I read with great interest Simon Jenkins’ article (British sovereignty over the Falklands is an absurd imperial hangover that must end, 7 April). I visited the Falkland Islands on a couple of occasions between 1965 and 1967 on my way to Antarctica, and I got a pretty good impression from the people there about what they thought about Argentina and the Falklands’ relationship with Britain.
In 1969 I was working in Argentina and got to see the other side of the coin. I was in a bar in Bahia Blanca watching the Apollo 11 moon landing in blurry black and white. Next to me at the bar was an Argentinian journalist and we fell into a long conversation about the Falklands. I will always remember something he said.
He said, “Jim, try to imagine a different world where there has been a South American empire. The empire has gone now but, as a result of it, Argentina has sovereignty over Shetland and its surrounding waters. How do you think the people in Britain would feel about that situation? Do you think they would be willing to let it stand where a country half way round the world ‘owns’ some islands on their doorstep? Of course they wouldn’t. Well, that is the feeling in Argentina about the Malvinas. We feel that by simple geography that they belong to us, and one day we will try to get them back.”
I have often thought about what he said and could see his point of view. And of course, what he said came true and they did try to take them. For all the flag-waving and jingoism about the Falklands, the situation there is, as Simon Jenkins says, an anachronism – and the sooner the situation is normalised the better.
Jim Sansbury
Ballater, Aberdeenshire
• I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling some bafflement at Santiago Cafiero’s tin-eared piece on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (Forty years after the Malvinas war, Britain still acts as if the dispute is settled. It isn’t, 2 April)
Mr Cafiero, the foreign minister of Argentina, wants the UK to resume negotiations on the future of the islands. He speaks of past “conflict” and even “war”, but neglects to say that his country invaded the islands in 1982. He then goes on to wonder why Britain maintains a garrison on the Falklands when Argentina is a “vibrant democracy” that is “not a threat to anyone”. I can confirm that his country is a beautiful place, full of lovely people, but again, the minister forgets: for much of its history, Argentina has been overwhelmingly militaristic and authoritarian, and it could quite possibly be so again.
But beyond this, no matter what merits his claims might have, and in light of events in Ukraine, does he think that violence is an acceptable way to settle claims of sovereignty? He says not, but had the British taskforce failed to retake the islands 40 years ago, would he still be so keen on “negotiations”? Somehow I doubt it.
Robin Prior
Wargrave, Berkshire
