Q&A ¿Qué dejó el referéndum en Malvinas?

What did the referendum in Malvinas leave?

 1.-Did the “referendum” alter the international situation of the Malvinas  Islands?

 No. The Malvinas Question continues being considered by the United Nations  (UN) as a territory subject to decolonization. For the UN, the Malvinas Question continues being a ” special and particular case ” of decolonization because it supposes a dispute of sovereignty between two countries.

2.-Who took part in the referendum?

 Only the British citizens who live in the islands. It encompasses an voting population of 1.650 persons, constituted only by those that possess British citizenship and seven years of residence in the islands. “It is a referendum organized by the British for the British, in order to say that the territory has to be a British one “, summarizes the Argentine Ambassador in London, Alicia Castro.

 The composition of the population depends on the arrival of persons essentially from the metropolis though it is never possible to precise  the number of inhabitants since the British censuses in the islands do not include at all the military personnel and their families that live in the British military bases established there.

 3.-Who have the right to free determination under the international law?

 Professor Marcelo Kohen supports the idea that International Law distinguishes three categories of human communities: peoples, minorities and autochthonous peoples. Only the first ones have a right of free external determination, that is to say, they can decide the fate of the territory in which they live. Unlike other cases in which the victims of the colonialism were subdued peoples, in the case of Malvinas the victim was a sovereign State in the dawn of its independence. The General Assembly of United Nations does not recognize the existence of the claimed “falklander people” with right of free determination.

4.-Why, in the Malvinas Question, the UN speaks about the “interests” of the islanders and not about their ”desires”?

 Because the international community expressed in the maximum level of world diplomacy – the UN General Assembly-, interprets that the current population of the islands is British, but not the territory, because there is a sovereign dispute that recognizes two parts; Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

 It is not a question, then, of a people colonized with right to the self-determination but of a territory colonized out of the compulsive eviction of the population that was there and its legitimate authorities.

 The implantation of a population brought in warships from Great Britain annuls the possibility of application of the Principle of Self-determination of the Peoples

5.- Why did the United Kingdom of Great Britain decide to promote the referendum?

 Because its margin of resilience to the fulfillment of the resolutions of the international community has been dwarfed in the last years. Argentina was able to position back the Malvinas Question in the international agenda.

6.- Who do support the Argentine claim?

 The diplomatic Argentine strategy – with an epicentre in United Nations for decades-, has

 been reinforced recently during the Argentine Presidency of the influential Group of the 77 and China (G-77 and China). The UNASUR comes exhibiting a solidarity that goes beyond the mere expression of desires. Today it executes concrete measures, imposing legal restrictions in its ports to the deployment of activities that favor the illegal exploitation of resources in the waters of the South Atlantic.

 Days before, the 54 countries of the African continent recognized in the ” Declaration of Malabo ” the legitimate rights of sovereignty of Argentina on the Malvinas Islands. This Declaration adds to the ones already signed from  the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the Summit of the South American Countries and Arabic Countries, the Group of Rio, the Community of Latinamerican and Caribbean States (CELAC), The Latin-American Summits, the Declarations of the Organization of the American States (OAS), the Latin-American Association of Integration (ALADI), the System of Central American Integration (SICA), The Ministerial Summit of the Group of the 77 and China (G-77 and China), between others.

 It will turn out increasingly difficult for London to sustain its denial to negotiate.