Origin of UK and Argentina Conflict - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: 1982 FALKLAND ISLAND WAR WAS A LIE TO THE PEOPLE OF ARGENTINA 1982 Falkland Island War was a Lie to the people of Argentina School Date 1982 Falkland Island War was a Lie to the people of Argentina Introduction The Falkland Islands war of 1982 involved the United Kingdom forces which were resisting the illegal occupation of Argentine forces in Falkland Islands or Islas Malvinas. Prior to the war, the Argentina leadership had been under Junta military rule for six years since 1976 (Welch, 1997). The citizens had grown tired of the regime and had started organizing civil unrest against the military rule. The military rule had brought down the economy that make the life of the Argentine people difficult to bear. In order to divert the public attention from problems at home, the Argentinian leadership decided to invade Falkland Island which the British government had claimed ownership in 1833, thus leading to war. This paper will discuss the major causes of the war in relation to international relation theories. In addition, the paper will discuss why the war remained a lie for the face of Argentine population. Origin of UK and Argentina Conflict The Argentines believed that the British stole their islands, and hence there was a need to claim back their land. This is what the citizens had been taught in school and saw Britons guarding the islands as enemies. This bred a sense of patriotism and the zeal to support the government in case of war as part of fulfilling their national duty (Grove, 2005). This cultural belief is supported by the constructivism theory of international relations which is behavior based. However, in reality, the Britons living 200 miles off their coast were by no means a threat to the Argentines. Their lives had been made worse by their own government which did not care much about their welfare. Argentina was in search for an opportunity to fulfill its mission with no success. However, while one of its local merchants got a contract to clear off scrap on South Georgia Island. The idea of protecting the islands came after the merchant was denied access to the scrap site by the UK Navy personnel manning the island. He was required to get a work permit from the United Kingdom’s Embassy at Buenos Aeries (Kiney, 1989). The army got a chance for access to the island in the pretext of protecting the scrap dealer and raised the flag on the island. In a span of eight days, the Argentina leader had ordered for a full military occupation on other islands. According to an agreement signed in 1771 between Britain and Spain, Britain had reserved rights to the Islands even though it had vacated the islands in 1774 (Kiney, 1989). After Spain’s withdrawal in 1811, the land remained without any occupation until 1816. Before the colonization of South American states, Falkland Islands were part of Argentina. While the other South American states fought for their independence, the British army faced no revolt in Falklands, hence it remained under minimal occupation while the other countries got their independence. After gaining independence from Spain in 1816, Argentina claimed ownership of Falkland Islands approximately 200 miles east of her mainland, by sending its troops there. The troops built a base and permanent structures as they prepared permanent occupation of Malvinas. This was based on the conviction that the Islands were under Spanish rule during colonization. Hence, the immediate neighbor had the right to claim ownership. Logically, the Islands were part of Britain’s territory. In response, the British army moved in and expelled the Argentines in 1933 (Dugdale, 2006). It is wise to remember at this point that the largest population at Falklands was composed of members of Scottish origin. Since then, the Argentine leadership kept on looking for an opportunity to claim the island. This was fulfilled in 1982 when the then Junta military leader Leopoldo Galteri ordered his army to invade the island (Grove, 2005). Economic crisis in Argentina Prior to the invasion, the economy of Argentina was in its worst form. First, by the end of 1981, the inflation had risen to over 600 percent. This had led to the increase in price of basic commodities that strained the life of the population with little pay. The Gross Domestic Product, which is the major indicator of economic performance, had subsided by 10 percent (Kiney, 1989). Additionally, due to lack of funds, the military government had lowered the wage rate by 19 percent. This motivated citizens to organize civil and unionized protests against the military government. Nevertheless, the government did not take the civil resistance from within slightly. Those who were apprehended simply disappeared. This made the people become suspicious of the government forces as the ones killing the people. According to the classical realism theory, the state powers always make every effort to amass maximum power by defeating or eliminating their rivals (Morgan, 2006). Most of them are believed to have died while being tortured by the military as a way of eliminating the rival power within its borders. The people became more relentless in pursuing human rights and political freedom. Amid this crisis, the government saw it as the ripe moment to claim its offshore territory. To achieve this, the state used state mechanisms to convince the locals that it was fighting a noble cause. According to the neo-realism theory, power breeds rivalry between states. Each state must therefore do its best to defend itself in all ways possible (Elman, 2003). However, if a given state has more power than the other, the best thing to do is for the weaker stake to attack the superior one and thereafter defend itself. In this case, Argentina knew that it did not have as much political and military power as Britain. Therefore, it took the first and opportune moment to attack Britain territory with an intention of defending it in case of Britain retaliated. As seen earlier, Argentina thought that Britain would be less willing to attack in retaliation to the invasion. According to the neo-classical realism theory of international relations, all states are in pursuit of power (Dougherty & Pfalztgraf, 2000). However, different states seek power for different reasons. In this case, the Argentine’s knew very well that the chances of succeeding in war with Britain were very slim. However, its government had started losing touch with the general population. By going to war, the citizens would patriotically stand by their government without offering any