SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Oil and the Falklands: How Argentina can win the argument
The British have announced they will explore for oil in the Falkland Islands which could pose a huge threat to some of Earth's richest marine habitats.
Thu, Mar 11 2010 at 1:08 PM
Related Topics:
FALKLAND MARINE LIFE: Eared seals on the Peninsula Valdes. (Photo: Mannheim Reinhard Jahn/Wikimedia Commons)
As a student in Oxford in 1982, I demonstrated (with heavy police protection) against the sending of the British task force to retake the Falklands.
I thought then, as I think now, that whether the inhabitants are British or not isn’t the key point for determining who should have sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas. The key point is to see where they are on a map. It makes about as much sense for the Falklands to be British as for the Outer Hebrides to be Argentinian. Especially now that the UK is running the highest peacetime deficit in its history, and spending billions of dollars annually to keep almost as many members of the military in the islands as there are islanders.
But events rendered all this irrelevant. Enough blood was shed in 1982 to make even discussing the return of the Falklands to Argentina a political impossibility for any British government for at least another generation. The fact Argentina is now a stable democracy doesn’t alter that. So, after many years of quiet, it was sad to see the Falklands/Malvinas back in the newspapers for that most depressing of reasons, for anyone interested in the environment: oil.
The British decision to start looking for oil around the Falklands is foolish on a number of levels. It predictably led to outrage in Argentina and to damage to Britain’s image in Latin America as a whole, as regional leaders fraternally lined up fraternally along their peer. One imagines that Hillary Clinton, starting a visit to South America this week, was also not pleased with the distraction. But so far the strongest Argentinian argument has been strangely unused: the environmental implications of what the British are up to.
Argentina is to marine conservation what the Amazon is to terrestrial. Its long coastline boasts some of the world’s best sites for marine mammals and seabirds, including the largest known penguin colonies outside the Antarctic and the remarkable national park of the Peninsula Valdes, where killer whales launch themselves onto beaches hunting baby seals, supplying arguably the most spectacular wildlife footage ever shot in the process.
Argentinian waters are relatively well protected by marine parks and Argentina has a long and proud tradition of excellence in marine biology. All of which suggests the outline of a much smarter approach to getting the British to back down.
There is no good evidence of oil in the waters off the Falklands, and even if there were the costs of getting it ashore would be high, to say nothing of transporting it to market.
So rather than focusing on hypothetical oil, Argentina should be loudly drawing attention to the clear danger oil production in the South Atlantic would pose to the area’s very non-hypothetical marine mammals, fish species and seabirds. This would give Argentina the moral high ground, and also shift the argument to an area when Argentina can point to an impressive track record.
It would also be highly embarrassing to the British. A nation of animal lovers being nasty to whales and penguins? A country trying to lead the way on climate change and greenery starting up an oil industry in one of the world’s last remaining wildernesses?
It’s already difficult to build another runway at Heathrow because of opposition by climate activists. If Argentina played its cards right, it could have Britain’s foolish moves in the South Atlantic defeated not by declarations from other heads of state, which have little practical impact, but by aroused public opinion in Britain, which really does care rather more about animal rights than the rights and wrongs of the Falklands conflict.
Argentina may not be able to embarrass the British into giving the Falklands back, but embarrassing them into a retreat on the oil issue through making the case for leaving the penguins, albatrosses and sea lions well alone is a real possibility.
— Text by David Cleary, Cool Green Science Blog
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- The 9 nastiest things in your supermarket
- Military dog comes home from Iraq traumatized
- Clear skin diet: Foods that bring acne relief
- What causes tornadoes?
- 10 of the top U.S. cities for nature lovers
- How to get rid of stink bugs
- New psychiatric manual stirs controversy
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- When is tornado season?
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
Speak softly, and carry a big stick. No UK government will hand over the Falklands - to do so would cripple their chances of winning any election, for the UK is notoriously touchy about matters such as these. So I guess that leaves the Ultima Ratio Regum - the Last Argument of Kings.
Kirschner needs to grow some balls, and back down, or else let the wolf pack of it's chains.
you are very uneducated so i'll make it brief president Obama is in charge of the United States not the United Kingdom so it does'nt really matter what any of them think they mean nothing to the UK and can do nothing
Shame on you! Your commentary is so far biased that it is totally untenable. You totally fail to take into account any of the falkland islander's own perspectives regarding sovereignty or any mention of falkland-based research. The people that live their lives on these inhospitable islands are commanders of their own domain.
Argentinian claims were false in the early 80s and are false today. Stop perpetuating war with your petty bickering
GUILLE RULES
Never have I read such nonsense on a matter that supersedes mere wildlife conservation. You are implying that the right of self determination held by the Falkland islanders is lesser than ensuring good photographic shots of wildlife?! You are an imbecile for even hinting at this!
Enter your comments here
By the writer's logic, the Channel islands should be french and the Faroes british!And who gets Alaska?
A Ustedes los isleños le hacen creer que en Argentina pretendemos una Colonia? la verdad me da lastima como manipulan sus mentes. A los 20 Argentinos que expulsaron de las Islas en 1833, incluyendo la Familia VERNET, nadie le hablo de autodeterminacion¡¡ a los de las Islas Chagos Tampoco.
So where something is determines who owns it? By that token would the article writer mind if we took ireland back - apparently it doesn't matter that the people there are irish, because ireland is geographically close to us it should belong to us. moron.
In 1520, Esteban Gómez of the San Antonio, one of the captains in the expedition of Magellan, deserted this enterprise and encountered several islands, which members of his crew called "Islas de Sansón y de los Patos" ("Islands of Samson and the Ducks"). Although these islands were the Jason Islands, a group northwest of West Falkland, the names "Islas de Sansón" (or "San Antón", "San Son", and "Ascensión") were used for the Falklands on Spanish maps during this period.
Argentina isn't opposed to oil exploration near the Falklands, they're opposed to somebody doing it aside from them.
theve just agreed to let repsol a spanish company drill in their waters so saying that to us would just be double standards unluky haha
No company is going to drill in the Argentinian EEZ (economic exclusion zone). The drilling will take place at a distance much greater than 200nautical miles from Argentina.
No company is going to drill in the Argentinian EEZ (economic exclusion zone). The drilling will take place at a distance much greater than 200nautical miles from Argentina.
obviously you have not been on the falklands islands goverment website they are given out licenses etc to exploit in area and do take royalties etc so you just made a retarded comment
Territorial waters extend to 12miles, the Falklands is 300 miles from Argentina and it makes no difference if Argentina recognises the rights or not, the important thing is it is recognised in international law and supported by the UN.
Pages