IN January 2013, while researching an article I was writing, I decided to look at the Sun’s coverage of the Falklands Islands and their relationship to Britain. 

If one had a look at the Sun website on January 10 2013 as I did — or indeed looked at the front page — you could read a piece about “Heroes in Argie Mission” concerning how “Helmand hardmen are (being) sent to guard fortress Falklands.”

As part of a continuing military build-up around the islands — commonly referred to internationally as the Malvinas — we were told that “some 150 from the company will join more than 1,000 other service personnel plus FOUR Typhoon jets and Royal Navy assets,” apparently “sent to guarantee Argentina can never retake the Falklands.”

Just in that same month, there had been at least six pieces on the issue in the Sun, regularly using the derogatory term “Argie.” 

Indeed, the Sun’s “interest” in the issue has been so great that it paid for an open letter in the Buenos Aires Herald.

But it is not just the Sun that has been increasingly agitated on this issue in recent years and months.

A Metro headline from the same month read: “David Cameron: We would not shirk from second Falklands War” and the Independent reported: “Cameron: Britain would fight another war with Argentina to keep the Falkland Islands.”

This followed Cameron saying to Andrew Marr that “our resolve is extremely strong.” 

Drawing attention to Britain having one of the five largest defence budgets in the world, he added: “We have strong defences in place on the Falkland Islands, that is absolutely key, that we have fast jets stationed there, we have troops stationed on the Falklands.”

More recently, in April 2014, despite objections from Argentina’s government, Britain conducted military exercises in the area, including missile launches from the islands. 

Then, just weeks ago in October, Britain insisted that the firing of a Royal Navy frigate’s guns off the islands was part of routine military exercises, but was seen again by Argentina as a provocation. 

The Buenos Aires government described the HMS Iron Duke’s firing of 136 shells onto a target range on the islands as “an unwarranted show of force.”

There are certainly grounds to understand why many in Latin America see such actions as contrary to United Nations resolutions on the issue, which call on both parties to resume negotiations over sovereignty and refrain from introducing unilateral modifications in the situation as long as the dispute persists. 

What is worrying is how little we hear of alternative viewpoints to this sabre-rattling, which has continued throughout the past two years, loyally echoed in much of the press. 

As the actor Sean Penn has put it, the Argentinian “voice on an intractable UK position” has “been so nominally heard” that it’s led to a situation where Cameron’s aggressive position, and its underlying assumptions, often seems to go unchallenged despite it being a clear minority position on the world stage.

Many would not trust Cameron’s lead on other issues, so what is the reality of the current situation and actual position of Argentina’s government?

First, contrary to some reports, President Cristina Fernandez has made it clear that Argentina respects the islanders’ interests and way of life and will offer safeguards to this effect in any process of dialogue concerning sovereignty.

Therefore, while many attempt to portray the Argentinian government as an aggressor and the islanders “in danger,” in Argentina and Latin America the situation is seen the other way around, with the president responding to Cameron’s comments by saying: “Argentina once again has been attacked by … (those) who threaten to come 12,000 kilometres to invade and militarise our Malvinas.”

What lies behind this approach?

It is also worth asking what really lies behind Britain’s total refusal of any discussions on sovereignty?

For many, there is a clear link with the likely discovery of further offshore oil reserves. 

Relations between London and Buenos Aires soured in 2010 over the arrival of a rig which started offshore drilling for oil and gas. 

In 2012 the Leiv Eiriksson oil rig arrived, meaning there are now five companies which possess illegitimate licences to carry out oil exploitation. 

It is entirely understandable that Argentina should find British companies drilling so close to the shores of disputed territory off its own coast provocative, especially within a situation of increasing British militarisation in the area, with the islands representing a strategic area in a military system that allows Britain control of the south Atlantic Ocean through bases in the Falklands, South Georgias, South Sandwich, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and Saint Helena.

This military build-up was confirmed in 2012 by the decision to dispatch HMS Edinburgh to the south Atlantic to patrol the waters “in support of British interests.”

Progressives here should also bear in mind the nature of the Fernandez-led government, which has overseen numerous programmes for the majority of people, including universal child benefit and increased pensions. 

Fernandez has also been strong on human rights, encouraging the prosecution of suspects in Argentina’s “dirty war” accused of “disappearing” some 30,000 people. 

The elected president is widely seen as part of the left-of-centre “pink wave” that has swept across Latin America in recent years, and can in no way be compared with the Argentinian regime that went to war in the 1980s.

As Penn has put it: “The very people who suffered and fought most enduringly against (the) military junta in Argentina are the ones who today lead that country, and on behalf of their people seek simply a fair and re-established diplomacy in issues of the disputed islands, ranging from immigration to natural resources.”

Furthermore, the international community agrees with Argentina in its appeal for dialogue to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute, with the UN decolonisation committee and general assembly urging both parties “to proceed without delay with the negotiations.” This position was reaffirmed again this year.

The June summit of the G77 nations plus China also approved two statements in support of Argentina’s position and the need for dialogue.

In light of these considerations, the position taken by CND gives a clear lead. 

Expressing alarm at “reports that a Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine has already been sent there” and “at recent decisions to step up Britain’s military presence around the Malvinas,” the CND motion put campaigning for the British government to change its stance on the the peace movement’s agenda.

Interestingly, before the 1982 war, proposals of “leaseback” were considered in negotiations. 

According to this British proposal, Britain would recognise Argentina’s sovereignty, which, as the holder of sovereignty, would lease back the islands to Britain for a period of time in which Britain would continue to exercise administrative functions. 

Can progressives in Britain link up with the voices of reason across the world to end the government’s intransigence in refusing to enter discussions and help put the discussion of such ideas and solutions on the agenda? 

Matthew Willgress is a signatory in a personal capacity to the European Call for Dialogue statement launched at an international conference in early 2014 and writes in a personal capacity.

The Latin America 2014 Conference on Saturday November 29 will include a session on the need for dialogue with Argentina’s ambassador Alicia Castro and writer Richard Gott. Other speakers at the event include Che Guevara’s daughter Aleida Guevara, plus guests from Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Brazil and Bolivia. For the full programme and tickets visit www.latinamerica2014.org.uk.