Caribbean, Latin American and European leaders met in Brussels earlier this week with a view to reviving economic and political relations. Celac, as the Latin American and Caribbean Community is known, included countries reflecting a range of views, such as those of Nicaragua and Venezuela on the one hand, and some of the anglophone Caribbean nations on the other. Europe for its part had certain specific concerns, more particularly those relating to the war in Ukraine and its reservations with regard to China.
Where the first of these was concerned, the EU got no more in the final declaration than an expression of “deep concern on the ongoing war against Ukraine” which in addition to causing enormous human suffering, had constrained growth, increased inflation, disrupted supply chains and intensified energy and food insecurity. Any mention of Russia was omitted. That notwithstanding Nicaragua still disagreed with the paragraph. However, as Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez said to reporters, “…there were different voices, but it wasn’t the main item on our agenda,” in addition to which, he observed, Latin America had spoken out against the war in Ukraine at the UN.
But it was St Vincent Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves who said that the West had to understand the accusations of hypocrisy in relation to its position on Ukraine. “Historically we have had a lot of big-power activities against smaller, poorer countries – less powerful countries,” he said, giving examples from Latin America and the Caribbean. “When you raise certain principles of non-interference in the internal affairs, the use of force and all the rest of it, they will ignore you, yet some of those same countries are the ones who are raising those very principles in Ukraine,” he stated.
If Europe made no progress where Ukraine was concerned, it did make a gesture towards addressing the hypocrisy charges in another department, by acceding in the final document to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of Europe’s slave-trading past. This had caused “untold suffering” to millions, it was said, in addition to which there was the hint of the need for reparations for a “crime against humanity”.
But this admission and all the trade and investment talk aside, it was a small insertion in the summit declaration which produced something of a diplomatic contretemps, albeit with a country which was not even represented at the meeting. It certainly slipped by unnoticed here and hardly produced a stir among other Celac nations either, or for that matter, among any members of the EU. Argentina was the one to promote the insertion, and it trumpeted that its inclusion was a “diplomatic triumph”.
It was referring to the support from Brussels for referring to the Falkland Islands as the Islas Malvinas in the final document. Argentina went on to proclaim that this was the first time the EU had officially recognised the Latin American position on the islands in a joint declaration. Hardly surprisingly British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wasted little time in describing the inclusion in the document as a “regrettable choice of words,” and British diplomats asked European Council President Charles Michel to clarify the EU’s position.
The Financial Times reported an EU official as commenting somewhat tartly that “The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it.” He also said that the declaration had been agreed to by 27 member states and the Celac nations, and “We cannot issue a statement on their behalf.” He did concede, however, that “the Argentines have spun it in a certain way”.
This was confirmed in a clearer fashion by a spokesman for the EU diplomatic service, who was quoted as saying: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter …The EU does not take any position on such issues without a council mandate.” In other words, the inclusion of the words ‘Islas Malvinas’ does not mean the EU has changed its position on the Falklands.
At the bottom of the whole issue is the fundamental inconsistency in the approach of the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonisation, which treats the Falkland Islands as a colonial issue. As recently as last month it reiterated that the way to end the colonial situation there was the “peaceful and negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute” between Argentina and the UK. It might be noted that the representative of St Vincent at that meeting, who spoke on behalf of Celac, was reported as expressing full support for Argentina. Her country was “indisputably anti-colonialist”, she said, and supported all multilateral decolonization efforts under the auspices of the UN.
Latin American nations have always supported Argentina, but then it also should be remembered that with the exception of Brazil in post-military government times, they also supported Venezuela in its spurious claim to Guyana’s land. If some of them are less inclined to do that nowadays, it relates to Venezuelan politics and President Maduro rather than to their belief in Guyana’s legal and moral right to five-eighths of its own territory. The UK is seen as a traditional imperial power which indeed has a long catalogue of historical wrongs to its account, but that does not mean it might not in certain instances have right on its side. And it does in the case of the Falklands.
This is because the Falklands is not a case of colonialism. Whether Prime Minister Gonsalves has noticed or not, a referendum ten years ago found 99.8% of citizens there wanted the islands to stay with Britain. That at least is democracy in action. And Mr Gonsalves was one of the Caricom leaders who played a role in the restoration of democracy here in 2020. Why is it he respected the democratic voice of the people in Guyana, but will not do so in the case of the Falkland Islanders? Could he not open himself consequently to a charge of hypocrisy?
The UK has always maintained that barring two months in 1982 during the Falklands War, Britain has been in continuous occupation of the Islands since 1833. It might be wondered what distinguishes the Falklands from Bermuda, or the British Virgin Islands, or the Cayman Islands, say, which are associated territories and have also voted to stay British. If one wanted to be facetious then one might say the answer lay in the fact that they are not claimed by a Latin nation.
The parallels between Venezuela’s claim and Argentina’s are a little too close to be comfortable, which is probably why the coalition government changed this country’s stance on the matter of the Falklands to support the UK while it was in office. Prior to that the PPP had accepted the position of Argentina.
While it is clear that President Irfaan Ali raised no objection about the reference to Islas Malvinas in the final document, his position and that of his government on the issue is a matter for speculation. With all the other questions the press would like him to answer, it is not as if this one is very high on the list of priorities. Perhaps the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would like to comment in his stead.
