Abroad Thoughts from Home
The Long and Inescapable Shadow of Colonialism:
Ian Townsend-Gault (I have touched on post-colonial themes in previous
contributions to IZ. Following discussions with the editor, this is
the first in an irregular series of articles which will examine these
threads of international discourse as and when they arise.) One of the hazards of writing a paper such as this
is that just when the writer thinks he is finished and is about to submit,
something else comes along which simply cannot be ignored and must therefore
be included. This paper was not prompted by the 30th anniversary
of the ousting of the Argentinean forces which invaded the Falkland
Islands in 1982. Nor was it the 2012 decision by the government of the
Islands to hold a referendum on their future in 2013, a move denounced
by Argentina as "illegal", though on what grounds is not immediately
clear. The 30th anniversary was followed by the deployment
of Prince William to the Royal Air Force search and rescue detachment
there, and the movement of units of the Royal Navy into the region,
prompting a protest from Buenos Aries that Britain was "militarizing"
the area, but this was not decisive either. Rather, credit prompting
what follows must be given to President Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina
who reignited, forcefully, the debate concerning sovereignty over the
islands early in 2013. The British government reiterated its position to
the effect that it was for the inhabitants of the islands to determine
their own future. Britain's largest selling newspaper, The Sun, took
out advertisements in Spanish and English in leading Argentinean papers
refuting every aspect of the claim made by Buenos Aries, and suggesting
that a "hands-off" policy was its only option.1 Heady stuff, but more was to come. The release of
Cabinet papers pertaining to the options open to the British government
of the day under Margaret and, subsequently, Lady Thatcher, showed that
the united front presented by London at the time was something of a
façade. There was no shortage of those in the cabinet suggesting that
it was fait accompli on the part
of Argentina, and the only question was how to compensate or otherwise
make it up to dispossessed Islanders. None of this was known to the
British public at the time. It should also be said that the military
advice was resolute and uncompromising - send a task force and expel
the invaders. This was duly done, amidst much rejoicing in London and
the fury of the people of Argentina. The result forced the resignation
of the ghastly military dictatorship which had ruled the country for
some years, during which it had committed human rights abuses of the
most appalling nature. This in turn led to the restoration of democratic
government. And then, in April 2013, came the death of Lady Thatcher,
prompting no end of evaluations and re-evaluations of her foreign and
domestic policies (as well as yet more revelations as to who advised
what course of action), not least those concerning the Falkland Islands.
It is at this point that your writer decided that a line had to be drawn
and the paper finished once and for all. Accordingly, I offer here some thoughts on the dispute
between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands,
and I will also touch on a number of other items of not dissimilar international
"unfinished business". It just so happens that, when I started work
on this paper, I was in my parents' house sorting out the books
of my late father, Robert Hugh Gault, which include a sizeable collection
of novels concerning the exploits of the Royal Navy during World War
II. I was flicking through one which had escaped my attention when I
was living in the family home which charts the life and death of a ship
from construction in 1938 to destruction a few years later. Before the
outbreak of the war, the vessel sailed the Atlantic, and happened to
visit the Falklands. From there it proceeded to Buenos Aries, where
the officers remarked over the drinks in the wardroom that their counterparts
in the Argentine Navy were not likely to let them forget their country's
claim to the Islas Malvinas (there was also a joking reference to the
fact that there was an Argentinean governor of the islands, necessarily
resident in Buenos Aries, and probably with a fair amount of time on
his hands). The novel was published in 1955, and was based on the experiences
of serving officers, and it is surely instructive to note that the dispute
over the Falklands/Malvinas was something of a thorn in Anglo/Argentine
relations decades ago. Finally, as a sort of postscript, a note concerning
new tensions over Gibraltar which arose between Britain and Spain in
the summer of 2013. It is relevant in the present context because "The
Rock", under British sovereignty since 1713 but physically attached
to Spain, has long been claimed by that country. The citizens of Gibraltar,
like the Falkland Islanders, consider that their own wishes are more
important, and are adamantly opposed to any change in the jurisdictional status quo. Argentina - UK: What's
It All About? President Fernandez de Kirchner decries what she
terms continuing British colonialism: Prime Minister Cameron responds
using the language of self-determination. Argentina claims that it was
in full occupation of the islands until ousted by Britain in the late
19th century.2 The United Kingdom denies that Argentina ever "occupied"
the Islands, meaning that there was never an established population
(as opposed to a garrison) there. At all events, the population of the
Falklands regards their islands as home: a good number are second or
even third generation, so this is hardly surprising. Those speaking
for the government of the Islands deny that they are a colony as, for
example, is the case with French Polynesia. There is no "independence"
movement precisely because the Islanders consider themselves to be self-governing
and self-sufficient as regards everything except defence. They are a
British "overseas territory", and not a colony. Accordingly, in
their view, the language of "de-colonialisation" is completely inappropriate.
