Everyone now acknowledges that the Iraq war was about oil. But what about the Falklands conflict? At the time, a few small voices put forward the oil hypothesis: that vast oil deposits surrounded the Falklands/Malvinas and that that, rather than the alleged ‘paramountcy’ of the wishes of a couple of thousand vaguely-English sheep farmers, explained the Conservatives’ risky decision to go to war to recover them. Those voices were shouted down in an outraged and gushing chorus of patriotic fervour that engulfed the country, cheerled by the ‘Gotcha’ press. But now, 25 years on, it is plain to see (check out for example www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2174615,00.html ) that those voices were right. The British government couldn’t care less for a couple of thousand of distant nobodies – just contrast the fate of the Chagos islanders, who stood in the way of our imperial designs, with that of the Falkland islanders, whose presence fortuitously assisted those same designs.
An ugly dotted line of savage militarist oil and gas grabs connects the Falklands war with the Iraq debacle (going by way of the 1st Gulf War and the attack on Afghanistan). Next time our soldiers’ lives and our own security from non-state terrorism, -- not to mention the lives of millions of Hispanics, Arabs – or Persians – are recklessly put at risk for the sake of a shot at the very same black sticky stuff whose over-combustion is over-heating our fragile Earth, let us rise up, one and all, and say to our home-grown oil-addicted empire of short-sighted selfishness: Never again. We won’t be fooled again.
Comments
Glad to see you've started blogging.
I'm not convinced the Falklands War was about oil. For one, any estimates of oil reserves around there are very speculative - and would have been even more so 15 years ago. There could be a lot less than 60bn barrels. The oil majors certainly aren't interested. It is minor exploration companies involved, who have a vested interest in hyping up any viable oil fields to drum up investment.
As far as wars go, the Falklands had a valid cassus belli. There had been an unprovoked act of aggression against islands which had been British territory for 150 years. In line with the principles of self-determination, the islanders were happy for that state of affairs to continue.
Regardless of economic or regional strategic interests, it was a legimitate case of refusing to appease a military dictatorship, and liberating people and territory Britain had responsibility for.
That Britain may have acted rather less honorably in other times and in other situations should not diminish this.