The Falkland/Malvinas case

The United Kingdom and Argentine are upholding a conflict about the status of a small group of islands in the South Atlantic since decades. Even the name of the islands, consisting of two large and several smaller ones, is contested. The British name is Falkland Islands while they are called las Malvinas in Argentine. Both the British and the Argentinian government claim the islands to be part of their territory. While Argentine sees them as an integral part of their Tierra del Fuego Province, Britain maintains their status as British dependent territory. The Argentinian claim is even included in transitional provisions of its constitution.

The contested islands look back at a changing history of rivaling claims. The British first landed on the islands in 1690. France claimed de facto control over the islands by founding a settlement in 1764. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht conceded control of the islands to Spain, which lead to the expulsion of French and British settlers from the islands by 1770. The Argentinians first claimed sovereignity over the islands in 1820 after it's independence from Spain. Argentina was still known as the United Provinces of the River Plate Since at that time. Since 1833 there is a fully fledged British colony on the islands. The population of the islands sees itself as British, but Argentine declines their claims for self-determination, stating that the original (Argentinian) population has been expelled by British colonists who thus do not have a genuine right to self-determination.

The conflicting claims from Britain and Argentine first led to real tensions during the Falklands War / Guerra de las Malvinas in 1982. The Argentinian military junta used the claim for the islands as a vent for the growing discontent of the population with the military government. These claims quickly culminated in an Argentinian invasion of the islands in 1982. Contrary to Argentinian expectations, the United Kingdom under Margret Thatcher reacted quickly and sent a naval force to retake the islands. The resulting conflict lasted 76 days and cost the lives of 1000 soldiers and a handful of civilians and ended with the British reposession of the islands. The loss of the islands led to the toppling of the military junta that had originally triggered the conflict to consolidate it's rule.

Argentinian claims for the islands have never since been secluded and have been renewed in 1994, 2009 and 2010. The recent discovery of oil in the sea around the islands has led to new tensions in February 2010. While British companies began preparing the extraction of the oil, supposed to start in 2011, Argentinian President Christina Kirchner declared that Argentine is taking control of all shipping between its coast and the islands in order to hamper the exploitation of the oil field. While there are voices in the international (especially the British) press, saying that President Kirchner is using the Argentinian claim for the islands as a vent for discontent with her government, just like the military junta in 1982, Argentinians are taking the claims as a serious issue of national identity.

A suitable first step to defuse the conflict would be an agreement between the British and Argentinian governments to exploit the oil fields in a joint operation and share the profits. Economical cooperation could then help to unravel the highly symbolical issues that have proctracted the conflict. A conflict between two of the largest and most important states of Europe and Latin America can be a monkey wrench thrown into the process of deeper cooperation between the two continents and it is questionable if a group of remote islands are really worth the price to pay.

A sign on the Argentinian side of its border with Brazil,
proclaiming the Argentinian claim for the islands

Germany's blind spot: Latin America

At the beginning of the year, I wrote a post about Europe's foreign policy vis-à-vis Latin America with hopes for a boost of the relationship due to the Spanish EU presidency. Unfortunately, near state bancruptcies in some European Member States, tragic earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and Turkey as well as a dispute about the creation of the new European foreign service have tied up the EU's resources and a real breakthrough for the EU-Latin American relations is not in sight.

Meanwhile, Latin America has once more underscored its objective of leaving the US-American 'backyard' and becoming an independent region having an important word in global relations with the founding of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CALC) in February 2010. The organization includes all Organization of the American States (OAS) members but USA and Canada, which is a clear signal towards more independence of the region.

Some Member States of the EU have understood that Latin America will be a key region in the future and have intensified their economic ties in the region instead of waiting for a coordinated EU approach towards Latin America. France winds up arms deals with Brasília, supplying a nuclear-powered submarine and probably Rafale fighters. At the same time Paris is courting Bolivia in order to gain access to the large Lithium deposits in the Uyuni salt lake. Non-EU states, like China, are pushing their economic relations with Latin America with even more force. China has become the number one trade partner of several countries in the region. Germany, on the other hand, has slept through most of the Latin American boom.

Companies from Spain, Portugal and Italy seized the moment when Brazil privatized its telecommunication market in the 90's and invested in the growing market that has gained considerable importance now. The Spanish Santander Consumer Bank is another good example for European companies that have seized their window of opportunity in Latin America. In Santander's rise to becoming a global player in the financial sector, it's early investments in the Brazilian banking sector play a crucial role. German companies did not even have a spectator role in all these developments, also a consequence of Germany's foreign policy that focused on India and China while practically ignoring Brazil. When Angela Merkel visited Brazil for the first and only time yet, she stayed for one and a half days, a bad joke considering the size of Brazil. Additionally it took the German government five months to name a new ambassador for Brazil. The downfall of German interests in Latin America is apparant, especially in comparison to the Interwar Years when 'Made in Germany' became a guarantee for quality in Latin America.

Against this background, it should be seen as a positive sign that Germany's new foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, has declared Latin America one of his main areas of interest. There is definetly enough ground to be recovered for German foreign policy in Latin America to keep a foreign minister busy for a term or two. As a kick-off visit for his new Latin America strategy he visited Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil for five days. Unfortunately, German media's discussion of Mr. Westerwelle's trip mostly focused on one issue: the composition of his fellow travelers. His companion, Michael Mronz, is already an inherent part of his travels abroad. In the case of Brazil, which will soon host the Olympics and the Soccer World Cup, German news media see a commingling of private and professional interests on part of Mr. Westerwelle since his significant other is an event manager. There are speculations that Mr. Mronz used the trip to meet potential business partners on-site. Other members of Westerwelle's business delegation have been linked to himself and his brother, leading to further accusations of Westerwelle not respecting the red lines of his office.
One can only hope that this political discussion will not be the only public reaction to the foreign ministers first trip to Latin America. After all there were five days of talks with high government representatives in Latin America. The results of these talks should receive their fair share of attention in the national media. This is important for fostering the ties between civil society representatives so important in contemporary foreign politics.