Union with or rule by Argentina is not what they want. There are also those both on the Islands and in London
that suggest that the President's recent initiative is sponsored by
the same considerations that led to the Argentine invasion of 1982 -
a convenient distraction from domestic problems (in this connection,
see the Gibraltar postscript). Indeed, there are suggestions that some
young Argentineans would prefer more attention to be focused on the
daily challenges they face than the pursuit of a policy which appears
to be going nowhere. But even if the current Argentinean policy has
little chance of success in the short or medium term (and the majority
Islanders would say the long-term also), the dispute, as is so often
the way where issues of sovereignty are concerned, has a deleterious
impact somewhat out of proportion to its true importance. Cruise-ships
that call at the Falklands are not welcome in Argentinean ports. Other
South American countries have dutifully lined up behind their neighbour,
but there are signs that they too are somewhat tired of the whole business
- there are more important matters to claim their attention.
According to at least one informed commentator, there is a feeling on
their part that Argentina, by no means for the first time, is putting
its interests ahead of those of other regional countries with little
or no thought for the impact upon them. In this brief paper I will summarize the contending
positions, and consider the international legal implications of age,
and then advance some tentative suggestions for how to move forward,
should the political will exist for a degree of compromise. The Historical Record There was a very good example of this in February
2013, when a group of Philippine private citizens "invaded"
the Malaysian province of Sabah on the island of Borneo, in an attempt
to enforce an historic claim over it which, in theory, exists to this
day. This action was a grave embarrassment to Manila and of course had
no chance whatsoever of success. There are most likely those in the
government of the Philippines who know that the historic claim has no
chance of success either; it is just that they cannot possibly say so
without being accused of treason, or something to this effect. The fact
that there is no apparent way out of this situation will have a number
of important consequences, not least impeding the possibility of establishing
a maritime boundary between Malaysia and the Philippines for some time
to come. The most recent elucidation of the Argentinean claim
to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands was set forth in a letter from
President Fernandez de Kirchner addressed to Prime Minister Cameron
in early 2013. In it, the president claims that an indigenous Argentinean
population was ousted by British military action in 1876. This ejection
was clearly illegal, and it follows that every manifestation of sovereignty
by the United Kingdom over the Islands is similarly tainted, and the
only solution is to restore to Argentina what is rightfully its own. The informed expert I referred to above is Prof.
Klaus Dodds of Royal Holloway College in London. In an interview with
the BBC World Service, Professor Dodds refuted the notion that there
was a "population" in the accepted sense of the term to be expelled.
Rather, there was an Argentinean garrison which was seen off by British
force of arms. At the time, the use of force was a perfectly legitimate
way of establishing a claim to territory. If we were to rewind the spool
of historical memory (and we would not necessarily stop at the date
on which Britain took possession of the Falklands - why would we?),
and try to right old historical wrongs, the result would be geopolitical
chaos worldwide. To take a notable South American example, the outcome
of the War of the Pacific (1878-84) between Bolivia, Peru and Chile
would be reversed, at least to some extent, thus restoring the former's
access to the sea which was lost when it ceded its coast to the latter
by treaty in 1884 (confirmed by a further agreement in 1904). And indeed,
in April 2013, Bolivia commenced an action against Chile before the
International Court of Justice asking for the "sovereign access"
to the Pacific to be restored.3 In May 2013, some Chinese voices were raised to
point out that the (currently Japanese) island of Okinawa and adjacent
features were once Chinese territory, although a senior officer of the
Peoples' Liberation Army has since downplayed this notion. One could
go on - and on - but surely the point is made. Since the establishment
of the United Nations, international law looks with some disfavour on
the acquisition of territory in any way other than peaceful means and
with the consent of any population that might be affected. But we cannot
apply contemporary legal norms, very much the product of modern political
and juridical thinking, to events which took place more than a century
ago. This then raises the issue of colonialisation, much
deplored by modern political and juridical thought. One of the major
contributions made by the United Nations to the process of de-colonialisation
is the Declaration in 1960 on what amounts to self determination. But
what if the population of the colony or dependant territory does not
desire independence, as is demonstrably the case with the Falkland Islanders?4 When the referendum was first proposed, there were
rumblings casting doubt on the legality of such a move. How could it
possibly be illegal for the inhabitants of a territory to use the democratic
process to declare their wishes as to the form of government they wish
to live under? The answer is, surely, that this can never be unlawful.