internal resistance in spite of the prevailing economic conditions. Thus, even though the government did justify its action was in the interest of the state, this was a lie to its citizens. Under the United Nations Charter, small nations such as Falkland Islands have the right to determine their nationality (Elman, 2003). In the case of Falklands, the largest portion of the population of 1,800 people in 1982 consisted largely of Scots who had settled in the island as sheep farmers. They, therefore, preferred to remain under Britain leadership than joining the tyrannical military rule of their closest neighbor. After the Argentinian armies were expelled by the British army in 1933, Britain embarked in a strategy to ensure that a larger part of its population had settled on the island. This is how the Scottish farmers got their access to the island. Since then, the Argentinian leadership kept on looking for an opportunity to claim it back. This was fulfilled in 1982 when the then Junta military leader Leopoldo Galteri ordered his army to invade the island (Grove, 2005). On its part, the Argentine government used deception to sway the attention of the general citizen over the reasons of going to war with the British in its favor. The neo-classical theory asserts that states involve themselves in international arena depending on perceptions of the behavior of other states. These cognitive thought guided the Argentinean leadership to think that other states would remain neutral in the dispute (Morgan, 2006). The government was still developing its foreign policy but this was one of its miscalculated moves. Even though the greater population could not have perceived the wind of the underlying political plan, the decision made prior to the war would remain significant to the future relations of the two states. The British government did not expect the invasion at the moment since the dispute had been taken care of under the agreement which the two states vowed to keep (Dugdale, 2006). As a result, Britain had withdrawn a significant number of its military and naval personnel. Britain had retained only one naval ship in the area. To the Argentine army, this suggested that in case of any confrontation, the British would not manage to defend its territories, especially the Falklands. According to the realism theory of international relations, states are always in pursuit of amassing more power and resources. Argentina was trying to assert her territorial power over the British on Falkland Islands. However, the military underestimated the British by considering two factors. First, Falklands was thousands of miles away from Britain, hence making the logistics for war very expensive on the side of Britain. Second, the size of the land occupied by Falklands seemed too small and unproductive for Britain to defend. Realism theory asserts that, certainty increases the chances for a country to go to war (Elman, 2003). Britain was certain of a win in case of a war. As one of the leading military powers of the world, British could not have afforded to lose her territory without a fight. Second, the size of the land occupied by Falklands seemed too small and unproductive for British to defend. Realism theory asserts that certainty increases the chances for a country to go to war (Elman, 2003). Britain was certain of a win in case of a war. As one of the leading military powers of the world, British could not have afforded to lose her territory without a fight. She, therefore, did her best in amalgamating the available forces to recover her foreign territory and secure it from future invasion. A closer analysis of this war points to a number of scenarios all of which are in strong support of realism theory of international relations. First, the action of Argentine forces in occupying foreign territory was a complete violation of International Law. The selfish face of human nature could have motivated the military leader to opt in going to war and face defeat outside his territory other than face internal defeat through a civil revolt. The need to hold on to power urged a person to hang on regardless of the consequences. Argentina used the political ideology of ending the British occupation of foreign land since it no longer possessed the military might it had in the past (Dugdale, 2006). In this case, the political face of realism came to play a greater role while the government declined to withdraw its military which had occupied the larger part of Falkland Islands. Basically, the government wanted to amass power both internally and externally through intimidation. However, even though its actions could have seemed valid, this did not match with the belief of most of the international members. The presence of the Argentine army on Falkland soil was not welcomed by the citizens of these islands. This can be demonstrated by the fact that they were still comfortable being under British leadership. The invasion overrode a number of realistic assumptions that are necessary for ideal existence of free and cooperative states. First, the Argentine government had shown all characteristics of a tyrannical leadership. Its failure to address the economic problems at home while pretending to be capable of handling an international row was questionable. Additionally, it was extending its authoritative rule over its neighboring free state. Diplomatic interventions Soon after the Argentine invasion, the United States tried to intervene diplomatically with no success. The US had strong bilateral relations with the two nations. From her viewpoint, the two states stood to gain more by solving the crisis diplomatically than going to war. This approach can be supported by the liberal view of the United States on her international policy. The liberalist theory of international relation states that the mutual benefit resulting from cooperation between states surpasses the destructive losses of war (Dougherty & Pfalztgraf, 2000). However, Argentina relentlessly stood her ground prompting the US to go for the next best alternative which was indirectly supporting Britain. The characteristics of Argentina by the time of invasion justifies the expansionist strategies it exercised by taking over the islands from Britain. First, the country was under military rule which had a low regard of diplomacy. This is one of the major reasons why the efforts by United States government to solve the crisis using diplomatic channels failed. The government felt that it could stand to gain more if they had the control of the land surrounding Falkland Islands especially through fishing. The constructivism theory of