:00:10. > :00:16.Much more on the BBC website: Now on BBC News it is time for HARDtalk.
:00:16. > :00:19.To Britain it's the Falklands, to Argentina the Malvinas. 30 years
:00:19. > :00:25.ago the two countries went to war over these islands in the South
:00:25. > :00:28.Atlantic. Now they can smell oil, 8 billion barrels worth is being
:00:28. > :00:38.drilled for this year. Is that why Buenos Aires and London are trading
:00:38. > :00:39.
:00:39. > :00:43.insults once again? Jan Cheek is one of the leaders of the 3,000
:00:43. > :00:49.islanders who are about to be asked to vote on whether there should be
:00:49. > :00:52.negotiations with Argentina. She says yes, but by what right do the
:00:52. > :00:55.islanders insist they should stay linked to a country on the other
:00:55. > :01:05.side of the world? For how much longer will the British be prepared
:01:05. > :01:17.
:01:17. > :01:24.to pay the military and diplomatic bill?
:01:24. > :01:29.Jan Cheek, welcome to HARDtalk. Why are you holding this referendum?
:01:29. > :01:33.The islanders have chosen to hold it as a way of demonstrating to the
:01:33. > :01:39.world that we are content without current status as a British
:01:39. > :01:47.overseas territory. One of 14 scattered around the world. Why is
:01:47. > :01:53.it necessary to demonstrate that? We have no doubt, the islanders
:01:53. > :01:57.have no doubt, but we wish to demonstrate it to the world and to
:01:57. > :02:04.Argentina, who are trying to portray us as an implant a
:02:04. > :02:12.population who have no right to our homeland. You call it your homeland,
:02:12. > :02:16.I want to talk to you about that. On the referendum itself, you say
:02:16. > :02:20.that Argentina is calling for negotiations over the sovereignty
:02:20. > :02:24.over the Falkland Islands, you ask the islanders if they want to
:02:24. > :02:31.retain their current political status as an overseas territory of
:02:31. > :02:36.the UK. What about someone who likes the status quo but would like
:02:36. > :02:40.to tour to Argentina? The fact that we are a British overseas territory
:02:40. > :02:44.with the right to self determination allows us to talk to
:02:44. > :02:49.Argentina if we wanted. If they were willing to talk to us on
:02:49. > :02:54.matters of mutual interest, we would be more than happy to do so.
:02:54. > :02:58.We want nothing more than to be good neighbours. You say that, but
:02:58. > :03:06.new referred to them wanting negotiations over the sovereignty
:03:06. > :03:16.of the islands. -- you refer. does not frighten us, we have lived
:03:16. > :03:18.
:03:18. > :03:25.with it all of our lives. Since Peron raised it. It is something I
:03:25. > :03:30.am accustomed to. When it became a violent issue during the war of 82,
:03:30. > :03:35.people were frightened. Otherwise we see it as so much noise from
:03:35. > :03:45.across the water. Is it fairly representing the position of the
:03:45. > :03:50.
:03:50. > :03:54.Argentine government? Christine the -- Christina, said we are not
:03:54. > :03:59.asking anyone to say that the Malvinas belong to Argentina, we
:03:59. > :04:06.just want to sit down and talk. Sitting down and talking is great.
:04:06. > :04:10.We did that with Argentina in 1999. They walked away from nearly every
:04:10. > :04:17.element of the agreement we made since then. When they say they want
:04:17. > :04:21.to sit down and talk, they are looking for one outcome. That is a
:04:21. > :04:25.handover of the islands to Argentina. They are not looking for
:04:25. > :04:33.genuine negotiation. How would talking weaken your position if you
:04:33. > :04:40.have the backing of the islanders? Would it be an opportunity to talk?
:04:40. > :04:47.As we did in 99. We talked, we made some agreements on matters of
:04:47. > :04:56.mutual interest. Each one of which they have walked away from.
:04:56. > :05:00.Unilaterally. I think you will find, you would have to talk to the
:05:00. > :05:05.Argentine government to get their answer on this, but they are
:05:05. > :05:12.looking for only one outcome. It is rather pointless sitting down if
:05:12. > :05:15.one side has already decided what the outcome must be. But that in
:05:15. > :05:21.terms of the options that might be available is not reflected in the
:05:21. > :05:31.referendum. Your own are talking about an open discussion. -- you
:05:31. > :05:32.
:05:32. > :05:38.are not. The defence minister says he does not understand the wording
:05:38. > :05:48.of the referendum. The issue is about the right of the islanders to
:05:48. > :05:48.
