “The Optician of Lampedusa”
December 01, 2016
Kenneth Surin
Life and Politics in Appalachia
David Swanson
Why Flag Burning Matters
Ray McGovern
Petraeus Redux?
John Wight
The Fierce Debate Over Castro’s Legacy
Jan Oberg
Orwell in Oslo: Nobel Institute Honors Kissinger (Again) and Brzezinski
RP Burnham
Egoism and Empathy in the Era of Neocons and Neoliberals
Blake Gentry
Fighting for Indigenous Rights: From the UN to Yaqui Territory and Standing Rock
Peter Lee
Chinese Catastrophism Collides with Trump Catastrophism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail