ARGENTINE diplomacy achieved an undeniable success with the inclusion of the Falkland/Malvinas question in the European Union-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States Summit Joint Declaration of July 18.

Despite the pressure exerted on the EU, the British government was unable to prevent the reference to the Falklands/Malvinas in the declaration. The islands establishment again demonstrated its denial of the reality of the existence of the sovereignty dispute, this time with a puerile attitude regarding the name of the islands.

The importance of the declaration lies in the fact the EU “takes note” that the question of sovereignty over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands is not only an Argentine position: it is the “historic position” of all of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The references to “dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes” clearly relate to Britain’s refusal to re-open negotiations on sovereignty.

All of this would have been unthinkable when the UK was part of the EU. Indeed, prior to the adoption of the declaration, the British Government made strenuous efforts to avoid the inclusion of the paragraph in question. Brussels did not even bother to respond to the UK’s request.

The most London could get was a later statement from one of the EU’s spokespersons who saidthe EU had not changed its position on the matter. In fact, the EU never took a position on the Falkland/Malvinas dispute.

At the time, the inclusion of the islands as a British Overseas Territory did not mean recognition of sovereignty – it was simply that each member state could include what it considered to be its overseas territories, in order to benefit from certain prerogatives.

Unless there was an intra-European sovereignty dispute, it was a unilateral decision.

To the displeasure of the island establishment, the EU advantages it enjoyed no longer exist after Brexit.

Now it is complaining about the EU’s use of the “Argentine name for the islands”. This is another eloquent demonstration of its denial of history. The name Malvinas is as old as the first human settlement of the islands, even half a century before Argentina existed as a nation.

Moreover, the English version of the EU/CELAC Summit Declaration uses both toponyms: Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, as the United Nations has systematically done ever since it has adopted resolutions on the Islands.

This is not the first case of geographical features having different names in different languages. Examples can be found in all continents. The Eurostar traverses the English Channel in English and La Manche in French. 

There is an unavoidable reality – there is a sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

According to the UN policy, it is a special and particular colonial situation in which the current inhabitants, the product of British dispossession of Argentina and migratory control, cannot invoke the principle of self-determination of peoples in their favour.

The victims of colonialism are the Argentine people. As a matter of course, they enjoy human rights that must be respected, but not when it comes to the decision about whether there will be negotiations between the UK and Argentina, and even less to decide the sovereignty dispute.

The EU/CELAC Summit Declaration clearly demonstrates the British isolation from Europe after the EU withdrawal.

In times in which the British Government claims respect for international law and for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in which it has also finally accepted to negotiate with Mauritius about the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, the resumption of negotiations with Argentina becomes indispensable to bring coherence to its foreign policy and to comply with the legal obligation to settle international disputes through peaceful means.

Marcelo G Kohen, Emeritus Professor of International Law (Geneva)

Facundo D Rodriguez, Professor of International Law (Buenos Aires)