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.
By Cool Green Science BlogThu, Mar 11 2010 at 1:08 PM EST
34
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.
|
WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
Learn More |
Earn Points
What's this? |
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
 WorldShares
lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20
points now.Learn More Earn Points
|
CLOSE
link:
link:
Comments
Rolling Thunder
05/15/2010 18:30 PM
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.
mgreen
04/12/2010 05:14 AM
Enter your comments hereArgentina does not and never did own the Falkland Islands, but these macho-men cannot accept that.Reading these pages and others is hugely entertaining and sometimes absolutely hillarious when l read the completely illogical arguments the argentinians put up. lf they say they're entitled to spain's leavings then why don't they claim all of south america(except Brazil of course)and also Mexico and the Philippines too? They were all under Spanish rule at one time. If.... More
Paul J.
03/13/2010 15:28 PM
You pose a very logical argument, and I thank you for pointing out the long tradition of preservation of marine habitats in Argentina. I think that it is only a matter of time before this becomes a part of Argentina's diplomatic attack. Unfortunately, the current president is only interested in winning political points.
I agree with you, the damage to England's self-professed "green" leadership will be irreparable. When the country (the UK) is seeking to build formidable alternative.... More
Graham Webster
09/25/2010 14:20 PM
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
Paul Mackinnon
03/13/2010 02:01 AM
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
Paul
03/12/2010 08:28 AM
GUILLE RULES
Laurence Holder
03/12/2010 08:14 AM
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!
geoff
03/12/2010 07:54 AM
Enter your comments here
By the writer's logic, the Channel islands should be french and the Faroes british!And who gets Alaska?
M
03/12/2010 06:15 AM
I take huge offence with this article, seeing as I was born, raised and still live in the Falklands. To just give the Falklands to a country that wants to colonise us, a country that whats to country us against our wishes is inhuman. The people of the Falklands have human rights as much as anyone else on thye planet. And to say the British is exploring for oil in the Falklands is factually incorrect. The Falkland Islands Government issued the licences for sale, and British and an Australian.... More
JuanShaw
03/12/2010 18:07 PM
I´m Argentinian and personally I don´t give a damn about the islands, just feel sorry for the amount of lives lost in that stupid conflict. We have a huge land, several times bigger than those blocks of frozen stone and with a lot of available resources. We have from glaciers to jungles and forests, a vast land with many different climates and ecosystems. If you use common sense and check some books and excercise your brain, you´ll realize who is really a colony in south american.... More
Pablo
03/12/2010 08:06 AM
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.
Jon
03/12/2010 04:57 AM
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.
SJW
03/12/2010 02:14 AM
By your logic, because Britain is joined to France it means France should 'own' it Please, stop bleating and get into the real world. The people that LIVE in the Falklands are the only ones with a right to say what they desire and if that's to be British then so be it, enshried in UN law and that's final. The islands weren't even discovered by any Argentinian as they did not even exist as a nation when found (by a Brit coincidentally). The Falkland Islands were first sighted by English.... More
Edgard
03/12/2010 08:20 AM
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.
Mike
03/11/2010 21:06 PM
Argentina isn't opposed to oil exploration near the Falklands, they're opposed to somebody doing it aside from them.
JamesCunny
03/11/2010 18:16 PM
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
guille2306
03/11/2010 18:32 PM
OK. So you'll let Exxon drill right off the coast of England, without asking permission to the UK and without paying you any royalties for the extracted oil? Because that's what the British company operating in the Malvinas/Falklands basin is doing.
Repsol/YPF is a registered company in Argentina, has the relevant permissions to drill in the Argentinian platform (and inside Argentinian territorial waters, outside the waters in dispute) and pays the corresponding taxes and royalties for.... More
GnashertheParra
03/15/2010 12:43 PM
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.
GnashertheParra
03/15/2010 12:40 PM
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.
JamesCunny
03/11/2010 18:44 PM
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
guille2306
03/11/2010 21:51 PM
Oh, great, going down the name calling road. I wont' follow you.