Indeed, the Falklanders have been able to give their view on their political
future in a way denied to the populations of the vast majority of territories
which became independent in the years following the end of the Second
World War. For example, no-one consulted the population of the Dutch
East Indies as to whether or not they wanted to be unified in the new
state of Indonesia. There is one other issue regarding colonialisation
which surely demand some attention. The greater part of the indigenous
population of the Americas, North and South, regard themselves as being
subject to colonialisation by Europeans and others to this day. What,
after all, is Argentina? It is a state established on Westphalian principles
governed for the most part by the descendents of the original colonists.
Comparatively few non-indigenous people in the Americas think of themselves
in this way. To a Canadian born in Canada to parents also born in Canada,
this is home. The present-day descendents of Dutch settlers in South
Africa, their counterparts in other parts of Africa, not to mention
Australia, New Zealand, and North America, who can trace the point when
their ancestors arrived from the "old country" are similarly situated.
I was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland. My paternal grandfather was
born in Scotland, and it is entirely possible if not probable that at
least some other of my ancestors came originally from one part of the
United Kingdom or another. But what is that to me? Why would such considerations
possibly suggest to me that I was anything other than Irish (in one
way or another, it has to be said). In retrospect, it must surely be clear to all dispassionate
observers that the Argentinean invasion of 1982 was a blunder of mammoth
proportions, just as the campaign of violence both in Northern Ireland
and the British mainland undertaken by the Irish Republican Army set
back the cause of Irish unification for the foreseeable future, despite
the progress of the past decade. Up until the Argentinean invasion,
there was a strong view in London that the future of the Falkland Islands
lay in some sort of union with Argentina. The only question was how
to bring this about in a way satisfactory to all sides. There is no
doubt that the military dictatorship in Buenos Aries - the regime guilty
of the most appalling human rights abuses, let it not be forgot -
launched the invasion as a means of trying to establish some degree
of popularity. And in this it was totally successful. General Galtieri,
its leader, and his colleagues basked in the adulation of huge crowds
(which were to turn extremely nasty when triumph turned to fiasco some
months later). The response from London was a demand for an immediate
withdrawal. The administration of President Ronald Reagan attempted
to exercise its good offices, but to no avail. The British government
set a deadline for the departure of the Argentinean forces, and when
this ignored, launched a task force of various units of the Armed Forces
of the Crown to recapture the lost territories. The public message at
the time was one of resolution and determination. But in February and
March 2013, various papers pertaining to the situation and the British
government's reaction to it came to light which show a somewhat different
picture. For one thing, the Cabinet was concerned as to whether military
action had any chance of success, and there were those who doubted that
it did. Most revealing of all are papers released from the private archive
of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (held at Churchill College,
Cambridge), which include letters from prominent members of her Conservative
party advocating acceptance of what had happened, with one member of
Parliament even suggesting that military action to retake the Falklands
would make the ill-fated operation to recover the Suez Canal in 1956
seem like "common sense" by comparison. There were also documents
attesting to the private anguish felt by the "Iron Lady" in
sending at least some British serviceman to death and injury, and reveal
her deep distress as the casualty figures mounted. This hardly accords
with her public image at the time or subsequently. The success of the Task Force in retaking the Islands
led - most happily - to the downfall of the appalling
regime in Buenos Aries, and its replacement by a democratically elected
government. President Fernandez de Kirchner is the latest beneficiary
of these developments, but it must be said that recent pronouncements
have done little to reconcile the inhabitants of the Falklands Islands
to the prospect of Argentinean rule. The Self Determination Argument Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples5
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation,
domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human
rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment
to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination;
by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status
and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. ... 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all
kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable
them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence,
and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected. The 1960 Declaration of the General Assembly was
adopted at a time when the process of decolonialisation was already
underway. The British monarch was no longer Emperor or Empress of India,
France had recognized the inevitability of the breakup of its colonies
in Indochina, and the Netherlands likewise in what had become Indonesia.
