China and Argentina re Falklands/Malvinas

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Over the last week, I have found myself taking part in a discussion regarding the Falklands dispute on a British Politics Forum.


Being rather unimpressed by the overall level of debate, I decided to do some research to find out what the reality of the situation was and to ascertain just how viable or not and what exactly is the nature of the political opposition the UK faces and of course what a possible future military engagement is likely to look like and if HM Armed Forces would be able to prevail a second time.


What a relatively modest amount of research uncovered astounded me as it soon became clear that the Falklands dispute was rapidly lining up as a major geopolitical confrontation, involving not only the UK and Argentina but drawing in a both regional and Global competing powers.


The first thing I discovered is just how isolated the UK is with its no negotiation policy. South America is united in opposition to the UK through Mercosur, Africa is united in opposition to the UK as expressed by the 2013 Malabo Declaration. This matters as it means there is no friendly coast or port on either side of the entire South Atlantic, it also means no one is likely to want to buy any Oil and Gas that comes out of the Falklands waters, which means expensive to produce Oil will need long and expensive tankering to find a market.


Further afield Russia and China openly support Argentina, India at the very least supports groups and UN resolutions that support Argentina, while many of the UK's European partners are either luke warm in their support (Germany/France) or openly unsympathetic (Spain re Gibralter).


Despite all this, the only shift in military power as the relative decline of UK military power, while the Argentine forces have largely stagnated over the thirty years since the Falklands War.


Argentina has however been out shopping and has been talking to various countries. Negotiations with France and Sweden for Dassaults and Grippen have come to nothing as UK diplomacy have blocked such deals. Other approaches to Israel for Afik Aircraft and Russia for SU-24’s have been better received, but it is clear that China is regarded as the supplier of choice.


Not only is there a stalled negotiation for 20 FC-1’s there are also deals for P18 Corvettes (export version 056’s) and a lot of deals with Norinco for a range of Armoured Vehicles, including a full suite of 8 wheeled Amphibeous vehicles.


There have also been discussions about arms for resources deals, but all the declared deals to date have been on a cash purchase basis, which is surprising given that there has been a lot of Chinese interest in Argentine Offshore Oil and Gas.


It is not clear if the current stall in negotiations is only for the FC-1’s or includes the P18’s as well. I wonder as the main sticking point has been the unwillingness to provide either any or top end AShM, but it is not clear if these are simply the Air Launced variety or Ship launched as well.


The official story for this is that China has withheld the missiles as part of a deal with the UK, in which the UK agreed to become a founder member of the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). This is significant on so many levels, but cheifly because by breaking ranks, the UK defied the expressed will of the USA who did not wish to see any of its Allies be involved. Of course, the moment the UK broke ranks, nearly every other major Western Nation/US Ally immediately broke ranks as well and signed up as founder members.


This could be significnat for the configeration of power as the Geopolitical Heavyweights start to line up in the South Atlantic.

China is clearly lined up with Argentian and many in the UK expect the US to line up with them. I however am far less sure about this.


A quick digression – my personal belief (based on the evidence) is that the UK and Argentina need to do the pragmatic thing and agree a deal and divide the spoils of the region “fairly” between them. The failure to do so is bringing other parties to the table offering support, but support that comes at a heavy price.

The most obvious and least calamatous outcome is a divided region with the two protagonists retaining a very small part of the riches, having had to hand out the lions share to there respective Great Power backers.

For the UK however, the outlook is not even that rosy.

I see two problems in the assumption of US support.

1) The UK has just shafted the US royally over the AIIB and left Washington very red faced

2) The US is very concerned about the growing influence of the PRC in South America generally and it has been expressed that an Argentine helped by China that faced down a US backed UK would be seen as a Chinese victory over two key Western powers.


It is therefore not difficult to deduce that faced with prospect of having to be on the losing side with an ally that has just let it down badly and against its main Peer Competitor, that the best option is to go to Buenos Aires and cut a deal with the Argentine themselves.


Maybe Beijing would be satisified with driving a wedge between the two key Western Allies?

Maybe.


The point though is that this is based on the “Offical” Version. I wonder if there is another?

There is of course the stong implication that China would have sold the missiles to the Argentine, had the UK not invested in the AIIB. For the record, it hardly seems the UK invested under genuine duress, to which the reaction of the other nations is testament. The implicit threat remains however, together with the idea that the next British Diplomatic Faux Pas could put them back on the table.


My every instinct however tells me that there is something else; deeper and more sinister in play.


We know:

That China has offered “Generous Terms and a Resource based agreement” but without public detail.

