Argentina: Oil behind British militarist threats over Malvinas

February 11, 2012
Issue 

The article below has been translated by Federico Fuentes. It first appeared in the Latin America-wide magazine America XXI

* * *

“We support the right of self-determination of the habitants of the Falkland Islands [Malvinas]; what the Argentines having been saying recently is, in my opinion, much more similar to colonialism, because these people want to continue being British and the Argentines what them to do something different.”

Such was the cynicism with which British Prime Minister David Cameron responded to a question in parliament on January 18 over the islands off Argentina's coast that are occupied by Britain.

The statement came shortly after Britain's defence minister said “contingency plans” were in place to rapidly deploy troops to the territory in the Atlantic Ocean.

Days earlier, Cameron called a summit of the National Security Council to discuss the defence of these islands. All this was justified by Britain as a response to a supposed plan by Argentine fisherpeople to invade the islands.

Britain has occupied the Malvinas Islands since 1833, when it dispossessed the original Argentine inhabitants. Since 1965, Britain has refused to abide by United Nations resolutions, maintaining its control over a territory more than 10,000 kilometres from its own.

Of the 16 surviving colonies in the world, 11 are British.

Last year, the British government announced budget cuts of more than US$45 billion for 2014-15. Reaffirming Britain's colonial position on the Malvinas is one way Cameron is seeking to distract attention from the consequences of such savage austerity and bolster his image.

Appealing to nationalism is an attractive tactic for politicians on the nose. It was useful for Margaret Thatcher (and the Argentine dictatorship) 30 years ago, which led to the two-month Falklands War.

But there are two important differences in the situation today: there is no possibility of war and the economic crisis is much deeper
 
All of Argentina’s political elites support the claim for sovereignty over the Malvinas.

In recent years, the Argentine government has tried to win support and recognition from the rest of the region for this demand. Its diplomatic campaign has borne fruit in various multilateral meetings and diverse organisations.

Latin America is far more committed to integration than when Argentina went to war in 1982. But Britain is not letting its arm be twisted.

The economic opportunities that the Malvinas presents in terms of the possibilities of exploiting fishing and oil resources is sufficient motive for Britain to keep its colonialist position.
 
It is precisely this economic aspect that sectors of the left have taken as their point of difference with the Argentine government regarding political strategy.

Opposition leaders have noted that, if the goal is recuperating sovereignty, the Argentine government should affect British investment in the country: land, hydrocarbons, food and drink, insurance companies, banks, mining and pharmaceuticals.

Different left groups marched on the British embassy in Buenos Aires on January 20, raising these slogans and demanding a break in relations with Britain. They denounced the lack of compliance with a law, passed in July last year, that bans companies operating in Argentina from taking part in the exploration, or planned exploration, of oil off the coast of the Malvinas.

Transnational mining companies are operating there in association with British oil companies. The same international financial groups that prop up Argentina's principal corporations own 33% of Rockhopper Exploration and Borders & Southern Petroleum, 25% of Desire Petroleum and 37.8% of Falkland Oil and Gas.

Natural resources are now at the centre of debate surrounding the Malvinas. Britain has offered concessions to explore for hydrocarbons in the maritime platform of the archipelago comprised by the Malvinas Islands, Sandwich Island and South Georgia Island, which encompasses 2,500,000 square kilometres of the Argentine Sea.

British media have reported that specialists believe that below this platform reserves exist equivalent to about 60 billion barrels of oil.

Rockhopper Exploration, one of the four companies operating in the zone, has already discovered exploitable reserves totalling about 700 million barrels.

In late January, a second British oil platform was installed off the island’s coast in the Argentine Sea, with plans to begin perforating two oil wells south and south-east of the archipelago.

The platform was contracted to Borders & Southern and Falkland Oil and Gas. Since 2010, Desire Petroleum and Rockhopper Exploration have perforated more than 20 oil and gas wells.
 
So far, the diplomatic campaign by Argentina has not stopped British plans to exploit these non-renewable resources off the coast of these usurped islands.





