The parallel reality story to justify the recent colonial relics is the policy the UK chooses for the Malvinas. The most recent example of this is Secretary Rutley’s statement to the Organization of American States.
Rutley began by referring to the 2013 referendum on the islands in which British citizens voted almost unanimously to remain a “British Overseas Territory”, a euphemism for the islands’ colonial status.
He noted that there were “observers” from six countries: unrepresentative persons and chosen by the United Kingdom. One of them was even dismissed the day before the referendum for daring to criticize him. Despite British propaganda efforts, the referendum did not change the legal status of the islands one iota.
The referendum was not organized, supervised or endorsed by the United Nations. In those cases where a referendum of self-determination was the way to end the colonial situation, it was the United Nations that made such a decision. Neither before nor since has the international community, properly, given its support to a self-satisfactory British referendum.
Ratley advances the main British argument: the alleged application of the principle of self-determination to the islanders. Once again he is exposed to a series of stark contrasts.
He says, “We have no doubts [Reino Unido] on the principle of self-determination.” Hides the main question: does it apply to the islanders?
He “forgot” that London had for many years denied the legal – and therefore, mandatory – nature of the principle of self-determination. She has only become aware of this character since the 1970s, when the process of independence for her former colonies was almost over and in order to use them to her advantage to perpetuate the last vestiges of their colonialism.
There was no “self-determination” when she expelled 2,000 Mauritians from the Chagos, and there was no “referendum of self-determination” when Thatcher returned Hong Kong to China, its rightful owner.
Nor was it interested in self-determination when London decided to unilaterally intervene in the democratically elected governments of Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands.
Ratley uses demonization and self-harm when he asserts that by not accepting self-determination of the islanders, for the Argentine government, “the islanders have no right to democracy.”
It is clear that they do and Argentina does not deny it. The question is the framework in which democracy is practiced, or does it deprive them of democracy when the British government denies the possibility of holding a second referendum in Scotland?
In its recent advisory opinion on the Chagoss, the Hague Court affirmed that the principle of peoples’ self-determination has no unambiguous application. For this reason, the General Assembly of the United Nations did not apply this principle to certain peoples, considering that they are not a “people” entitled to self-determination.
The United Nations has clearly established that the Malvinas case is a special and specific case of colonialism and has not applied this principle to the islanders. He said that the inapplicability arising from international law was not just Argentina. In the Malvinas, the victim of British colonial actions is the Argentine people, denied the freedom to define part of their territory.
Ratley wants to sell the image of Argentina imposing “sanctions” and mistreating the islanders. The fact is that the island elite has decided to prevent itself and it is the continental Argentines who are discriminated against: from the unwritten ban on the acquisition of land to the selection of labor from other countries, not counting the exclusion of trade with the continent. Argentina or direct flights with the mainland Argentine territory. The United Kingdom wants to exploit the resources without Argentina taking any action to preserve its natural rights and resources.
The fact that there is a minority that can plead several generations of ancestors on the islands since British occupation does not make them decide the dispute over sovereignty. Their existence is the product of the use of force by the main colonial power at that time in perfect peace against a young country, to deprive it of part of its lands, to expel its authorities and part of its population, and then populate it with settlers. Brought from the capital and control immigration policy.
Unlike other territorial disputes that were settled by treaty, Argentina never agreed to British expropriation. If the problem is pending after a long time, it is the UK’s responsibility.
The British actor ends with the well-known slogan: “The United Kingdom has no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.”
British archives show otherwise. London repeated the same axiom about Chagos, even after the International Court of Justice declared that his presence there was illegal and that he must withdraw.
If any Argentine government is willing to use all the tools that international law and international relations provide, sooner rather than later, it will prove that the United Kingdom is wrong here too and that it must forever comply with its international obligations.
Marcello Cohen is Professor Emeritus of International Law, Graduate Institute, Geneva. Facundo Rodriguez is a university professor of international law.
“Subtly charming bacon junkie. Infuriatingly humble beer trailblazer. Introvert. Evil reader. Hipster-friendly creator.”