The Falklands turn: Between opportunity and hopes for Trump intervention

For Argentina, the Falklands dispute has entered a new phase shaped by a mix of opportunity and hope surrounding possible intervention by Donald Trump’s administration. The government seized on a comment by the U.S. president, although it had not coordinated a fully developed new position. Behind the scenes, officials have pursued greater involvement from the White House and a regional approach to the conflict.

The article traces the roots of the current debate to a 1995 agreement negotiated by Guillermo González, then the Foreign Ministry’s principal negotiator. After more than a year of secret meetings with his British counterpart in cities from Bogotá and Jakarta to Seoul and Nairobi, the two sides agreed to cooperate on hydrocarbon exploration and production in a 21,000-square-kilometer area southeast of the islands.

“

For me, there is not enough oil in the Falklands to make commercial production viable.

The arrangement represented a significant change in bilateral relations after the war. It was also the first time London had recognized some form of Argentine rights over the surrounding waters. In return, Argentina implicitly accepted that the islanders could open bids in other areas, a concession Argentine officials defended at the time because they believed the islanders would proceed regardless.

“

The islanders were going to move forward anyway, so it was an achievement to get this concession from them.

The joint agreement never produced development. Exploration elsewhere initially brought frustration because discoveries either failed to materialize or lacked the potential to justify expensive offshore extraction. Rockhopper, an early participant, used its presumed Falklands potential to raise capital, but the Sea Lion discovery made in 2010 still took another 15 years to advance because of high costs, weak market economics and legal risks linked to the dispute with Argentina.

In 2007, President Néstor Kirchner canceled the agreement. Then-Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said it had brought “no advantage whatsoever to our country” and instead exposed Argentina to continuing unilateral measures by the United Kingdom. The new discussion over Washington’s possible role therefore unfolds against a long record of failed arrangements, contested exploration and competing expectations about what diplomacy can deliver.

“

It brought no advantage whatsoever to our country, exposing it instead to continuing illegal unilateral measures by the United Kingdom.