Sebastian Perez

One of the most successful pieces of British framing around the Falklands/Malvinas dispute is the idea that Argentina claims the islands simply because “they are close to Argentina.” It is an easy way to ridicule the Argentine claim. And surprisingly, even many Argentines have bought into it. But proximity is not the basis of Argentina's claim. The actual case is historical, legal and much stronger than most people realize. 1. France created the first permanent settlement. In 1764, Louis-Antoine de Bougainville founded Port Louis and called the islands Îles Malouines, after Saint-Malo. That is where the Spanish name Malvinas comes from. 2. France then transferred its settlement to Spain. Spain protested the French occupation. France accepted the Spanish claim and in 1767 formally handed Port Louis over to Spain, which renamed it Puerto Soledad. Spain compensated Bougainville for the settlement and its installations; it wasn't simply France selling Britain—or anyone else—the islands. From then on, Spain maintained an administration there linked to Buenos Aires. 3. Britain did establish a rival base — but abandoned it. Britain secretly established Port Egmont in the western islands in 1766. Spain expelled the British in 1770. After a major diplomatic crisis, Port Egmont was temporarily restored to Britain in 1771. Then, in 1774, Britain withdrew its settlement. The British left a plaque maintaining their claim, so Britain argues today that it never renounced sovereignty. But the physical reality is important: Britain left, while Spain continued governing the islands from Puerto Soledad for decades. 4. Spain governed the islands from Buenos Aires until 1811. Spanish governors administered Puerto Soledad successively until Spain withdrew its garrison during the wars that followed the May Revolution. The islands were not handed to Britain. This matters because Argentina's claim is based partly on state succession: the United Provinces claimed the former Spanish territories administered from the Río de la Plata after independence. (Argentina) 5. Argentina didn't suddenly invent a claim in the 20th century. In 1820, David Jewett formally took possession of the islands for the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. The event was public and was reported abroad. Argentina subsequently regulated fishing and sealing, established a settlement and in 1829 created the Political and Military Commandancy of the Malvinas, appointing Luis Vernet. (Argentina) This was years before the British takeover. 6. Britain returned in 1833 and removed the Argentine authorities. HMS Clio arrived at Puerto Soledad and demanded that the Argentine flag be lowered and that the Argentine military authorities leave. Argentina was not at war with Britain. The Argentine garrison withdrew under British pressure and Britain took control. Britain describes this as the reassertion of its earlier sovereignty claim. Argentina describes it as the forcible occupation of territory it was already administering. That disagreement is the heart of the dispute. 7. Argentina protested almost immediately. The idea that Argentina simply remembered the islands decades later is also false. Buenos Aires protested the British action in 1833 and subsequently maintained the sovereignty claim through repeated diplomatic protests. 8. And the sovereignty dispute is internationally recognized. In 1965, UN General Assembly Resolution 2065 formally recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and called on both governments to negotiate a peaceful solution. That does not mean the UN recognized Argentine sovereignty. But it also means the international framework is not simply “they are British and Argentina wants them because they are nearby.” There is an unresolved sovereignty dispute. The UK today bases much of its position on the self-determination of the islanders. Argentina argues that the interests and way of life of the inhabitants must be protected, but that a territorial dispute created by the displacement of Argentine authority in 1833 cannot be settled solely by the wishes of the population subsequently established under British rule. You can agree with the British legal arguments or with the Argentine ones. But reducing Argentina's claim to “those islands are close to us, therefore they're ours” is historically absurd. Argentina's case rests on a chain of arguments: Spanish title → French withdrawal in favor of Spain → Spanish administration from Buenos Aires → succession by the United Provinces → Argentine possession and administration → British intervention in 1833 → immediate and continuing Argentine protest. That's why the dispute still exists. And that's a very different story from the caricature most people have been told.