Energy, Geo-economics And War: Rethinking The 1982 Falklands Conflict

The United Kingdom and Argentina have been developing a long bilateral relationship, being partners in several areas. Nevertheless, this dissertation will be framing up a loophole, a very specific subject which has not only drawn substantial attention from both sides, but also inspired conflicting interpretations about it.From a historical perspective, two tiny islands off the southernmost part of Argentina’s coast have been at the epicentre of disputes amongst European powers for some centuries. Countries such as France, Spain and the United Kingdom had struggled to get hold of the islands. However, France was thrown out of the race and, in 1816, Argentina replace Spain, from which it had gotten its political independence.As it will be possible to observe further in this dissertation, there are diverging accounts as to how Britain came to set foot on the islands in a definitive way. On the British side, it has been stated that an illegal Argentine garrison was expelled from the islands, which was when Britain started off an occupation that comes until the present date. On the other hand, Argentina advocates that it were Argentine settlers who were expelled from the islands. Regardless of how it came into being, the fact is that Britain has had what is termed de facto sovereignty over the islands since 1833. In Argentina, the islands are called Las Malvinas, whereas in the English-speaking world they have been called the Falkland Islands, or just the Falklands.This matter has been, unquestionably, the most important question in the AngloArgentine bilateral relationship, being a very sensitive point, for it has awoken passions from both sides and fed unwillingness to compromise, which makes any settlement about it highly unlikely. Furthermore, in this troublesome Falklands chapter between Britain and Argentina, there is a moment that symbolizes the importance both countries would give to the islands, when the armed forces from both countries engaged each other in the territory in question.Before we go further, we would like to make it clear that this dissertation makes reference to the 1982 Falklands War between the abovementioned countries. Likewise, it is also of the utmost importance to clarify that this academic work has been written from the British perspective, which means it discusses British interests in the area.Many scholars and researchers have been looking it over through the Diversionary War Theory(DWT) perspective, according to which leaders can bring about an external conflict with the purpose of diverting people’s attention from hovering over domestic problems.In light of what has been pointed out above, we will now get ourselves into technical aspects that consist, primarily, of two main parts. These parts are as follows: first of all, the objectives which are going to lead us up towards the outcome that this research has obtainedwill be laid out. Second of all, we shall provide this dissertation’s structure, in which we indicate the main ideas of each chapter.The objectives we have chased in this academic work are as follows: first of all, it was mandatory to deconstruct the DWT’s premises, for they are unable to account for this war. Second of all, it was critical to provide facts that would resolutely refute the DWT view about our case and, third of all, it was equally critical to assemble information which would support the two research questions upon which this dissertation has been made.These two research questions have thoroughly challenged the DWT, because they break away from the main chain of thought which is dominated by the DWT. Our two research questions are as follows: why did the United Kingdom fight to protect two very small islands in the South Atlantic, and what was the participation of the oil sector in the war decisionmaking process?Therefore, the question that needs to be addressed in the first place is this: how have we pursued these objectives? We have done research considering the UK’s long-term interests in the area, as well as studying oil and gas companies’ interests in the region too. Moreover, it was also necessary to study the international environment prior to 1982, as well as going over Britain’s and Argentina’s interests in the region.The way through which this research has been conducted enabled us to assemble information in order to substantiate our initial goals, which were to deconstruct the DWT’s premises, to provide facts that would refute the DWT view about our case and to assemble information that would support the two research questions upon which this dissertation has been written.The journey that we have embarked on was worth doing and was very fruitful. After going through a long and specific research reaching out to books, online data and a primary source, it is now possible to say that the reason through which the United Kingdom went to war with Argentina was not simply because it aimed at protecting its subjects living in the islands or because Thatcher’s government was attempting to divert its people’s attention from the bothersome period the country was going through.The reason why it counterattacked Argentina’s attack in the Falklands was that the UK had two long-term goals in the region. In the first place, it was well aware of the fact that the islands had a considerable potential for oil and natural gas. Currently, British oil and natural gas companies are leading the way in the region and, before 1982, the British Foreign Office received many requests from oil companies for exploring for oil and gas. Apart from around the Falklands, Britain was also strengthening its presence in the South Atlantic, keeping other islands that were claimed by Argentina as well and ensuring opportunities for UK companies in the region in the long-term, for it has been considered by the UK government as a strategic region. What was keeping them from starting their business down there was the unwillingness to compromise from both sides, in other words, a political impasse between the UK and Argentina upon the islands.Furthermore, Margaret Thatcher’s government had a very close relationship towards oil companies. In this context, this dissertation will show that there was a close relationship among the government, universities, politicians and the armed forces in order to decide for the war, taking into account the UK’s long-term interests in the area.Since we deconstructed the DWT explanation on our subject, we have picked out a theoretical framework whose contents match the facts