In February 1961, the British prime minister of the day, Harold MacMillan,
made his famous "wind of change" speech to the South African Parliament,
urging its members to accept the fact that nationalism in the continent
was here to stay whether anyone liked it or not.6
One of the most intriguing features of post war decolonialisation
was the fact that there were very few cases of a reversion to the status
quo ante. Indochina, indeed, furnishes one of the few examples where
this happened. Vietnam had (more or less) acquired its current borders
by the mid-18th century, and the French did their best to
fix the territorial boundaries of Cambodia and Laos with their neighbours
(a very alien concept to the latter). Those countries therefore re-emerged
from the colonial experience only for Vietnam to be divided in two by
a conference of the great powers which met in Geneva in 1954 (largely
for the purpose of bringing an end to the Korean conflict).7 But pre-colonial Indonesia, or India, if it comes
to that, did not exist as such. The emergence of collections of sultanates,
principalities, and the like in the guise of a Westphalian state was
something new. Those who led the struggle for independence had much
to do with this. There is no doubt that the first president of Indonesia,
Sukarno, relished the idea of a single state with himself at the helm.
The same might be said of Nehru in India, and indeed independence leaders
of Africa. It is very instructive to compare a tribal map of Africa
with the current geopolitical arrangements - the two are wholly dissimilar.
Having said this, there is no doubt that the, then, existing members
of the international community regarded the emergence of these new states
with everything from acquiescence to enthusiasm. One of the intriguing questions which arises from
a perusal of the opening provisions of the 1960 Declaration is the definition
of "peoples." I would suggest that the term could be used to describe
a population group which self identifies as a "people". It comes
as no surprise to think of the Scots or the Welsh in this way, but certainly
a majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland did likewise. They
thought, and continue to think, that they may be ethnically Irish (and
many would dispute even that) and politically British. They do not think
of themselves as having any necessary kinship with the inhabitants of
the Republic of Ireland (the late Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien posited
in his study States of Ireland that
these views were reciprocated by not a few inhabitants of the 26 counties).8
In This Issue
Geopolitical Tales III
Rockall Revisited There can surely be no doubt whatsoever that the
vast majority of the inhabitants of the Falklands Islands self identify
as politically British, but primarily as Falkland Islanders. As I said
above, no matter where one's grandparents came from, it does not take
long for the members of a family to feel close adherence to the country
where they are resident (especially if a number of them were born there),
without in any way wishing to abandon their cultural heritage if they
so choose. Countries such as Canada encourage this, although I have
been struck by the fact that a number of first-generation Canadians
whose parents were born elsewhere were encouraged to speak one or both
of Canada's official languages and forget the mother tongue of their
grandparents and even parents, the better to "fit in". This brings the argument back to the point continually
made by London not only with respect to the future of the Falklands
Islands, but also Northern Ireland and indeed Gibraltar: there can be
no change in political arrangements without the consent of the inhabitants
of these territories. The Islanders argue that they are not so much
a colony as a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, and point to
the fact that defence aside, they are wholly self-sufficient and in
good financial shape with yearly surpluses and money in the bank. Indeed,
the islands generate a significantly large exclusive economic zone with
a most productive fishery, and if the optimistic estimates of oil and
gas deposits in the continental shelf are borne out, then their financial
situation is set to become better still.9
None of this, of course, is lost on Argentina. However,
after the conflict of the early 1980s was over, Britain and Argentina
entered into agreements on maritime cooperation including fisheries
and oil and gas exploration and production.10 Argentina, however, withdrew from these agreements,
and it is somewhat difficult to see what it got in return. Be all this
as it may, the 1960 Declaration seems to offer something that the Islanders
do not want, and surely it is their right to do so (the inhabitants
of Gibraltar are in exactly the same situation). One could go further
and suggest that if the English-speaking Falklands' Islanders were
to come under the rule of Argentina, might this not be a form of colonialisation?
