The UK has reiterated that its support for the Falkland Islands is “unwavering”, while Argentina has promised “winds of change” for the archipelago over which it claims sovereignty.
So what? Britain and Argentina’s positions are well-established. But Washington’s is increasingly mercurial. With that, Andy Burnham is up against
•
Javier Milei, the Argentine president, who is being pressured by poor approval ratings and a pro-military riv`al to take a more belligerent stance over the Falklands;
•
Donald Trump, the US president, who is potentially willing to give Milei a helping hand;
•
Labour’s fiscal rules, which make it exceedingly difficult to satisfy Trump.
Mine, no mine. John Strong, an English captain, made the first recorded landing on the Falklands in 1690. Although Britain claimed the islands in 1765, France founded a settlement there a year earlier. Spain also regarded the archipelago as its own due to papal decrees and a peace treaty.
More history. The Spanish bought the colony from the French in 1767, then expelled the British settlers. The settlers were allowed to return but the question of ownership was still disputed.
Fast forward. Spain and Britain both withdrew their settlements, which allowed a ship from a colony that later became Argentina to take possession of the islands. Argentina tried to establish a military base in 1832, but Britain reasserted its claim and set up an administration.
Fast forward again. Argentine forces invaded in 1982. They took control of the archipelago after 149 years of continuous British rule. A subsequent 10-week war killed 649 members of the Argentine military, 255 members of the British military, and three islanders. British forces, with US assistance, recaptured the Falklands.
And yet, Argentina never renounced its claim.
What each side says. Argentina’s position is that it inherited the Falklands, which are 300 miles from Argentina and 8,000 miles from Britain, when it became independent from Spain. Britain’s position is that what matters is what the 3,600-or-so Falkland Islanders want. In 2013, 99.8% voted in favour of remaining a British overseas territory.
Political football. But the strength of feeling in Argentina is such that after its men’s football team beat England in the World Cup semi-final this summer, two players unfurled a banner on the pitch. It read “Las Malvinas son Argentinas”, or “the Falklands are Argentinian”.
That’s what Milei thinks too. In a national broadcast last week, the Argentine president described islanders as an “implanted population in an usurped territory”. But Milei also has an economic interest. He has called the Sea Lion oilfield, 130 miles from the islands in the North Falkland Basin, a “clear and present danger” and has threatened to sanction the British firm and Israeli firm planning to extract oil from it. The oilfield holds an estimated 1.7bn barrels of oil.
Sign up to newsletters from The Observer
Clear, calm analysis on the stories driving the day’s news.
For information about how The Observer protects your data, read our Privacy Policy
Why he cares. Milei’s chainsaw approach to his economy, as well as a series of corruption scandals, has made him unpopular at home. Milei faces a presidential election next year and a formidable opponent in Victoria Villarruel, who has said that he is too conciliatory with Britain.
The game changer. Although the US has historically taken a neutral position on sovereignty over the archipelago, Donald Trump is a fan of Milei and suggested last week that he was reviewing his country’s support for the islands – just as he reviews “every position”.
What Trump wants. That would feel quite vague had Pentagon officials not also told the Telegraph that Washington could change its position if Britain didn’t meet its defence targets.
The problem is that John Healey, the UK chancellor, is considering postponing a commitment to devote 3% of GDP to defence spending by 2030.
What’s next? Britain has two options:
•
to play ball with Trump and try to find some money for defence spending, despite sky-rocketing borrowing costs and vanishing fiscal headroom; or
•
risk losing a symbolic ally over the Falklands and emboldening a country whose claim is already supported by China, Russia and Latin America.
Choosing option one would increase the chance of Burnham having to call an early election in an attempt to untangle himself from Keir Starmer’s spending commitments.
Choosing option two could prompt Argentina to try to leverage any shift in the US position at the UN, where it will have plenty of sympathisers.
What’s more… The good news is that Argentina is in a weaker position militarily than it was in 1982, so another invasion is unlikely. The bad news is that Burnham has to deal with this at all.
Photograph by AFP via Getty Images