Democracy and the Malvinas: the need for an in-depth debate

The celebration of 40 years in democracy and the upcoming presidential elections are the appropriate framework to reflect on Argentina's future strategy on the Malvinas Question.

The political forces registered for the October electoral competition have said nothing about their proposal and design of their foreign policy, in general, and, even less, about their ideas about the disputed territories that cover more than 1,5000,000 km2 rich in fish resources, hydrocarbons, tourism, geostrategic and Antarctic. Citizens should challenge political forces with presidential aspirations to establish what their paradigm is in terms of international politics if they come to power.

On the other hand, we are at a turning point where the international system is being redesigned and reaching a reconfiguration that will govern in the coming years. These systemic elements added to the internal ones give an excellent possibility for the following question: is it possible to elaborate a minimum document of coincidences between the parties on southern guidelines and the commitment to maintain them when one of them wins?

Only then can we go to our neighbors and ask them to accompany us with our demand. The chances of us advancing in the recovery of the disputed spaces are enhanced if the unilateral Argentine approach vis a vis the United Kingdom is accompanied by a South American harmonization.

But none of this can happen if Argentina changes its position vis-à-vis London before each new administration. The only way to assure friends that their commitment and the potential costs they can pay vis-à-vis London for their active positioning in favor of the Malvinas Cause will be defended through two actions: firstly, with a comprehensive State policy on the medium-term issue and, secondly, raising the South Atlantic and Antarctica as a South American cause; offering our bases in the white continent to enhance scientific cooperation and research under the perspective of the conservation and protection of renewable and non-renewable resources and as a zone of peace and free of nuclear weapons.

And you ask, what could be the basis of that agreement? In the first place, advance in the construction of measures of trust and dialogue with London without consenting that through a policy of fait accompli continues to explore and exploit resources that are disputed.

Second, to promote two United Nations resolutions: 2065 of 1965 that recognizes a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and invites them to sit down at a negotiating table and resolve the underlying issue.

We must never forget (and remind the world) that this resolution had no votes against. On the other hand, 37/9 of 1982 (four months after the war) calls on both states to resume negotiations to find a solution to the dispute.

This provision is opposed to the strategy and policy assumed by London after the military victory of the drop the claim. Finally, intelligently take advantage of the potential that social discontent over Brexit is causing in that country added to the independence movements in Scotland.

Agustín Romero is a Doctor in Political Science, author of the book La Cuestión Malvinas. A roadmap. Tools for Argentine Foreign Policy (EUDEBA)