The Islanders, by all accounts, regard Argentina as an alien land, speaking
a language which is not theirs. At the end of the day, it is very difficult
to think of an argument which trumps the wishes of the inhabitants.
It seems to me totally irrelevant that all of them can trace their roots
to somewhere else if one were to go back far enough. In this day and
age, can it be even remotely relevant that an inhabitant of Northern
Ireland can trace her or his roots to the Plantation of Ulster (encouraging
Scots from across the Irish Sea and to take up permanent residence),
the policy pursued at the time of James I in the early decades of the
17th century, some 400 years ago? And why would we stop there?
What of the vast disproportion between indigenous and non-indigenous
peoples of the Americas? What of the fact that significant parts of
Europe changing radically during the course of the 20th century?
The Peace Conference at Versailles in 1919 resurrected some states which
had effectively disappeared (such as Poland), and created others (such
as Yugoslavia).11 In an enthralling study, Vanished Kingdoms,12 Professor Norman Davies traces the history of numerous
European polities, some powerful and some otherwise, but which are either
no more, or exist in a very different form from that originally envisaged.
Reference has already been made to Bolivia's decades' long struggle
to regain its lost coastline, not to mention musings on the future of
Okinawa and neighbouring islands. There are sound reasons for the presumption
at international law to the effect that international boundaries are
more or less set in stone. The alternative is a state of continual chaos
and uncertainty. Where Next? By the same token, generation after generation of
Falkland Islanders will have been taught that they are British, and
Argentina represents a threat to their chosen way of life. As regards
their counterparts in the United Kingdom, the invasion of 1982 might
well be the first time a good many Britons had even heard of the existence
of this distant territory, and it would be interesting to know to what
extent the conflict has remained in the consciousness of the average
citizen. The point is that attitudes towards sovereignty over
these islands are very firmly entrenched, and it will take enormous
efforts of diplomacy, not to say public education, to create a climate
in which some sort of forward momentum leading to an acceptable modus operandi, if not
the absolute resolution of the dispute, will be possible. If it is true
that the current inhabitants of the Falklands are, or other descendants
of the first true settlers of the islands, the closest it has had to
an indigenous or embedded population then elementary principles of democracy
would suggest that their voice must be heard over all others in determining
the political future of this contested territory. The course of history
has had results which one could term unfair, unjust, or anomalous. That
in and of itself does not appear to be a good reason to go against the
clearly expressed wish of the people as it did in Kosovo, Timor Leste
and South Sudan. Is this not the very stuff of democracy? Post-script: Gibraltar - Spain
and the United Kingdom Square Off Again The compatibility of these actual and proposed measures
with European Law is very much open to question [they certainly seem
to contravene the spirit of the notion of the free movement of persons,
one of the essential Four Freedoms underpinning the European Union],
and the government of the territory intends to take the matter up with
Brussels. For its part, the government in Madrid has suggested that
the time has arrived to settle the issue of sovereignty once and for
all and, needless to say, in its favour. The response from London mirrors
that sent to Argentina and the world with regard to the Falkland Islands,
just as it did with Northern Ireland: no change in the status quo without the
consent of those most directly affected - the population of the territory
in question. The point has already been made that this population has
expressed its views on this subject with absolute clarity. One cannot help wonder if, as has been suggested
is the case with Argentina, the timing of the actions of the Spanish
government have as much to do with the parlous state of its economy
as anything else. This is not to doubt that Madrid has long seen British
sovereignty over Gibraltar as a historical anomaly, if not an absolute
affront. Final Thoughts Endnotes 1 The Sun supported the British military action to retake the
Falklands to the hilt. It saluted the destruction of the Argentinean
light cruiser "General Belgrano" on May 2nd 1982 by the
Royal Navy with the immortal headline "Gotcha!", which might be
thought to be a somewhat unseemly way of marking the violent death of
more than 300 people (some 700 survivors were rescued). This incident
was and is highly controversial, because the Belgrano was steaming out of
the British-imposed Exclusion Zone around the Islands at the time
it was attacked. As General Sherman aptly remarked, "War is Hell".
