By Carlos Raimundi ·
Malvinas in the current Geopolitics
It couldn’t be otherwise, the Malvinas’ islands case is part of a new context in the geopolitical world. The world is experiencing a stage of uncertainty, different from the climate of certain stability that prevailed during the cold war, which presented a certain “order” from two major poles of reference such as the socialist and capitalist blocks.
Like it also has been the post-Cold War, when erecting the USA as a dominant pole: liberal democracy as a political structure and market freedom as an economic structure proposed to the world, whether we like it or not, a reference.
Today, however, we witness the failure of a model of accumulation that can no longer generate any horizon of hope. Until some time ago, the abandonment and humiliation caused by this model was circumscribed to attack the areas of the planet known as peripheral. However, such concentration of wealth has been such a debauchery that today traditionally central areas like Europe itself and part of the USA are being attacked.
One of the causes of this loss of references worldwide is precisely the failure and exhaustion of the mode of accumulation of globalized financial capital. The other is the appearance of an actor such as China, which having equated its GDP with the US, It emerges as a potential competitor in geopolitical terms.
At the same time, the presence of traditional nation-states today intersects with increasingly concentrated, Omni comprehensive and dominant financial interests, which handle budgets several times higher than those of many states.
Therefore, they question the government from the politics, to subordinate it to the smooth and plain management in the hands of those conglomerates.
But both the central powers and the large financial conglomerates that have co-opted in some cases, and in others have been integrated into the political power of those states – need to maintain their dominance over an area such as Malvinas, strategic from every point of view.
However, the growing disagreement of the Europeans with their regional bloc weakens Europe’s support for the United Kingdom in its claim on the overseas territories.
Based on the popular experiences throughout the first part of the 21st century, with policies of financial autonomy that confronted the neoliberal model, Latin America played an active role in the preparation of the world power agenda. Having leaned towards the block known as BRICS, composed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, it participated in an area that represents 60% of world GDP, and, as such, challenged the model of mere globalized financial capital.
And because there are no political models of partial autonomy or partial deliveries of sovereignty, but there are models of sovereignty and models of surrender and claudication, the Malvinas cause was assumed within the same framework of autonomous and anticolonial policies, first by Mercosur , then by Unasur and finally by CELAC.
In this context of complaint against colonialism in general, not only territorial, but also economic, financial, armament and cultural, are the reforms of the Argentinian criminal legislation that punish those British companies that operate ignoring the situation of the conflict in the South Atlantic, to exploit fishing or hydrocarbon resources. And the prohibition to authorize flights or shipments of Malvinas flag ships in the Mercosur ports, the complaint in the international forums of the presence of nuclear weapons and the increasing militarization of the area by NATO. All this is reflected, for example, in the Ushuaia Declaration of February 23, 2012.
The position of each government on Malvinas responds to the general orientation of its policies. A policy of rejection of the ALCA or de-indebtedness -as a reaffirmation of our status as sovereign states- could not coexist with a claudication regarding the Malvinas. In the same way, but from the opposite perspective, declamation of sovereignty is of no use when the general orientation of the policies is indebtedness and strategic alignment with the empire that is responsible for the colonial situation. That is to say, sovereignty gets defended or giving away in all aspects. In addition, that marks the contrast between the situation in Latin America with presidencies such as Cristina Fernández de Kirchner or Dilma Rousseff, and the current one.
From the coherence of popular experiences, the Latin American countries that had to represent the anticolonial cause of the Malvinas in various forums and organizations of the United Nations, obtained broad majorities in the respective votes, although the British continue without agreeing to dialogue. Despite having support by only a minority of countries, they are allies with a specific weight that is difficult for the majority to twist. The construction of power worldwide through blocks and experiences of coordination and regional and interregional integration is one of the keys to improve our performance in the immediate future. These complaints were made in terms of a clearly anticolonial position, since it could not be explained otherwise than from colonialism, the control over a territory that is 17,000 km away from the so-called metropolis.
The United Kingdom is, without a doubt, the potency that most deployed its colonial domination directly throughout the world, ignoring and crushing any attempt of autonomous voice of the dominated peoples. However, the Malvinas permanently wields the right to decide of its own inhabitants – what they falsely call “self-determination” – as an excuse not to argue with Argentina as required by international law. While our convictions and our deeply rooted tradition, as well as our Constitution, impose on us the respect for the interests and way of life of the islanders, Argentina has always responded that because it is a population implanted by force from the British metropolis, the inhabitants of The Malvinas do not constitute a third independent actor. Therefore, the two States between whom the dispute exists must address the issue of sovereignty. The islanders are an actor to respect, but not a sovereign state.
Why should we give up our strategy of gradual integration between the Islands and the continent?
However, not being a sovereign party in the dispute does not mean giving up having a policy towards the inhabitants of the Islands. For this reason, I rescue the spirit of a legislative project that I presented some years ago, which contemplates, within a general strategy, the creation of a Special Zone in the South Atlantic, as a priority region to grant fiscal and financial incentives for the establishment of industry premises and the creation of jobs, preferential advantages for the development of scientific and technological centers, complementary with activities of natural or legal persons.
Malvinas in the decolonization struggle of our physical and cultural America.
The cultural and academic exchange could represent a priority for the progressive opening of transit between Argentina and the Islands, through a special regime for the establishment of Educational Institutions, Universities and Research Institutes, which allow islanders and Argentines to study at university level, comparable to what they could obtain in the United Kingdom, with work opportunities applicable to the socioeconomic reality of the region.
Almost half of the young people who finish high school enroll in British universities and annually two or three of them graduate. In addition, it is precisely the youngest who can review the rejection of adult generations towards Argentina, based on a more normal relationship that is not presented as an “Argentine triumph”, but as a reciprocal benefit. Given the deep differences between our customs, what is involved is to imagine initiatives that favor integration, including joint artistic and sports activities.
The protection of species, the drinking water reserves and the reduction of the ozone layer, should be reason to promote the holding of an International Conference on the Environment in the South Atlantic area.
In the end , it is about creating economic and cultural conditions from the perspective of a multi-year process, a medium-term strategy away from any desire for immediate impact, a State policy aimed at a gradual integration, which allows facing, of once for all and in the best conditions, the question of sovereignty. In an inclaudible way, but at the same time creative and intelligent.