ARGENTINA'S CLAIMS THAT BRITAIN HAS NUCLEAR SUBMARINES PATROLLING THE FALKLANDS

Argentina's silliness about the Falklands never ceases to amaze me. This year the Argentine president and government have frequently criticised Britain on her maintenance of the Falkland Islands and military presence there. These criticisms are foolish for a number of reasons. Firstly, the last time Britain de-militarised the Falkland Islands (in 1982) General Galtieri invaded the Islands, so it's not a good idea for us to de-militarise when the Argentine military seem poised to attack them when the next opportunity arises- for the sake of national prestige. Secondly, Argentina has lobbied Latin American countries, including Brazil and Uruguay, to stop ships flying the Falkands' flag from docking at their ports- which was an act of belligerence in the first place. Thirdly, why would Britain want to send nuclear weapons to the Falklands- we're not going to start any wars or conflicts, because the Falklands are currently safe; and Britain has no interest in starting any conflicts with Latin American states, so it wouldn't make any sense.

Fourthly, and most importantly, are the principles of the claims Britain and Argentina have to them. On the surface, it seems absurd that Britain controls these islands on the other side of the world, and just off of the Argentine coast. However, what is important is not the Islands' geography but demography. The people living on the Islands now are of British descent, and consequently want to remain under British influence and protection. If the Islanders were campaigning to become part of Argentina, then the Argentine government's claims would be legitimate, and we should in that situation hold a referendum on the Islands' control- then cede sovereignty if they vote to join Argentina. But this isn't going to happen any time soon, as the Islanders clearly want to remain under the British government. The Islands have been occupied by the British for approaching 200 years, so it wouldn't be right for the Argentine government to displace families who have firmly entrenched roots there and have no wish to leave. If we took on the argument that the British were not the indigenous population of the Islands, so they should go back to Britain (even though generations of Islanders have never been to Britain in the first place), then where do we draw the line as to who different countries' indigenous populations are? Most of the Argentines themselves would have to leave their own country because, just as Falkland Islanders are of British descent, Argentines are of Spanish descent, with Argentina being a Spanish colony until approximately 200 years ago.

The same principle applies with Britain, Spain and Gibraltar too. And it's a great shame. Spain is a fellow member of the EU, and Argentina is a powerful economy, so Britain, as a large economy in the EU, could have had a very mutually beneficial friendship with these states, but has been undermined by silly debates over sovereignty of very small islands. I can't see those of British descent in Gibraltar and the Falklands all emigrating any time soon, so for the sake of diplomacy and constructive relations, Spain and Argentina should accept the reality; start afresh with Britain; and in turn Britain should also be gracious enough to turn over a new leaf.