Once hostilities ceased, the Sun gave credit where credit was due "You
Owe it all to The Sun!". No doubt the British servicemen
on the Islands had other ideas. 2
The fact that a number of other European countries had knowledge of
the islands was overlooked - France had a settlement there before
Spain came into the picture. 3
Meaning access as of right, as opposed to relying on the grace and favour
of Chile. See the International Court of Justice Press Release No. 2013/11,
April 24, 2013, accessible on the website of the court: www.icj-cij.org. 4 Nor was it the case with the colonies of British North America
in 1867 - the Constitution Act of that year established Canada as
a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire: full independence was
the last thing the colonial leaders wanted - see Richard Gwyn, John A.
- The Man Who Made Us, vol. 1, esp. Ch. 19 et seq. In other words, not all colonies or dependent territories
desire independence. On one of the writers first visits to Brunei, a
senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that some of
his country - including himself - regretted the British withdrawal
and forcing statehood on whether they wanted it or not: "we saw
things were going pretty well as they were," was the phrase he
used if I remember correctly. 5
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. 6
India, Pakistan and Burma were independent by this time. Nigeria, British
Somaliland and Southern Cameroon became independent in 1960 and the
de-colonialisation of French North Africa started in the same year:
Malaya and Singapore (plus the Borneo colonies of Sabah and Sarawak)
formed Malaysia in 1963. MacMillan called the first in of his six-volume
autobiography "Winds of Change", but it covers only the years from
1914-1939. 7 The
victory of the Viet Minh forces under General Vo Nguyen Giap at Dien
Bien Phu was announced as the conference was under way, and with it
France's decision to face the reality of the situation and withdraw
from Vietnam. This immediately prompted fears in Western countries that
a communist state would emerge. The major powers - the United States,
the Soviet Union, China [meaning Beijing], the United Kingdom and France
imposed this division, thereby creating "South Vietnam" and "North
Vietnam" as a temporary expedient, the results of which we are only
too well aware. The Vietnamese people, needless to say, were not consulted,
and Ho Chi Minh assented to the arrangement after much arm twisting
by his two communist allies. The reason excellent account of the diplomatic
travails affecting Vietnam in Lloyd C. Gardner, Approaching Vietnam: From World War II through Dienbienphu,
Norton, 1988. 8 Connor Cruise O'Brien, States of Ireland, London,
Hutchison Radius, 1972. "The Cruiser" (1917-2008) was an Irish
writer, politician, journalist, academic and (somewhat rambunctious)
public intellectual: he held office when his Irish Labor Party entered
into a coalition with Fine Gael. He subsequently became editor of The
Observer. But in his early life he worked with the UN Secretariat, especially
as the representative of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld at the
time of the Katanga Crisis. Belgium decided to grant the Congo its independence
in 1960. But in 1961, the mineral-rich province of Katanga attempted
to secede from the new state, probably at the urging of Belgian and
other foreign mining interests. Mercenaries were brought in, and it
became necessary to insert a UN Peacekeeping Force to prevent bloodshed
and the secession. This Force was blamed for a number of human rights
abuses which may or may not have taken place: the Western media was
firmly on the side of the Katangans. Hammarskjöld lost his life in
a plane crash in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) in 1961, the causes
of which have never been properly explained (but are now being reexamined
as of September 2013). O'Brien went on to write a memoir, To Katanga and Back: A UN Case
History (London, Hutchinson, 1962), and a play based on his experiences. 9
Further details on these and many other matters can be found on the
website of the Government of the Falkland Islands: www.falklands.gov.fk/. 10
See for example the UK-Argentina Joint Declaration on Co-operation over Offshore Activities
in the South West Atlantic (reprinted in the International Journal
of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol.11, No.1, Kluwer International, 1996).