We know that Argentina wants the Missiles

We know Argentina has expressed an interest in the more expensive J10 Aircraft

We know that Argentina has placed orders for Armoured Vehicles included Amphibs

We also know that there is nothing in Argentina that could carry these vehicles the 500kms to the Islands.


I strongly suspect therefore that there is another shopping list and this one is not offered for cash.


I suspect that this list is offered on a strictly Resource for goods basis and includes

J10 Aircraft

Top End Air to Air and Anti Ship Missiles

Possibly Frigates and Destroyers

Top End Air Defence

Some form of Ambhibeous Assault Craft


Why is this sinister?

Because the resources that would pay for it are currently controlled by the UK that’s why.

It means that if the Argentine accepted the deal, they would indeed have the weapons capable of taking the Islands by force, but they would have no option but to use them!


I suspect that the brutal audacity of such a deal will have shocked Buenos Aires. No wonder talks are currently stalled while they consider making a deal from which there could no going back.


Food for though eh?
 

shen

Senior Member
Let me give it a shot at commenting before Mirage comes to write a comprehensive reply.

Chile is a big concern for Argentina in the event of a conflict. It has always been Anglophile, provided invaluable support to Britain during the Falkland War and has its own, arguably more serious territorial dispute with Argentina.

The real obstacle in the way of a serious resource share agreement is that while there are potentials for energy wealth, there is no proven readily exploitable jackpot discovery yet. If there really easy money to be made on the table, I'm sure both sides will swallow their pride and hammer out a deal to get the money flowing. But under the current situation, the safe thing for politicians to do is to toe the nationalist line and do nothing substantive. It is the same problem in East and South China Sea really.

While China has always officially supported the Argentine position due to anti-colonial position, I don't expect China to offer substantive help beyond moral support. China want to cultivate ties with Britain as well, arguably much more important to China than Argentina.
 

suby68

New Member
Registered Member
It's important to remember the fact that Hong Kong was a British colony in the early 1980s. At that time and on Chinese maps Hong Kong was marked as a area of China "Occupied by the UK". Therefore other colonies like the Falklands were seen as "occupied areas" also in need of "liberation".

By 2015 things have changed and China does no more support such "liberation efforts". I also don't see how a few missiles could change the balance of power in the South Atlantic. For a good read on the actual situation of the Argentine Air Force see:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The British strategy for the Falklands since the end of the war has been based on denial and match to overmatch. The Falklands garrison has already allotted a potent if small task force that is more then a match against the existing Argentinian military whose navy is more a coast guard and whose Air force is more or less grounded. It would demand a massive infusion of man power, equipment and especially money for the Argentinians to be a realistic threat vs the existing Falklands defenses.
White Hall knows this. If they maintain the existing force readiness for the Falklands then they can maintain them under the sovereign, even with overall budget cuts the Falklands AOR can be more or less kept at the status quo.
And even with the UK's move to the Chinese government bank partnership the military to military and overall relationship between the US and UK still remains the Special Relationship.

The Argentinian government by contrast is to fractured to stabilize as a military threat. The Kitchener government is unstable at best, Argentina's economy is in a poor state and Kitchener and her base has a axe to grind against the military. This keeps her own hands tied. She cannot allow well under her the Argentinian military to rebuild as needed to take the Falklands.
This could however change as her term of presidential power nears its finality and new leadership moves in. Yet even then it would still demand massive amounts of resources and investment to actually begin rebuilding the Argentinian military to take the islands. Then still the UK would have time and the resources to match and maintain the status quo.

Argentina is just not in the position to force the issue. Militarily they never really recovered from the Falklands war and the end of the juntas made the military a pariah in the government and politics.
Financially they have miss managed and deflated into a decline.
Public opinion they may have to a degree but the Falklands are by population far more Anglo then Argentinian, if they invaded again. The perception is stacked against Argentina as the population would have to be Occupied by force and not "Liberated". By cultural by custom by heritage this is a group of English isle's in the wrong hemisphere vs a Latin American island under domination by a foreign power. In the first occupation the first thing that happened was that the Argentinian Marines stormed the radio station and played a prerecorded message announcing that everything was going to be fine and nothing would change... Then the announcer started saying all the things that had to change.

