The Problem of the Falklands

Twenty-eight years after the war and the sovereignty of the Falklands islands remains in dispute.

A British oil tanker bound for the islands has reignited tensions between the two countries over the small piece of land off the coast of Argentina. While the islands have been legally recognized as British territory since the U.K. won the 1982 war, Argentina claims that it is the rightful sovereign of the islands, and thus the potentially substantial oil reserves surrounding the islands which Britain has claimed.

In response to the British's action, the Argentinian government has called for a blockade of the islands to prevent the tanker from docking in the Falklands.

While there was been little thought given to the islands for some time in Britain, the status of the islands remains a pressing issue in Argentinian politics as Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner struggles to unite the country behind her government. The islands are seen as an opportunity for her government to gain popular support for next year's elections, with polls claiming that she is losing popularity as a result of her country's dire economic situation.

While the Argentinians' claims aren't entirely just, I still feel that they have a more viable claim over the islands than the Brits. Besides Argentina's close proximity to the islands (380 km, compared with 9,000 for Britain) and their shared language, Britain's claim of sovereignty seems based on nothing other than the fact that it was the legal owner of the land before the Argentinians invaded. While this argument might seem justified, the Brits (as well as the French, the Americans, the Portuguese, the Spanish, etc.) all gave the same excuse when confronted with their blatant exploitation of past colonies. Britain's continued control over this relatively unimportant piece of real estate seems to be motivated by nothing other than an outdated reluctance to accept Britain's place as a less-than-superpower in world politics.

When its motivation for holding on to a colony amounts to no more than a simple desire for said colony's resources than little can be said in favor of the colonizer.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7031163.ece