The problem is not if they have permission given by the islanders, I know they have. The problem is that Argentina doesn't recognizes the sovereignty of the UK over that area. From the point of view of Argentina, that drilling is not legal. Repsol/YPF, on the other hand, is going to drill in waters that are recognized both by Argentina and the UK as territorial waters of Argentina. My point was only that Repsol drilling and.... More
impartial
03/11/2010 17:25 PM
Treaty of Utrecht? Why not go back to the Treaty of Tordesillas? Using this line of reasoning, Britain should return Canada to France, the US should return Florida to Spain and Argentina should return Formosa province to Paraguay, just to name a few examples. Yet, I don't see Argentina bending over backwards to restore the land they took from Paraguay by conquest in 1870. It's likely de Kirchner would argue that the residents wish to remain Argentinian after so many years. Sound.... More
guille2306
03/11/2010 17:58 PM
The important thing here is the recognition status of the territories. Canada was recognised by France as an independent country, Spain recognizes Florida as part of the US, and Paraguay signed a peace treaty handing over Formosa to Argentina. You can argue about the situation in which those three treaties where signed, but they are there and are legally binding. The last legal treaty regarding Malvinas/Falklands status is effectively the Treaty of Utretch and the UK recognition of Argentina.... More
Malvinas
03/11/2010 15:40 PM
A fact often dismissed by the British is that the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht signed by the UK and Spain (among other European powers), gave Spain continued control of her colonies in the Americas, including all adjacent islands. Simply put, the UK gave up any claims to the Malvinas/Falklands Islands to Spain by signed treaty. The islands then became part of Spain's Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. When Argentina declared independence from Spain and became The United Provinces of the Rio de la.... More
JamesCunny
03/11/2010 18:38 PM
If what your saying is true then why have the spanish stole minorca back with french help as they ceded it to us in that same treaty because not everyone follows it also 1/4 of france was ceded to the uk hundreds of years ago but we where only given the channel islands explain how this fair? and tell me you have a point also britain found the islands and first to land before spain even new they where there and inhabited first so you chat complete rubbish the world dosent care for papers cry all.... More
james
03/11/2010 14:21 PM
They have authorised Spain t start drilling
james
03/11/2010 14:20 PM
Fantastic, using your logic France should belong to the UK.
Just because Europeans colonised Argentina does not mean they also own everything else nearby.
Toby Evans
03/11/2010 14:17 PM
-"It makes about as much sense for the Falklands to be British as for the Outer Hebrides to be Argentinian."
So I suppose you believe Curacao should be Venezualan instead of Dutch? And that the French should hand over French Guyana to Brazil? Perhaps the Bahamas should be American too?
The British decision to start looking for oil around the Falklands is foolish on a number of levels."
I really never expected anyone to make the mistake of mixing science with.... More
guille2306
03/11/2010 17:43 PM
And your deep knowledge of Argentinian internal politics comes from...? Before making such kind of comments you should check a little bit better your info. Last time I checked:
- Argentinian claims on Malvinas (Falklands for Europe) are a state policy, and it's supported by every govern and every party since, well, 1833. It had its ups and downs in time, but the UK pushing for unilateral oil exploration is the kind of things that will always bring it right to the surface again. If you.... More
Toby Evans
03/11/2010 19:42 PM
And last time I checked:
-Kirschner's approval ratings currently stand at around 28%. Are you denying that the sudden nationalist card has nothing at all to do with the fact the up and coming elections in 2011. Is there anything incorrect there? Such knowledge hardly requites deep knowledge of Argentinian internal politics, does it? Please, before dismissing someone's post in a patronising manner perhaps do some research of your own?
-I don't think anyone here denies that.... More
guille2306
03/11/2010 22:37 PM
"Kirchner's approval ratings currently stand at around 28%"
Right. Brown's approval is not much better. His answers to this problem are also just nationalistic moves?
"Are you denying that the sudden nationalist card has nothing at all to do with the fact the up and coming elections in 2011"
Yes. It has to do with the sudden fact that a British company starts to drill in the area. If they had started in 2007, in the peak of their popularity, the answer would have been the.... More
Paul J.
03/13/2010 15:40 PM
@guille2306 excellent response. One wonders how Brazil will feel once Britain begins serious efforts to extract oil. It is a foolish decision and a huge miscalculation, it's as though Brown's government is living in the 1970's. I hope no one looks to the U.S. for support on this, because it will not be there.
JuanShaw
03/12/2010 17:48 PM
Well, it seems we still have brains in our country! Excellent reply.
