Now that Julie Chappell has sadly left Guatemala at the end of her posting, I’m taking over blogging responsibilities here. I have been in Guatemala since August 2009 as Deputy Head of Mission in the Embassy, but for the next few months I’ll be stand-in Ambassador – Charge d’Affaires in diplomatic speak – until the arrival of our new Ambassador, Sarah Dixon, in June. Julie was a prolific blogger, so I hope I can match her energy as we have plenty of interesting material to blog about! You will also hear from our excellent Embassy team who are keen to continue blogging about their work and experiences in Guatemala.
My first blog is about the Falkland Islands. It’s prompted by an article recently published in the Guatemalan media from the “Comite Guatemalteco por las Malvinas” that expressed support for Argentina’s claim of the Falkland Islands, and called for the UK and Argentinian governments to negotiate a peaceful solution. The article, however, missed a crucial element about self-determination: the Falkland islanders are British and have chosen to remain so.
These aren’t just UK words, but those of the Islanders themselves. Roger Edwards, a Falklands politician, wrote this on 6 March:
“The UN charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principal known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. This fundamental right is being ignored by the Argentinian government, which is denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.
We are not a colony of the United Kingdom; we are a British overseas territory by choice, which is something entirely different. We are not governed by Britain, but are entirely self-governing, except for defence and foreign affairs. We democratically elect our legislative assembly members – they are chosen by the people of the Falkland Islands to represent them and to determine and administer our own policies and legislation.”
The article in the Guatemalan media also claimed that the UK has militarised the Falklands and introduced nuclear weapons there. The UK Armed Forces have the resolve, capability and flexibility to defend the Falkland Islands should this prove necessary. We need to remember that thirty years ago in 1982 Argentina “militarised” the South Atlantic when it invaded the islands illegally and without provocation. Also, our position on nuclear weapons is absolutely clear: we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
We want to have a full and friendly relationship with Argentina, as neighbours in the South Atlantic and as responsible fellow members of the G20, but we will not negotiate away the human and political rights of the Falkland Islands’ people against their will or behind their backs. Argentina’s hostile behaviour and attempts to undermine the islands’ economy and way of life is deeply regrettable.
The article also claimed that Guatemala has suffered from British colonial policy. There was no point of reference, but I assume it refers to the ongoing Belize/Guatemala territorial dispute. There are claims that Britain reneged on a promise to build a road as part of the treaty signed in 1849 between the UK and Guatemala relative to the boundary of British Honduras that the two countries would “agree conjointly to use their best endeavours” to establish the easiest communication route from the Atlantic coast to the capital of Guatemala. It is these, and other claims, upon which the International Court of Justice will be called to judge should referenda in Guatemala and Belize, scheduled for 2013, agree that it should.
But to conclude on the Falklands. The UK has administered them peacefully and effectively for nearly 180 years. Some of the Islanders can trace their Falklands ancestry back through nine generations, longer than many South Americans can trace back their own family roots in their own countries.
There can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as long as the islanders decide to remain British.