William Hague must get post-colonial on Latin America. Fast

During a recent Foreign Office ceremony our ever inclusive Foreign Secretary invited questions from the floor. Without hesitation a distinguished, redheaded woman offered enquiry. No academic or think tank boffin alas, this piper-upper was none other than the (relatively) new Argentinian ambassador to London, HE Alicia Castro.

Undeterred by several interruptions from an anxious William, the question – relating to the Malvinas or Falkland Islands – came: “Seeing that the UN and the international community and a large group of Nobel Prize winners urge both countries to (start) negotiations in order to find a pacific and permanent resolution, my question is: ‘Are you ready for dialogue? Are we going to give peace a chance?’“

With bilateral tensions high; this apparent olive branch – albeit delivered within a highly public domain – had to be handled with care; only a crafted, sensitive reply would suffice. It came: “Thank you. That’s enough. Stop.“

This wincingly silly reluctance to join a grown up debate or buy temporary diplomatic credit with humour, or a gesture of constructive engagement is characteristic of the negligence displayed by Britain towards Latin American countries for too long.How might this dynamic, outreaching and fast growing continent – as politically, culturally and socially diverse as it is –  view successive UK governments, and indeed the present one?

Modern history shows a litany of bad moves on our part. The Thatcher government’s support for the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet; the indifference of the New Labour years to Latin America (including the devotion to the Bush administration and the Washington global consensus), manifested in the closing of embassies and occasional insults to the “pink tide” nations of Venezuela and Bolivia; bungled diplomacy with rising giant Brazil, and of course the on-going wrangle over Malvinas/Falklands, the small Island flying the Union Jack flag 8,000 miles from the British coast.

Another often overlooked factor for a less than perfect atmosphere might just be the existence of UK overseas territory tax havens directly in Latin America’s eye line – Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda etc – which allow trans-nationals and criminals operating from the continent to launder money, avoid tax and keep poor people poor; Action Aid estimate that one single new loophole in the recent budget will cost poorer nations, including some in Latin America, £4 billion.

Despite the global financial crisis, Latin America has continued to grow and poverty has continued to fall. The IMF recently increased its growth forecast for Latin America and its 600 million citizens; a population larger than the EU. The greatest concentration of democratic governments outside Western Europe is located there and UK tourism to the continent is increasing – BA weekly flight frequency to Brazil alone has doubled.

Yet, in another example of almost neo-colonial arrogance, Hague recently waded in to the Argentinian decision to nationalise oil fields operated by Spanish company REPSOL, a bilateral matter in the first instance, but also (as excellently argued here by Will Hutton) one with a deepercontext of that sovereign nation’s resources being snaffled under its nose, to its economic detriment. The multi-national of course would be compensated at the market rate.

The FCO must urgently re-adjust its approach to Latin America along the lines of equal partners, not colonial overlord and client colony. The ALBA economic group, for example, may contain many nations which are to the left of the UK government, but they are all democratic and, US interference aside, largely stable.

When these sensitive, bilateral issues of re-nationalisation of resources (at precarious structural junctures for those host countries) such as the REPSOL episode for Argentina or this week’s TDE electric issue for Bolivia emerge, Hague must ask himself if it is helpful to offer public judgements on what is best for that nation.

Broadly, Hague should also weigh up whether, as an economy in double dip recession, immersed in privatisation and neo-liberal economic doctrine, which according to the Bank of England recently cost our citizens an estimated £50 billion and our economy entirely around £7 trillion, we hold credibility to advise healthily growing nations thousands of miles away on their own resource management or economic strategies?

Cosmetically, the FCO is trying harder than the New Labour administration did. The El Salvador embassy has re-opened and from Sao Paulo to Buenos Aires, we are moderately increasing diplomatic staff. But as a Chatham House report put it, whilst China, Russia and even the US and others are meaningfully engaging with Latin America, “Britain appears to be dusting off the policy relics of the 19th century.”

Step one to rectifying this would be the practical necessity for negotiations with Argentina over Malvinas/Falklands; it is babyish, jingoistic and poor strategy to pretend otherwise. This call for peaceful negotiations is backed by the major regional blocks including MERCOSUR, The Union of South American Countries (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

For too long we have maligned individual Latin American nations. Collectively, their trading, economic and cultural communities are growing and joining up into internationally important unions. We can be partners in this historic reconfiguration, or we can bang the old Empire drum and be ignored.

Picture credit: Getty Images

Recent Posts on Notebook

• Enslaved to maize: Why we need to re-think Malawi's agricultural future
• The real ghetto superstar: Why Floyd Mayweather is no Muhammad Ali
• The fight for social equality in Brazil
• Barking Blondes: Other people's dogs
• Secondary Breast Cancer: Good news but feeling blue

• http://profile.yahoo.com/NFIIM2DUYX4J2DKDLNMOMAA2HQ Minerva

  ¨Si yo etubiese escribiyendo en un diário argentino, no escribiría en inglés.¨

  Vos = thou in english? lmao, if you had half brain cell you d know ¨vos¨hasnt got that translation in english, vos is an informal way to say YOU,its not old spanish! what the hell are you on about?

  Horrid spelling mistakes, incoherent parla, are you on crack?

