The Falkland Islands are a couple of small islands off the bottom tip of South America, just off Argentina.  In 1982, Argentina decided that it was ridiculous for Britain to lay claim to some islands half a world away and decided to take them back.  Britain got all huffy and, a few Exocet missiles and a thousand lives later, retook them.  Those two barren rocks have sat there barren ever since.

About a week ago, there was an article running around that stated oil had been discovered in the Falklands.  I wondered aloud on some blogsite; now that the British Navy has been reduced to three rowboats and a rubber dingy, just how long will it be before Argentina takes the islands back?

Not long, would be a good guess:

Looked at a world map lately?  It almost seems incredible that a "colony" still exists in the year 2008, and one half a world away, at that.

And it begs this question:

Why is it that Britain can 'decolonize'

Aden  
Antigua  
Australia  
Bahamas  
Barbados 
Barbuda 
Basutoland  
Bechuanaland  
British Antarctic Territory 
British Central Africa  
British East Africa  
British Guiana  
British Honduras  
British Indian Ocean Territory 
British New Guinea 
British Somaliland 
British South Africa Company  
Brunei  
Burma  
Canada  
Cape Colony 
Ceylon  
Cook Islands 
Cyprus  
Dominica  
East India Company  
Federated Malay States 
Fiji  
Gambia  
Gilbert and Ellice Islands  
Gold Coast 
Ionian Islands  
Grenada  
Heligoland  
Hong Kong  
India  
Ireland  
Jamaica  
Kenya  
Labuan  
Lagos  
Leeward Islands  
Liu Kung Tau 
Malacca  
Malaya  
Maldives 
Malta  
Mauritius  
Mosquito Coast  
Natal  
Nauru 
New Hebrides  
Newfoundland  
New South Wales 
New Zealand  
Niger Coast Protectorate 
Nigeria  
Niue 
North Borneo  
Northern Nigeria 
Northern Rhodesia  
Nyasaland  
Orange River Colony  
Palestine  
Penang  
Queensland 
Rhodesia  
Royal Niger Company 
Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla  
Saint Kitts 
Saint Lucia  
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines  
Sarawak  
Seychelles  
Sierra Leone  
Singapore  
Solomon Islands  
South Africa  
South Australia 
Southern Nigeria 
Southern Rhodesia  
Straits Settlements  
Sudan  
Swaziland  
Tanganyika  
Tasmania 
Tonga 
Transvaal  
Trinidad and Tobago  
Turks and Caicos Islands  
Uganda  
Unfederated Malay States 
Victoria Colony 
Weiheiwei  
West African Settlements 
West Indies Federation  
Western Australia 
Western Samoa 
Windward Islands 
Witu Protectorate 
and 
Zanzibar... 

but it just can't let go of the Falklands?

My advice?  Sell the Falklands to Argentina. 

Consider what's probably going to happen otherwise: 

• Argentina invades the Falklands.

  
• Britain assembles its three rowboats and rubber dingy, arms them with Exocet missiles and takes the islands back.

  
• Britain is so broke that it's unable to spend the billions of pounds it would take to develop the oil, so it sits there rotting away until the end of time*.

*Or until Argentina obtains its own Exocet missiles.

So, rather than go through all of that for what's going to end up as a worthless couple of rocks, why not sell them to Argentina and make a buck?  They could demand a slice of any future oil profits as part of the deal, thereby stifling the critics.  Big Money trumps Big Nationalism almost every time.

Furthermore, don't we want other South American countries to do well and hopefully keep Mr. Chavez in check?  Granted, Argentina is currently being run by a Socialist, but that won't always be true, and if a few of those ol' petrodollars start rolling in and the quality of life improves, doesn't that promote the capitalistic cause?

It'll be interesting to watch the local reaction when-, I mean if Argentina retakes the islands.  In 1982, Britain was our "staunchest ally" and I imagine almost every American was behind them in the Falklands War.

But today?  In 2008, when Britain is used as an example of what we don't want to become, with its rampant nannystatism and scary dhimmitude?

Not likely. 

Side note to President Cristina Kirchner:  As soon as you invade the islands, hold an international press conference and declare that you're doing it to counter the militarization of Venezuela by Hugo Chávez.  Hold up charts displaying how the oil profits will help Argentina build its own military might and enable it to "keep in check the blatant ambitions of the power-hungry Chávez."  You'll piss ol' Hugo off (tell him later you didn't really mean it — he'll understand), but the rest of the world will see you as fighting for your very survival and will tell Britain to go jump in a lake.  Everybody loves the oppressed nation fighting for its existence.  Just ask Reuters, the Associated Press — and the Palestinians.

As far as domestic reaction goes, remember that Britain is a 'bad guy' to the Lefties because it fought in Iraq, and with a Socialist currently in power in Argentina, you can pretty much guess who the Lefties are going to side with — not to mention the New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, et al.

Or, more specifically, it won't be that the MSM is siding with Argentina, exactly — they just won't be running many pro-British articles.  They'll play the impartial game and declare that they're "just showing both sides of the issue," much the way Reuters shows how impartial it is by referring to terrorists as "freedom fighters."  Not taking sides; that's what good news reporting is all about.

And even the conservatives will be split, because, while tradition dictates that we support our 'staunchest ally', it's (1) a little hard to support Britain in any regard these days, and (2) somewhat difficult to justify owning a colony half a world away in the year 2008.
  

Exit question:  When Britain ceases to be a "nation" under future EU doctrine and becomes a "province" (or whatever it is they're going to call them), does it retain the right to claim the Falklands — or any colony — as its own?  Can a mere province lay claim to foreign lands, or is that solely the prerogative of nations?