UK’s 'disappointment' just colonialist arrogance: China Daily editorial

Although the United Kingdom's "disappointment" over Argentina's latest decision to terminate a joint communique with it in 2016 in which the two countries agreed to work together on various issues, might seem reasonable, it is anything but.

And the UK's rejection of Argentina's proposal of new talks in line with a 1965 UN General Assembly resolution that encouraged the two countries to find a peaceful solution to their sovereignty dispute lays bare which side dares not put its claim in the sunshine. The more the UK casts Argentina's move as punic faith, the more it is trying to distract the world from the nature of the issue, which is that a colony always belongs to its motherland not its suzerain.

The right and wrong of the dispute is clear. Argentina inherited the sovereignty over the Malvinas archipelago, when it gained independence from Spain in 1816. In 1833, Britain occupied the islands, about 13,000 kilometers away from the UK, by force. In 1965, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2065, which included the issue in the scope of "decolonization" and urged the two sides to resolve their dispute through negotiations. But in April 1982, the two countries fought a short but brutal war over the islands. The UK's victory in the war further fueled the acrimony between the two countries over the issue without changing which was in the right and which was in the wrong.

In the 2016 joint communique, the two sides agreed to disagree about sovereignty, but to cooperate on resources and fishing. As the Buenos Aires Times quoted an anonymous source with the Argentinian Foreign Ministry as saying, the pact "made concessions to British interests with respect to the exploitation of Argentine natural resources in the region and significantly set back the just claim for sovereignty". Moreover, the agreement took the form of a "joint communique", which meant that it did not require the approval of Argentina's Congress, which is obligatory for international agreements.

What the UK has provided to substantiate its claim that "the islands remain British" is the result of a so-called 2013 referendum it held on the islands, in which about 99.8 percent of the participants voted to "retain the islands' status as a British territory". But this does not stand up to scrutiny as most of the about 3,200 people living on the islands moved there after the 1982 war at the encouragement of the UK.

It is the financial, strategic and symbolic importance of the islands that motivates the UK to cling to the islands so desperately. The islands and the waters near them are rich in oil and gas. Controlling the islands also provides the UK with territory in the South Atlantic and secures its participation in Antarctica affairs.

The UK's attempts to justify its control of the islands have met with strong international opposition. The UN Human Rights Council, the Organization of American States and most countries in the world have repeatedly expressed their firm support for Argentina's resumption of sovereignty over the islands. The UK should bear in mind that theft is theft and time does not legitimize ill-gotten gains.