international relations explains that state behavior is largely controlled by economic, political and social characteristics (Morgan, 2006). In regard to the above theory, Argentina could have been looking for a way of having secure fishing grounds. This is despite the fact that the government had earlier secured fishing rights in the areas around the islands. However, no one could predict the future just in case the British government backed down on the deal. To other states, the action of Argentina was seen as an expansionist strategy which could threaten international peace in post World War II era. The great support for Britain during the war emanated from the neoliberal view of the role of states in maintaining international peace. The neoliberal view holds that states are most likely to cooperate regardless of their virtual gain as long as the absolute gains are more convincing (Morgan, 2006). In this case, the allies of Britain felt that there was a need to help the greater Falkland population make their political choice, as well as safeguarding their sovereignty. To them, Argentina was acting as a stumbling block to the achievement and practice of sovereign rights of Falkland people. The claim of Argentina over Falkland Islands could not have come at any other time than when the country was under military rule. The regime theory of international relations best explains this act as it holds that the regime in power determines the behavior of a state. In international arena, the state is represented by the government in power. The support that the Argentine government had from its citizenry was a pointer of both patriotism and deep-rooted sentiments over British occupation of Falklands. International support for both countries According to the regime theory of international relations, global regimes determine the behavior of state governments and other institutions. The success of a state in its pursuit of domestic or international activities depends on the level of cooperation with other states (Dougherty & Pfalztgraf, 2000). In the case, the success of United Kingdom in the Falklands war largely depended on the support she got from her allies during the war. First, the United States and France government did not shy away in giving their political and indirect military support to UK during the war. As permanent members of United Nations Security Council, US and France gave their political support by voting for Resolution 502 which required Argentina to withdraw her forces out of Falklands Islands (Kiney, 1989). The resolution was a big blow to the Argentinian invasion as it showed more support toward UK. Additionally, the U.S supplied the UK military with the much needed military equipment such as missiles to fight the Argentine army. On the other hand, France offered training to the UK army pilots on how to attack the French-made Boeing aircrafts which were used by Argentina’s army (Welch, 1997). The European Economic Community, other than Spain, helped UK to deny Argentina financing sources by imposing economic sanctions on Argentina. Other Commonwealth Nations strongly supported UK in her actions. On her part, Argentina got political support from Spain which abstained from voting on Resolution 502. This did not come as a surprise since because it was less likely for Spain to vote against her former colony. Additionally, Britain had not shown any significant interest in the islands during and after Spain had ended its colonization. Libya provided Argentina with missiles, while neighbors like Venezuela and Peru gave spare parts for their military crafts (Welch, 1997). A rare support for Argentina came from Israel whose intelligence advisors remained in the country throughout the crisis, giving advise the Argentine army. The Junta government could not have gone to war at a time when the economy was at its lowest levels. The war not only took away a lot of the country’s money in financing the war but also led to the death of over 600 men (Grove, 2005). In contrast, the British army lost only 200 men. The economic sanctions that were imposed by the European Economic Community during the war denied the country any revenue from foreign trade during the time of crisis. Misconceptions Other than what the people were made to belief, their lives would not change a lot with the exit of United Kingdom’s army from Malvinas. Rather, their lives would change for the better with the exit of the military rule and consequent return of democratic rule. The support for the war was highest in the beginning of the war. However, by the time the war was coming to an end, the messages of defeat had passed all over the country. The war ended on June 20, 1982 after the surrender of the remaining Argentine armies on the Southern islands (Grove, 2005). The war opened a new chapter in the political arena of Argentina. Even though the Argentines had patriotically stood with their leadership, the defeat was seen as a larger part of its failure to deliver on its mandate. The instances of civil unrests rose significantly, lowering the popularity of the military government. The Junta government was defeated a year later and the country returned to democratic leadership. Even though the new government was subjected to unsuccessful coups, the country has remained under democratic rule. This has helped Argentina to restore its diplomatic relations with United Kingdom. Summary From the outset, the Argentinean government could not accept the reality that Britain had both moral and political right over Falkland Islands. Even though this dispute remained unresolved the timing and the main reason for the attack remained a blurred truth from most Argentineans. The popularity that the Junta military government sought to create through the war was lost after its defeat by British army. Argentine became a stable and more prosperous state under civil rule after 1983 than the early military rule. References Dougherty, J. and Pfalztgraf, R. (2000). Contending theories of international relations. New York: Longman Publishers. Dugdale, T. (2006) The Falklands war 1982. Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://www.historyofwar.org/articles.wars falklands.html. Elman, C. (2003). Progress in international relations. New York: Praeger. Grove, M (2005). The Falklands conflict: Lessons for the future. New York: Frank Cass. Kiney, D. (1989). The diplomacy of the Falklands crisis. New York: Praeger. Morgan, P. (2006). International security. Washington D.C: C Q Press. Welch D. (1997). Remember the Falkland’s? Missed lessons of a misunderstood war. International Journal, 52, pp. 345-456. Read More