Overall if Argentina really and truly wants the Falklands. The best and surest way to get them is to turn there attentions inward and fix there economic and political issues. If they can make Argentina a beacon of success and opportunity and offer a amount of unique cultural liberties then they could woe the population to be willing to join them, and the UK would likely hand over sovereignty, after all they did more or less the same with Hong Kong.
The UK might have even handed them over in the 1980s if not for the Argentinian invasion.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Malvinas/Falkland security has become too expensive for the British Government, its not really worth it. I believe eventually Argentina would get it right and get their military in good shape.
Its just a matter of time and how to save both faces. In the future, oil would be no longer crucial, just another commodity.
 

b787

Captain
Overall if Argentina really and truly wants the Falklands. The best and surest way to get them is to turn there attentions inward and fix there economic and political issues. If they can make Argentina a beacon of success and opportunity and offer a amount of unique cultural liberties then they could woe the population to be willing to join them, and the UK would likely hand over sovereignty, after all they did more or less the same with Hong Kong.
The UK might have even handed them over in the 1980s if not for the Argentinian invasion.
your assessment is pretty right by most part, however you forget something, China is a nuclear power, England returned Hong Kong for that reason, nothing to do with freedom or liberty, it is pure simple, England can not bully China.

Argentina is not a nuclear power, simple like that, If Argentina is really serious about recovering the Islands, they know England is bullying them with the nuclear threat.

But the biggest weakness England has is no one in Latin America believes England.

Pretty much we do not need China, Argentina and Brazil can make nukes, however our politicians for the sake of peace have renounced to such weapons.

Argentina has chosen the path of Democracy and economic development, has renounced the development of nukes, but history is not finished, time will tell if England can keep the Islands by force, time will tell if a South american super power emerge, but in my personal opinion it will emerge and just by economic clout and by peaceful means England will return the Islands to South america, not Argentina alone.
 

shen

Senior Member
your assessment is pretty right by most part, however you forget something, China is a nuclear power, England returned Hong Kong for that reason, nothing to do with freedom or liberty, it is pure simple, England can not bully China.

Argentina is not a nuclear power, simple like that, If Argentina is really serious about recovering the Islands, they know England is bullying them with the nuclear threat.

But the biggest weakness England has is no one in Latin America believes England.

Pretty much we do not need China, Argentina and Brazil can make nukes, however our politicians for the sake of peace have renounced to such weapons.

Argentina has chosen the path of Democracy and economic development, has renounced the development of nukes, but history is not finished, time will tell if England can keep the Islands by force, time will tell if a South american super power emerge, but in my personal opinion it will emerge and just by economic clout and by peaceful means England will return the Islands to South america, not Argentina alone.

the spirit of Reconquista is strong with this one :)
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
your assessment is pretty right by most part, however you forget something, China is a nuclear power, England returned Hong Kong for that reason, nothing to do with freedom or liberty, it is pure simple, England can not bully China.

Argentina is not a nuclear power, simple like that, If Argentina is really serious about recovering the Islands, they know England is bullying them with the nuclear threat.

But the biggest weakness England has is no one in Latin America believes England.

Pretty much we do not need China, Argentina and Brazil can make nukes, however our politicians for the sake of peace have renounced to such weapons.

Argentina has chosen the path of Democracy and economic development, has renounced the development of nukes, but history is not finished, time will tell if England can keep the Islands by force, time will tell if a South american super power emerge, but in my personal opinion it will emerge and just by economic clout and by peaceful means England will return the Islands to South america, not Argentina alone.

Mi amigo, le diría con todos los respectos que no estoy de acuerdocon esta declaricion. :)

While I agree that had Argentina been a nuclear armed nation during the Falklands war, the Brits would've threaded much more carefully however the analogy about HK incorrect. China has been a nuclear armed nation for bout 40 yrs before the handover of HK so I doubt that played a role.

Ultimately it's the desire of the local populace that determines the eventual outcome.
 

lucretius

Junior Member
Registered Member
I believe the local populous has made their choice in a referendum not so long ago?

Argentina has far bigger domestic problems it needs to address. The Falklands are merely a convenient distraction.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Mi amigo, le diría con todos los respectos que no estoy de acuerdocon esta declaricion. :)

While I agree that had Argentina been a nuclear armed nation during the Falklands war, the Brits would've threaded much more carefully however the analogy about HK incorrect. China has been a nuclear armed nation for bout 40 yrs before the handover of HK so I doubt that played a role.

Ultimately it's the desire of the local populace that determines the eventual outcome.

The handover was formally agreed long before the actual event. When Thatcher visited Beijing IIRC.

And it was not just nuclear, but general overall military power that convinced the British the only option they had was to return HK after their 99 year 'lease' expired.

Stressing the desires of the local population is also a long abused political trick.

Since the local population are implanted British citizens, there is only one possible way they would vote if asked about the fate of the islands.

It would be pretty much the same if Argentina took the islands, evicted the current occupants, shipped in their own settlers and took a referendum on who they think the Falklands should belong to after a few years/decades/centuries.

The point is that since the local population make-up is a result and reflection of the actual control of the disputed territories, how they will vote will be determined entirely based on who currently has control of the territory.

Its just a political trick designed to lend legitimacy to the current status quo and nothing more.
 
Top