Comments

It isn't British companies that will exploit the oil, it's multinationals and probably US based ones at that. Argentina can either watch from the sidelines as jobs and taxes go north or engage to get involved. The posturing by the President at the Casa Rosada and the Foreign Minister at the UN might simply be tactical moves. Was the aim to prepare the ground for an announcement that, while as convinced as ever of the rights of Argentina to those islands, it is necessary to compromise in the medium term in order for the main oil support base to be on the mainland and not on the islands if Argentina is get anything out of these development. Perhaps the US Assistant Secretary pointed this out during her recent visit? Imagine, give peace a chance in order to have a chance of a piece. Sadly typical cynical manipulation of the people on all sides.
By Argentine Sea, do they mean the South Atlantic? By Malvinas, they mean the Falkland Islands which GB has had a claim on since before Argentina existed. “Appealing to nationalism is an attractive tactic for politicians on the nose. “ the way this is written, the possibility that it could apply to Fernandez as-well?, it does not come across as balanced.
Firstly, Argentine Sea - yup its the South Atlantic. I suppose its a bit like the UK and France with the English Channel and La Manche. As for Argentina's position on sovereignty, a change to its constitution in 1994 made it a requirement of any Argentine government to seek sovereignty over the islands, regardless of whether such a claim is legitimate or not. The claim that the islands were usurped is tenuous to say the least, but I'm not taking that any further. So far as the oil is concerned, regardless of sovereignty, it would be in Argentina's best interests to co-operate with all parties involved, not just the islanders or the UK, but all the companies involved in oil extraction in the region. Then they could have a pretty large slice of the cake. Logic tells me, with elections coming up, the rhetoric is a convenient distraction to what's actually going on in Argentina itself, and that's a bit of deja vu from 1982!
If the same logic - of their supposed proximity to Argentina - were applied to Europe using the same distances involved, Britain would have a valid sovereignty claim not only on Ireland, but also on a large part of France, all of Belgium and Holland, part of Germany, part of Norway, Iceland and so on The Argentinian claim is just plain daft. Proximity is simply not an issue. The Falkland people are under the Crown because rightly or wrongly they choose to be. That should end the matter If there are oil deposits around the Falklands, is it seriously being suggested that international companies would not seek to exploit them under Argentinian sovereignty? Once agin the Argentinian argument is full of holes and more about rallying voters to support a government that the people see as having failed in other areas. Historically several groups - not only "Argentinians" - occupied the Falklands in the nineteenth century. By Argentinian logic maybe Argentina should be given back to the indians. How are they going on native title and native land rights there by the way?
From Wikileaks Argentine Sea The Argentine Sea (Spanish: Mar Argentino) refers to the sea within the continental shelf off the Argentine mainland. It is a term often related to the Argentine claims to both the Falkland Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula. It is located in the South Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern coast of Argentina, extending from the approximate latitude of Montevideo, Uruguay, southward to Tierra del Fuego, and is situated about 500 miles (800 km) north of Antarctica. The Argentine Sea has a surface of 386,102 sq. mi. (1,000,000 km²) and is one of the largest seas in the world. The average depth of sea is 3,952 feet (1,205 m) and maximum depth is 7,296 feet (2,224 m). The area that matches this description has no specific name in The Times Atlas of the World.[1] The quoted statistics are dubious because the continental shelf only includes land to a depth of 200 m making it impossible to have an average depth of 1200 m. The Argentine Sea progressively widens going southward, in contrast with the narrowing of the continental mass. The sea platform has a series of plateaus which descend to the east as large terraces or steps. Because of its stair-shaped plateaus, the Argentine Sea is similar morphologically to the Extra-Andean Patagonia. The Falkland Islands are also located within the continental shelf of the Argentine Sea.
Oh yeah, that shelf. The one connected to Patagonia, that was ruthlessly conquered by the Argentines in the 1880's and the indigenous populations almost wiped out. More than 40 years after the Falklands were settled by the British. Is that the one? I'm pretty sure it's the one you are on about. I can't remember seeing any other Argentine Sea's on the maps i've looked at.
Patagonia was not ruthlessly conquered by Argentineans. In fact, there were large contingents of Patagonian original peoples in the troops that incorporated the area to Argentina in 1879, later on up to 1884, not "the 1880s". Ask the Tehuelches what they believed (and with full reason) of the Mapuches who slaughtered them when there existed no State in Patagonia and, BTW, British bourgeoisie dreamt that since it was a "no man's land" they might own it some day (for example by way of intruders coming from Malvinas, such as some came, or by way of a Welsh colonisation in the Chubut river valley). Both dreams remained just dreams because Argentina kept Patagonia East of the Andes for herself as it had to be from every juridical point of view. Britain has nothing at all to do in the area. The Malvinas are simply a military outpost that controls the South Atlantic dressed up as an "original population". But on the Continent, even if we forget the British Crown´s ruling of 1908 whereby all of South America was considered British, what was "ruthlessly eliminated" by the incorporation of Patagonia East of the Andes to effective Arg sovereignty was those ambitions. And, BTW, many of the "original peoples" who confronted Arg troops were not "aboriginal" at all but rather cattle traders from Chile who sometimes had Chilean military grade. It is easy to "Empirespeak" on lands you know nothing about.
Sorry to bring some real facts into the debate, but they sometimes help in such debates: The Malvinas (along with a number of islands in the South Atlantic) have long been in gaze of British colonialism. When Argentina became independent from Spain in 1810, sovereignty over these islands were passed on from the Spanish Crown to the newly independent Argentine republic. By 1823, a governorship has been established there and in 1829 a military base was installed. However, in the early 1830s, the UK together with the support of the US began carrying out a series of aggressions which culminated with a military occupation of Malvinas in 1833 Only by ignoring these facts, can some actually believe the UK government's bullshit that this is about self-determination and not sovereignty.
Islands in southern seas far from England, local inhabitants displaced and disregarded, establishment of state institutions modelled on Westminster, importation of Britons to establish an anglophone society with values largely similar to the UK's and 200 or so years under the crown. Maybe the big island in the southern Pacific/Indian oceans has something to learn from little islands in the south Atlantic.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.