Click to see the full-size image
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
The agreement between London and Mauritius on the return of the Chagos Archipelago was welcomed by the Argentine Foreign Ministry as a step towards the recovery of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas, more commonly known as the Falkland Islands.
Buenos Aires welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the African island country to return the Chagos archipelago, which was colonised more than half a century ago. Aware of the case’s parallels with the historic dispute with London over sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, Argentina issued an announcement expressing hope in recovering the archipelago.
On X, the Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs, Diana Mondino, stated on October 3: “We celebrate this step in the right direction and ending obsolete practices. Following the path we have started, with concrete actions and not empty rhetoric, we will recover full sovereignty of our Malvinas Islands. The Malvinas were, are and will always be Argentine.”
The reaction to the news was immediate. The British governor of the Falkland Islands, Alison Blake, stated that “the legal and historical contexts of the Chagos Archipelago and the Falkland Islands are very different. UK Ministers have been very clear throughout the process that the UK will not agree to anything that runs the risk of jeopardising sovereignty in other Overseas Territory.”
According to Buenos Aires, the event marks a direct precedent for advancing the diplomatic resolution of the conflict that began almost two centuries ago and whose peak of tension exploded with the war waged in 1982 –during the Argentine military dictatorship–culminating in the UK’s victory.
Nonetheless, this news of the Chagos Archipelago can be defined by one word for many Argentines: hope. It is an important step for international law and a victory for justice for all states facing a similar situation. The recovery of the archipelago results from serious, consensual and constant work by the Republic of Mauritius, which has always sought the same objective for decades. Argentina will take this case as a reference to move forward in the recovery of sovereignty.
Despite Blake’s denial, there are parallels between the case of the African country and that of the South American country. These are two cases of decolonisation in which the colonial power is the same. In addition, in both cases, the territorial integrity of the colonised state was violated, whilst the colonial power expelled parts of its population.
The triumph of the Mauritius Islands has a clear impact and consists of progress towards decolonisation. In the last instance, international pressure forced London to sit down and discuss the conditions for the transfer.
However, the greatest issue Buenos Aires faces is the changing diplomatic strategy over the years, depending on the political leanings of successive governments. At times, the country has tried to be more rigorous in its dealings with the UK. However, in certain circumstances, the Latin American country has opted to seduce its British counterpart, thinking that in this way, it could reach a rapprochement and, in some uncertain future, a solution. Although the claim to sovereignty is a national banner that no government has given up, there is no consistency in achieving that goal.
In some cases, approaching dialogue with London presents dissimilar views within the same administration. The clearest example is the current administration of Javier Milei, which announced last month an agreement with the UK for the resumption of weekly flights from São Paulo in Brazil to the Falkland Islands.
Through her social media on September 27, Argentine Vice President Victoria Villarruel denounced the flights: “The proposed agreement announced with the United Kingdom is contrary to our Nation’s interests. It proposes to provide continental logistical support to the occupation and, in fact, allow them to continue plundering our seas.”
“It is incredible that while the US offers us coast guard ships to protect our Argentine sea from extra-continental pillage, we propose to cooperate with the power that usurps our territory,” she added.
Buenos Aires is not alone in its claim. Over the decades, Argentina has garnered support from powers worldwide, who have consistently backed the country in key bodies such as the United Nations. Not only do the majority of South American countries support Argentina, but major players such as China and Russia have spoken out on various occasions to support their claim. This has been a constant over the years and in different international scenarios.
Beijing’s solidarity is rooted in its policy of “One China.” In this context, the photograph released by provincial legislator Agustín Romo—from La Libertad Avanza, Milei’s party—in which he appears posing with a representative of the Taiwanese Trade Office takes on serious significance. Having an undefined view on the case of Taiwan or the statements that the president has made since the Chinese government lambasted him due to ideological prejudices does not help at all. Argentina is officially committed to respecting the principle of One China, and similarly, China has always committed to respecting Argentine sovereignty regarding the question of the Malvinas Islands.
In this way, Argentina maintains allies in its pursuit to end Britain’s occupation of the Falkland Islands, a cause that could be strengthened following the UK’s return of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
the threat of another military conflict with argentina in the south atlantic would tie up large numbers of the british military and possibly over a long period of time should the argentine authorities push the issue. with the financial cost alone to the uk running into many billions of pounds
it’s only deadshit tacpayets monies
french explorer louis-antoine de bougainville settled the “îles malouines” in 1764. british captain john byron of the royal navy claimed them for king george iii as “falkland’s islands” in 1765. the argentinian revolution against spanish rule occurred in 1810, over forty years later; before that argentina didn’t exist. so argentina has no claim; the islands are in fact french.
pigs arse.
no, they belong to the penguins. it is high time that the rights of the penguins and self determination for the penguins was respected.
you are right when you say bougainville settled the islands at port louis 1764-1767.they were then sold to spain. the first spanish governor was feilpe ruiz puente 1767, the last spanish governor was geraldo bondas 1810. the first argentine governor was daniel jewitt in 1820, last was juan esteban mestivier in 1832. the first british governor was leit. richard clement moody in 1842.
that’s right the church is applying the thumb screws on the crowns extremities. cough up or else, basically.
after russia is done with ukraine and nato the uk so broke that argentinian forces will just walk into las malvinas and mop up the few pathetic british colonial forces illegally occupying the archpielago.
the chagos issue has been going on for 60 years and is the product of british arrogance, stupidity and racism. and it was all totally unnecessary. the uk wanted to please uncle sam by giving the islands to him as a military base. at the time there was a community of about 2,000 brown skinned islanders living there (the same number as on the falklands.) they were leading a fairly idyllic life on an indian ocean paradise based on subsistence farming and fishing.
they could have been given jobs at the us base as gardeners, cleaners, cooks etc. and everybody would have been happy. instead they were deported from their homes. their livestock was killled, their dogs shot. they were forcibly shipped off to mauritius 2,000 km. away and just dumped there penniless on the dockside. to uk bureaucrats they were just “wogs” who were a bit of a nuisance. the same way the great british empire treated the palestinians, the irish, indians, and all other “wogs.”
the falkland islands had a referendum to decide if they wanted to stay aligned to the uk or argentina, under the un charter right to ‘self dependence/territorial integrity’ rules. they voted to stay with the uk. crimea, used the same argument, to return home to russia or stay aligned to ukraine. they chose russia.
2) same with nato using the argument to invade kosovo. so why is it wrong for the people of crimea want to go home to russia, but, right for the people of the falklands to wish to stay with the uk? or nato to invade bosnia? same with brexit and us independence.