Penn met Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, in Buenos Aires and said: “It’s necessary that these diplomatic talks happen between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I think that the world today is not going to tolerate any kind of ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology.”
* * *
This is not a cause of leftist flamboyance nor significantly a centuries-old literary dispute. But rather a modern one, that is perhaps unveiled most legitimately through the raconteurism of Patagonian fishermen. One perhaps more analogous to South Africa than a reparation discussion in South Carolina. As a result, we must look to the mutual recognition of this illusive paradigm by both countries, when in the 1970s, the United Kingdom and Argentina were indeed involved in open-minded diplomatic negotiations for claims on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
It was not until the US and the UK supported the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile and an oppressive military leadership in Argentina had sought to distract populist attention from the plight of its own desaparecidos and their families domestically, that diplomatic efforts were shut down. The junta staged a ludicrous invasion of the islands in 1982, though residents were resolutely British subjects. Still, the very people who suffered and fought most enduringly against this military junta in Argentina are the ones who today lead that country, and on behalf of their people seek simply a fair and re-established diplomacy in issues of the disputed islands ranging from immigration to natural resources.
I could discuss the 1973 overthrow of the Marxist Allende as being necessitated by the fear that Chile would have turned into another Cuba. But, leaving that aside, what do these last two paragraphs mean? What does Argentina and the UK talk about? They could split the oil revenues perhaps. But both sides say the islands are theirs and neither will budge. What is there to talk about?
What does Sean Penn mean that Britain has a colonialist mentality? What is colonialist about the will of the islanders staying with Great Britain? It would be more colonialist to impose rule on the Falklanders that they do not want. Penn almost insults the islanders:
“But rather a modern one, that is perhaps unveiled most legitimately through the raconteurism of Patagonian fishermen. One perhaps more analogous to South Africa than a reparation discussion in South Carolina.”
Is Penn implying the Falklanders are racist? It is unintelligible. So also is this conclusion:
The “Falklanders'” slogan is “Desire the right“. Indeed this is a human desire and not the exclusive domain of Falkland Islanders. And it is the same desire for which so many Chileans and Argentinians suffered and ultimately triumphed. The recognition that the diplomatic process of the 1970s gives to some of the legitimacy of Argentinian claims should not be dispelled or denied by the great United Kingdom through the exploitation of a more recent past, or for the greed of superpowers desperate to control the natural resources of the world. God save the Queen.
If I ever write like this at this blog, Tom White should sack me straightway. Here’s my conclusion:
Great Britain has sovereignty over the Falklands and as long as the Falklanders want to remain with the UK, that should be respected AND supported by the United States without question. Argentina has made great strides toward democracy and she should be commended for that. But the reward cannot be tampering with the home of someone else. The islands stay with the United Kingdom. Period.