The accession of
Cardinal Bergoglio to the Papacy has turned the world’s attention to Argentina,
and thus to the ongoing dispute between Argentina and Great Britain over the
ownership of the Falkland Islands.
Adding to the turmoil, the population of the islands recently voted
overwhelmingly to remain British. (The vote was 1514 to 3, of a total turnout
of 92%.) That doesn’t matter, huffed the
President of Argentina, comparing the plebiscite to squatters voting to continue
living in a building. (Well, yes, but
what if the squatters lived in the building for 160 years?) Anyhow, most Argentinians seem to agree with
their President; 59% in a recent poll thought the Falklanders should have no
say in the matter.
The temperature seems to be rising. Most other South
American nations agree with Argentina, though everyone agrees that the vote was
free and fair. Argentina holds strong
cards, including the threat to close its ports to ships calling at the
Falklands. Apparently the Falklanders
don’t take kindly to such threats, even in the face of growing isolation and
financial hardship.
The Falklands are a pretty place. Jill and I visited the
capital, Port Stanley, in 1998. The photo above was shot on that memorable
visit. (The Economist calls the Falklands “the sparsely populated islands,
which lack paved roads.” The writer has apparently never been to Port
Stanley.) The town was proudly British,
with shops selling tea and woolen sweaters and tidy houses sporting flowered
window boxes. Occasionally an RAF jet would shoot by, having taken off from the
air base that serves as the Falkland’s principal link to far-off England.
In 1982, a war was fought between Great Britain and
Argentina over the ownership of the islands. It was brief (two months), but
there were over 2700 casualties, two-thirds from Argentina. Could it happen again? Before you answer, consider this: Could the U.S.,
still smarting from the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, embark on a war with Iran
or Syria?