about it. The geo-economical perspective offers us elements that establish a more adequate linkage between its elements such as private-sector companies, governments and the Nareland, being that last one places that have a considerable concentration of resources, and the way how the UK carried out its actions in the area leading up to its intervention against Argentina’s temporary seizure of the Falkland Islands. Since we have introduced what our objectives are, we are now going to introduce this dissertation’s structure, allocating the main ideas into their respective chapters.This work consists of five chapters.In chapter one, whose title is “Introduction”, there are two main ideas. We introduce the purpose of this study, as well as its contribution to existing literature. As for the first, the purpose through which this dissertation has been written is that it is intended to deconstructing the Diversionary War Theory premises on the 1982 Falklands War, which has been widely used by scholars and researchers to explain this conflict. As for the second, its contribution to existing literature is that this dissertation will be spotlighting very important facts that the DWT has missed in its attempt to clarify this war. Thus, it will set aside the DWT and will use a theory whose fundaments are sufficiently consistent to connect and articulate the facts it has neglected.In chapter two, whose title is “Trade Follows the Flag”, there are two main ideas. Initially, we discuss the literature review, bringing forward what others have talked about the Falklands War. In this perspective, we offer examples of what has been written about it, being those primarily making reference to the DWT, so that the readers may fathom how significant this matter has been through time. Moreover, in the theoretical framework subsection, we explain why the DWT cannot account for clarifying the war. Furthermore, it will be substantiated by facts that go against it, making it unable to hold on to its premises in our case.Likewise, I bring forward the Geo-economic theory and introduce its main premises, making the point that it is a well-organized puzzle because it takes into account the interests of the country, not domestic actors’ interests like the DWT points out. Geo-economics is distinctive from domestic politics, for the former is strongly associated with the purpose of pursuing national interests, while the latter is more linked to the pursuit of a political agent’s interests.In chapter three, whose title is “Geo-economics: going deeper and beyond”, I answer the research questions associating Geo-economics with facts, leaning away from the DWT approach.Why did the United Kingdom fight to protect two very small islands in the South Atlantic, andwhat was the participation of the oil sector in the war decision-making process?The UK fought in the South Atlantic taking two long-term goals into consideration. The first long-term goal made reference to oil and natural gas in this territory. It fought to protect oil and natural gas reserves around the islands. The British Government obtained geological information about the Falklands’ surrounding seas, and the British Foreign Office suffered an enormous pressure from oil and natural gas companies to explore the Falkland waters. Besides, the Falkland Islands Government wanted those companies to do the drilling as a way to ensure British sovereignty in the sea. The Geo-economic theory states that actions are taken with the interests of the State in mind, being private-sector organizations those who carry out such interests, and this is done in regions, called Nareland, where there are strategically relevant resources, like oil and natural gas. You have a harmonious relation among State, universities, private companies and a political class that had potential businesses down there. The army made sure it would go unscratched. The second long-term goal was Antarctica, where Britain and Argentina have overlapping territorial claims. The world’s last frontier on energy resources is considered to be this continent, mainly the region that encompasses the remaining British possessions in the South Atlantic and the seas between them and Antarctica. Furthermore, if Britain would have lost the Falklands, its Antarctic claim would have suffered a major blow.Wrapping it up, Britain fought to protect oil and natural gas around the islands, as well as its British claim in Antarctica. Thatcher’s administration brilliantly understood that this seemingly unimportant region was too important for Britain to be set aside.In chapter four, whose title is “The British Eldorado: Further Perspectives”, we make connections between Britain’s presence in the Falklands, as well as its presence and longterm goals in the region with NATO. NATO’s new energy policy aims at assisting memberstates through energy supplying. Britain can improve its stand in this organization in the long term by being a source of energy resources to other member states.In chapter five, whose title is “Conclusion”, I brainstorm about how I have conducted this dissertation and the research prior to start writing it. I have concluded that the majority of scholars and researchers focus on this war based on a theory that does not explain what really was at the stake in 1982. The Geo-economics theory can replace the DWT approach because it strings not only the facts back in 1982 to account for why Britain fought Argentina, but it also explains how British oil and natural gas companies have been drilling around the islands today. As you can observe, we have made a timeline, in which all relevant facts have been laid down with the purpose of explaining a major event, which was the 1982 war. Moreover, based on what happened back then, the readers will be able to understand why Britain will continue to hold on to this seemingly godforsaken part of the world.Thus, we believe that this dissertation will provide a better and deeper understanding about the 1982 Falklands War from a theoretical point of view and also from a factual perspective, since many facts that are contained in this dissertation remain unknown and unheard of by many. We have broken free from the DWT chains and flung into a theoretical framework that has provided adequate shelter to historic facts. Moreover, the reader will be able to read today’s reality in the islands, concerning underway events and make an instantaneous association with events that took place before 1982 that sealed the UK’s determination to fight, which has kept the islands under British sovereignty until today.