With the discovery of oil and gas deposits near the Falkland Islands, a conflict between UK and Argentina would be perceived as a war to uphold the rights of UK companies, rather than islanders’ self-determination, political analyst John Wight told RT.
READ MORE:
British firms discover oil and gas off Falklands, Argentina
threatens legal action
RT: What does this discovery potentially
mean for the UK? In your opinion is it a pot of gold or is it
not?
John Wight: Well it could conceivably be both.
Certainly economically it is pot of gold. But politically it
gives UK a lot of problems, because this dispute is not going to
go away. Argentina’s claim to the islands is a long standing one.
They certainly have a moral claim to the islands. They certainly
have geographical claim to these islands.
And it is an argument dating back to anti-colonialism. The fact
that these islands with 3,000 islanders who demand to remain
British citizens, the idea that they can veto the relations
between the UK and Argentina, that they can impede relations
between the Argentina and the UK is unconscionable.
And it seems to be that there will have to be some sort of a
resolution. I think a joint-sovereignty is the way ahead. But the
present situation is clearly unsustainable.
Having said that, arguments around the self-determination and the
rights of these islanders to self-determination are but a smoke
screen. This is about the economics. It is about the oil and gas
in these waters. And that is what is sustaining the British
government’s objective stance going forward.
RT: Where would Argentina stand legally over
the oil find? Would it have a good case to challenge?
JW: Well it is difficult to say. They are
obviously going to bring their case to the UN. Up to this point
the US has supported Britain, although I would suggest
reluctantly. But Argentina has the backing of the entire
continent of South America. And that has to add some political
weight. So it is difficult to see how any of such ruling could be
enforced, even if it were to be passed. But it certainly raises
the political pressure on the British government which up to now
has proved unwilling to reconcile the issue with the Argentinians
in a way that is suggested of a sophisticated democracy.
The Falkland Islands stand as a legacy of the economic piracy
that underpinned the British empire. And in the year 2015 it is
ridiculous that 3,000 islanders who demand to be British can
continue to hold on to territory that is 300 miles from the coast
of Argentina and 8,000 miles from the United Kingdom.
If they want to be British, why not repatriate them to Britain.
After all where else better to be if you want to be British, then
in Britain itself.
READ
MORE: UK spied on Argentina over alleged new attempt to take
Falklands – Snowden leak
RT: Well there is another factor that could
be at play here which is a military one. Last week the UK has
increased its military spending for the islands, citing the
threat from Argentina. Does it justify spending millions more by
the UK?
JW: From an economic standpoint – yes. There are
billions of pounds worth of oil and gas known to be in the seas
off the shores of the Falkland Islands. But I don’t think the
British public opinion will accept the possibility, the prospect
of Britain going into another war, that the idea of young men up
and down the UK would go to war 8,000 miles away. Because that
would…evidently be a war not for self-determination, not to
uphold the rise of those islanders to self-determination, but to
uphold the right of British oil and gas companies to extract
multi-billion pounds worth of oil and gas 8,000 miles away. It is
unsustainable.