• http://profile.yahoo.com/NFIIM2DUYX4J2DKDLNMOMAA2HQ Minerva

  Ken is cuckoo

• GauchoRivero

  Thanks, I appreciate your comments.
  I must say that Higgins quotation is not an opinion. Is doctrine.
  Two judgments of the ICJ shows that sovereignty is dependent of legal aspects and not of the inhabitants opinion. Western Sahara Case and more recently Cameroon v. Nigeria case, the latter with Higgins as a member of the court.
  You can not resolve a sovereignty dispute through consultation with the inhabitants of the territory.
  British justification followed this course:
  1. We occupied the islands in 1833 because we discovered them and were the first to occupy (Lord Palmerston dixit).
  2. 100 years later Britain admitted that, well, that’s not true (part of the pre-history, according to Lawrence Freeman) but now the islands are ours because we occupy 100 years ago (acquisitive prescription).
  3. Later… well, the prescription does not apply, because it was an act of force and Argentina’s protests never stop (Kershaw report) But what matters is the self-determination of the islanders.
  With this magic formula, the invasion justify the invasion.
  You understand why Argentina can not abandon its claim?
  This is not about nationalism or a mere whim.
  Regarding the integration of the islanders.
  Argentina perform countless efforts to improve the quality of life of the islanders.
  There are UN resolutions to prove it. They praise the efforts made by the Argentine government.
  We built the Stanley Airport, we provide medical care, we gave scholarships to islanders so they may come to English schools in Bs.As.
  The confusion arises by the failure to distinguish between the inhabitants of a territory from the people.
  In the Falklands there are no people oppressed by colonialism. British citizens are occupying a disputed territory.
  Only peoples are entitled to self-determination.
  I agree with you about the difficulties faced by the British government in the attempt to negotiate with Argentina.
  So I think the question should be settled by an international court.

• Whiffle

  Hi GaudchoRivero,

  Thank you for the thoughtful comments — I’ve learned a lot from your postings.

  However, I must ask (with regards to the Higgins quotation), what is doctrine if it’s not an opinion? 

  For example, Islam has doctrines, but, as a non-Muslim, I don’t accept them as having any binding on my behaviour or beliefs. 

  Similarly, I’m nominally a Roman Catholic. But like middle-class Roman Catholics around the world, I happily ignore many Roman Catholic doctrines (e.g. papal infallibility).

  Now I think about it, a Doctrine just means a “teaching”. Doctrines might be very well thought out and might be widely accepted as “true”, but they are not laws of physics. 

  My point was that Dame Higgins’s doctrine doesn’t have much influence with the 60 million people of the United Kingdom. I think that you were right to quote it (because, like many British people, I’d never heard of it).

  But now that you’ve drawn the doctrine to our attention, you won’t get much further with it because most British citizens won’t accept it as having any authority over their actions.

  If the Argentinian people are going to recover what many people around the world regard as their property (i.e. those Islands) then the Argentinians would be wise to gain a greater understanding of the motivations and beliefs of the British people. 

  Whether you agree with us or not, many British people believe that self-determination is a crucial factor in the debate. 

  Argentina should not dismiss the self-determination issue because it is so widely held in Britain. You should either find some way of addressing it — or wait patiently until this issue goes away (as issues often do).

  Moving on, I think that I do understand why Argentina cannot abandon its claim to the Falkland Islands/ Islas Malvinas. 

  And I don’t see why Argentina should drop its claim. 

  As I said before, I think that the Argentine does have a valid claim to the islands (I’m in a bit of a minority here in the UK on this — although other British people do agree with me). 

  However, along with most British people, I think that the rights of the inhabitants of the islands should come first. 

  The British Empire and its successor state, the United Kingdom, have repeatedly ridden rough-shod over the rights  and wishes of inhabitants of pieces of territory all over the world (Diego Garcia, Iraq, I could go on). And our f*cking rulers will doubtless do the same again in the future. 

  But that doesn’t make it right.

  I was unaware of the support given to the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands by Argentina. All I can say is that you should keep it up (and increase it). 

  I can’t imagine that the invasion of the 1980s is going to be forgotten anytime soon. But who knows what future generations of Islanders will feel about Argentina or Britain. 

  And there’s the question of what would happen if the Falkland Islanders did one day decide that they’re future lay as part of the Argentinian Republic? 

  If that were to happen then any Argentinian investment in the islands would pay dividends as it would make the integration of the islands so much easier. I’m speaking about business links and the provision of services.

  I was interested to hear your opinion about the international court. 

  However, I have no views on this matter and so I haven’t anything to say that would interest you.

  I look forward to reading your views on this and other topics in The Independent.

• John O Fuy

  What happened concerning Hong Kong?  A lot of english people was settled there. Were they asked about?

• richardwhite1983

  a) i mean will the Uk ever let it happen. Not, in my opinion
  b) 
  c) no the british just financed it all. Look at slaves in Cuba and mina gerais – worked to death for the most part. Not to mention Cerro rico mines in Bolivia which we creamed a rather sizable amount of profits from over a few decades.
  d) of oil and gas that have been found recently..

• richardwhite1983

  what happened to them? I thought they were rather nice to expats with all the tax breaks and what not