How is British rule in the Falklands linked to UN inaction on Syria?

How is British rule in the Falklands linked to UN inaction on Syria?

How are the Falklands linked to Syria? A puzzling question, you might think. How can there possibly be a connection between a centuries-old British colony of mostly sheep in the south Atlantic and a criminal regime murdering its own people in the Middle East? And yet I assure you, a link there is!

The Falklands Brouhaha

While we can be sure that Sean Penn has opinions, what they actually are remains a mystery.
(Photo: Flikr/Rehes Creative/Seher Sikandar)

What is all this brouhaha about the Falklands anyway? Why has this suddenly become an issue again? I thought Thatcher had sorted it out once and for all, and suddenly Sean Penn, of all people, is weighing in telling us Brits to clear off out of there. So why is Sean Penn suddenly all hot and bothered about it? I wish I could tell you, I really do, but in this case there really is no substitute for having it from the barking mad horse’s mouth itself:

"This is not a cause of leftist flamboyance nor significantly a centuries-old literary dispute. But rather a modern one, that is perhaps unveiled most legitimately through the raconteurism of Patagonian fishermen. One perhaps more analogous to South Africa than a reparation discussion in South Carolina. As a result, we must look to the mutual recognition of this illusive paradigm by both countries, when in the 1970s, the United Kingdom and Argentina were indeed involved in open-minded diplomatic negotiations for claims on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands."(Sean Penn, article in the Guardian)

So, having got that unintelligible brainspew out into the open, let’s hurriedly avert our gaze from it as we would from a babbling old drunkard on the bus, and try to forget it ever happened.

Arguments For and Against British Rule

“What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,

Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?"

So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply

"They are merely conventional signs!”

In fact, despite Penn’s ramblings, there are some reasoned practical arguments in favour of removing British rule as well as continuing it – on the one hand it’s a complete historical anachronism that appears to justify imperialism as a long-term strategy, on the other hand maybe even historical anachronisms should be allowed to decide their own fate. There are also some fascinating, intricate legal arguments on both sides, involving the interpretation of various conventions and treaties, claims, counter-claims and renunciations going back hundreds of years, all of which will, of course, absolutely never be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. You might as well base a claim to sovereignty on your own interpretation of the Hunting of the Snark.

And finally, there’s the real reason why high-up people in the UK and Argentina give a damn about the islands: The potential oil jackpot under the sea.

All of which makes it incredibly difficult for me to care what happens to the Falklands. As long as the people who live there are not being oppressed or tortured or killed, as long as they are free to go about their daily business, air their views in public and that sort of thing, then I really do not give two hoots what happens. I’m just a bit annoyed that we’re spending so much money defending something so pointless, and that’s about it. When you compare it to the genuine atrocities going on in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burma, Palestine and (don’t worry, I’m getting there) Syria, it all looks a tad pathetic.

So what’s it got to do with Syria?

A couple of weeks ago, the UN failed to get a weak, watery motion passed against Syria for one reason: Russia and China are permanent members of the UN Security Council with equally permanent vetoes against anything they don’t like. The solution that no one seems to be suggesting is to abolish the permanent members of the UN Security Council and their vetoes. After all, the whole set up is a complete historical anachronism (just like British control of the Falklands, as it happens!)

Those permanent members of the UN Security Council in full:

·         USA

·         USSR

·         UK

·         France

·         China

Sorry, did I write USSR just now? I meant Russia. It must have been because this system was set up at the end of WWII and I can’t believe it is now 2012 and it’s still going. If it had been set up any earlier, the Austro-Hungarian Empire would presumably have a permanent seat, with Karl von Habsburg exercising a veto against military intervention in Ottoman Turkey. I mean, France is a permanent member of the Security Council. France? FRANCE?!?! Seriously? International inaction on Syria is due to a system that was put in place essentially just to stop the Germans from becoming too powerful in Europe. Well, pat yourself on the back, Churchill, because that worked like a charm!

We have inherited a system where Russia and China can torpedo any reasonable moves against their dubious friends. But what’s good for the Russian goose is inevitably good for the American gander too. Seven of the last nine Security Council vetoes have emanated from the United States, and six of these were against draft resolutions criticising the Israeli Government in some way. So that’s all right then!

And where do the Falklands come into this? Well, each permanent member of the Security Council has its own reasons for wanting to keep the veto, and for the UK one of the strongest reasons is the issue of the Falkland Islands. The UK stance on the issue is to resist negotiations, not to allow ‘fact finders’ from the UN Decolonisation Committee to visit the island and, in short, not to allow any discussion of the matter at any level. Without the UK veto, this would be difficult to maintain, since most UN members, including the USA, cannot see any reason why negotiations should be ruled out absolutely and unconditionally. So don’t expect William Hague to suggest abolishing the permanent members’ vetoes and putting an end to Security Council inertia any time soon.

Baba Amr, Homs, Syria (Photo: Flikr/Freedom House)

On whose hands the blood?

Meanwhile, in Syria, the murder continues, and the media cry out, “Who has blood on their hands?” “The Syrian government” would be the obvious answer. Indeed, they do not so much have blood on their hands as they are swimming around in a great reservoir of Syrian blood, diving into it and then surfacing, spurting it playfully out of their mouths in a crimson arc. If we want to ask who, perhaps by standing too close to the edge of this great gory lake, has got splashed with flecks of red, the Russians and Chinese are standing there, sheepishly trying to cover the coagulating stains on their shirts. And if we want to know why we are letting them get away with it, we should look at our own government and our own privileged position in the Security Council, all for the sake of a few sheep on a group of islands in a faraway sea, and ask ourselves if it is really worth it.