All agreements were entered into "without prejudice" to the competing
claims of sovereignty, meaning that they did not affect the respective
positions of the two states one way or the other. This is a common device
in international law where parties enter into an agreement despite a
serious dispute. 11 The
machinations that led to these and other tamperings with the map of
Europe are detailed excellently in Margaret McMillan's invaluable Paris
1919: Six Months that Changed the World (published as The Peacemakers in the United Kingdom), 2001. The book inspired
a "docu-drama" of the same name. 12
Norman Davies, Vanished Kingdoms: the History of Half-Forgotten Europe, Allen
Lane, 2011 (Penguin paperback edition 2012). 13
The Treaty was part of a larger settlement known as the Peace of Utrecht
(all concluded in 1713), which brought an end to the War of Spanish
Succession. Canadian readers might be interested to know that its provisions
included the French renunciation of its claim to the island of Newfoundland
and the cession of its colony of Acadia, both in favour of Britain,
and surrendering Rupert's Land to the Hudson Bay Company. The Treaty
also put a (temporary) halt to French expansionist ambitions in Europe
itself.
Ian Townsend-Gault
Director of the Centre for Asian Legal Studies
Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
The Latest Falklands Furore
2012 marks the 30th anniversary of the
successful British mission to oust the armed forces of Argentina which
had invaded the Islands in 1982. President Fernandez de Kirchner marked
the anniversary by resuming her government's offensive to attempt
to secure recognition of Argentina's claim to sovereignty by diplomatic
means as opposed to force of arms. British Prime Minister David Cameron
responded in the same terms as his predecessors: it is for the Islanders
themselves to determine their future. And so the inhabitants of the
Islands, somewhat unimpressed by what they were hearing from Buenos
Aries, held a referendum in March 2013 which, to the surprise of none,
was overwhelmingly in favour of the status quo.
Contested histories are the stuff of conflict. There
is nothing new in a country massaging its past for the ostensible benefit
of its people. And while the histories of almost all parts of the world
are replete with examples of human vileness in all its manifestations,
with countries or parts thereof seething with resentment of past wrongs,
real or imagined, few factors are as powerful as that of irredentism.
Briefly, this is the desire to recapture territory once lost. It does
not matter how long ago sovereignty was exercised, or briefly: the notion
that "this was once ours" is incredibly powerful and has the
unique potential to cast a baleful shadow over present-day policies.
Consider the following:
The Shade of Colonialism (I): The Latest Falklands Furore
Ian Townsend-Gault
An Introduction to Geopolitical Tales III
Mladen Klemenčić and Clive Schofield
Running and Geopolitics: The Pleasures of Fieldwork
John O'Loughlin
Borders in the South Caucasus: Reflections of an Eyewitness
Revaz Gachechiladze
How have I become European?
Anton Gosar
Clive Schofield
This dispute, as has been said at the outset, has
been in progress for decades. During that time, generation after generation
of Argentinean schoolchildren will have learned of the grave injustice
perpetrated by Britain with respect to the Islas Malvinas. One can quite
imagine much being said on the subject of British arrogance, intransigence,
and so forth. Attempting to be as objective as possible, it seems clear
that the historical record espoused by Argentina has been crafted with
a view to serving to support its own case, as opposed to regard for
strict factual accuracy. But we tend to believe what we are taught,
particularly where issues of sovereignty and national honour are, or
appear to be, at stake.
As this paper [finally] approaches completion, news
comes that the new right-of-center government of Spain intends to
reopen yet another holdover of the British colonial legacy - sovereignty
over Gibraltar. The territory was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity"
by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713.13 In July 2013, the Spanish authorities instituted
"rigorous" checks of cars crossing the border from the territory
to their country, causing massive delays. More recently, there has been
talk of instituting a crossing fee of €50, which would spell a measure
of financial hardship for those who live in Spain and cross the border
to work on "the Rock".
History has thrown up territorial anomalies innumerable
- or what outsiders take to be oddities, but which are anything
but to those involved. Spain retains possessions in Morocco, for example.
The Russian territory of Kalingrad, on the Baltic, is nowhere near the
motherland. Are not Monaco and Liechtenstein oddities in the geo-political
climate of the 21st century? But what does this matter? In
the final analysis, one should perhaps focus less on untidiness and
remember that people are living in these "anomalies", irritating
as this fact may be. For them, it is home. At the end of the day, surely
basic concepts of human rights come into play here, trumping the wishes
of governments (and their peoples) to impose their will on an unwilling
population.