The Falklands Do Not Change Flags When the Wind Changes

Editions: 🇮🇹 Italiano – 🇫🇷 Français – 🇬🇧 English – 🇪🇸 Spanish – 🇭🇰 中文（繁體）

There is something welcome about hearing an Argentine president say that the Falklands/Malvinas question stands above political differences.

What is surprising is that Argentina had to wait almost three years to hear Javier Milei say it with such emphasis.

Addressing the nation with his cabinet around him, Milei announced tougher measures against companies involved in hydrocarbon exploitation without Argentine authorisation. He promised to deploy diplomatic, economic and legal instruments, announced measures concerning Tierra del Fuego and called for national unity over sovereignty.

Welcome, Mr President, to a policy of state.

The interesting question is why he arrived there now.

For much of his presidency, Milei’s relationship with the Malvinas issue has been considerably less passionate. His public admiration for Margaret Thatcher understandably raised eyebrows in Argentina — not because recognising political qualities in a historical adversary is forbidden, but because Thatcher was the British prime minister who led Britain during the 1982 war.

Nor did Milei help his case with references to the islanders’ right to self-determination, a central element of the British position and one that Argentine diplomacy has historically argued does not apply to this particular sovereignty dispute.

None of this automatically makes Milei an opponent of Argentina’s claim.

It does, however, make his newfound enthusiasm worthy of a question.

What changed?

The islands did not move. Sea Lion did not appear yesterday. Argentine legislation providing sanctions for unauthorised hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation has existed for years. Rockhopper has long been on Buenos Aires’ radar, and Navitas is hardly a newcomer to the South Atlantic project.

The genuinely new development occurred much farther north.

Donald Trump left open the possibility that Washington might reconsider its position on the dispute while publicly reproaching Britain for failing, in his view, to provide sufficient support to the United States in the confrontation surrounding Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

Milei saw “winds of change”.

Perhaps there are.

But wind should never be confused with a compass.

If a shift in American interests creates a diplomatic opportunity for Argentina, Buenos Aires would be foolish not to explore it. Serious countries take advantage of favourable circumstances. Foreign policy is not a congregation of pure souls; it also consists of recognising opportunities and using them intelligently.

It would be quite another matter to imagine that Donald Trump has suddenly discovered a passionate attachment to Argentina’s Malvinas claim.

The United States has interests. Britain has interests.

Argentina ought to have its own.

That is precisely why the Malvinas question must outlive Milei, Trump, the next occupant of the White House and the next tenant of 10 Downing Street.

There is also an inevitable historical comparison that deserves careful handling: 1982.

The military dictatorship of Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri made the tragic mistake of interpreting its relationship with Washington as a political guarantee that never existed. History demonstrated, brutally, where American strategic priorities ultimately lay.

That lesson must be remembered.

But turning the tragedy of 1982 into an automatic equivalence with the present would be intellectually lazy. Milei has announced no military operation. On the contrary, he has explicitly referred to diplomatic, judicial and economic instruments.

That distinction matters enormously.

The useful lesson from 1982 is a different one: personal sympathies between leaders never replace the permanent interests of states.

Argentina therefore has every reason to strengthen its response to unilateral exploitation of natural resources in waters affected by the sovereignty dispute. It also has every reason to reinforce its strategic presence in Tierra del Fuego.

Better still would be to turn those measures into a stable, predictable and legally robust state policy rather than a presidential reaction triggered by remarks from Donald Trump.

And there is a rather exquisite irony in all this.

Milei came to office cultivating a highly ideological foreign policy in which personal affinities with foreign leaders played an unusually visible role. He now finds himself confronted with one Argentine issue that is particularly resistant to personal politics.

The Malvinas question existed before him.

It will exist after him.

Argentina’s sovereignty claim does not become stronger when Trump is angry with London, nor weaker when Washington embraces its historic British ally again. Neither should it depend on an Argentine president admiring Thatcher on Tuesday and describing Malvinas as a “sacred cause” on Thursday.

If Milei’s conversion means Argentina will recover a persistent, professional and peaceful diplomatic strategy on the islands, that deserves to be acknowledged without partisan pettiness.

It might even be good news.

But then comes something considerably more difficult than delivering a presidential address:

maintaining the same policy when the wind changes.