:05:48. > :05:53.determine their own future. That is contained in being an overseas
:05:53. > :05:58.territory of the UK. Because the UK does recognise our right to self-
:05:58. > :06:06.determination. Successive governments of whatever party have
:06:06. > :06:11.upheld that right. The UK has said it is bound by what the islanders
:06:11. > :06:19.say. If you said to the UK government, talk on our behalf, the
:06:19. > :06:24.UK would not stand in the way. No, it is the choice of the people of
:06:24. > :06:29.the islands. That is what the referendum is about. You do not
:06:29. > :06:34.think it might be a provocative move? Our existence is provocative
:06:34. > :06:39.to Argentina. You have had perfectly amicable relations after
:06:39. > :06:44.the end of the war, you said you were talking at the end of the 90s.
:06:44. > :06:49.We were certainly talking at the end of the 90s. We were working
:06:50. > :06:53.with them on things where both sides could benefit. For example,
:06:54. > :06:59.the sustainable management of fisheries. But they have walked
:06:59. > :07:09.away from all of that. They are working against us in several
:07:09. > :07:10.
:07:10. > :07:17.different ways. One in a propaganda campaign. They are going into
:07:17. > :07:23.governments around the world and telling the rewritten version of
:07:23. > :07:29.history. You know the history is contested in terms of what the
:07:29. > :07:36.legal status of the islands is. On the question of provocation, there
:07:36. > :07:44.has been some strong language, Mike Summers said a couple of the us to
:07:44. > :07:52.go that Argentina was taking an economic warfare Broatch. -- years
:07:52. > :07:56.ago. -- approach. Environmental terrorism. That kind of rhetoric
:07:56. > :08:02.does not help to build bridges. does not help to build bridges but
:08:02. > :08:09.the action they have taken in attempting to damage fisheries, in
:08:09. > :08:14.attempting to deter cruise ships from coming to the islands,
:08:14. > :08:19.refusing free passage of charter flights through their air space.
:08:19. > :08:27.What options to they have if you are not prepared to talk? I do not
:08:27. > :08:31.think he bring some onto the table to talk by threats or bad behaviour.
:08:31. > :08:39.-- you bring. The best way to get people to talk to you is by
:08:40. > :08:46.behaving in a reasonable and friendly fashion. There is no
:08:46. > :08:50.incentive if you turn around and say, no. We did that in the 90s. We
:08:50. > :08:55.talked to them. They were behaving in a rational and reasonable
:08:55. > :08:59.fashion. They appeared to be prepared to talk about matters of
:08:59. > :09:05.mutual interest. It is not just Argentina and other Latin-American
:09:05. > :09:09.countries saying you should be talking, Hillary Clinton, Secretary
:09:09. > :09:14.of State, saying we want Britain and Argentina to talk about the
:09:14. > :09:17.future of the islands. Five Nobel Peace laureate wrote to the British
:09:17. > :09:25.Prime Minister in March and said, the lack of a willingness to talk
:09:25. > :09:29.with a democratic country, whose commitment to peace has been
:09:29. > :09:35.demonstrated, the undertaking of air and sea manoeuvres is seriously
:09:35. > :09:41.threatening peace and harmony in that part of the world. Taking your
:09:41. > :09:46.last point first, any air and sea manoeuvres are simply part of the
:09:46. > :09:52.normal exercising of the deterrent force on the island which has been
:09:53. > :09:58.there since 1982. It is only there because of any perceived threat
:09:58. > :10:02.there may be. The then Defence Minister told the House of Commons
:10:03. > :10:12.that all the advice we have there is neither the capability or the
:10:13. > :10:13.
:10:13. > :10:17.intention by the Argentines... long as the deterrent is there.
:10:18. > :10:22.says the capability is not there. could not comment on their military
:10:22. > :10:29.capability. Are you confident the British could defend you if it came
:10:29. > :10:39.to it? Yes. It is a very different situation to that in 82. We just
:10:39. > :10:40.
:10:40. > :10:48.had a handful of oral Marines defending the island. -- royal
:10:48. > :10:56.Marines. The reason I ask this, in light of the defence cuts Great
:10:56. > :11:03.Britain has undertaken as part of its budget savings, the former
:11:03. > :11:07.commander of the task force who was sent to relieve the island in 1982
:11:07. > :11:13.have said they do not think if the Falklands were to be attacked it
:11:13. > :11:19.would be possible. I read what they said. What they said, the islands
:11:19. > :11:25.could not be retaken. That is quite a different issue. The islands are
:11:25. > :11:29.well-defended. They were not in 82. There is no credible threat. Why
:11:29. > :11:35.are these manoeuvres necessary? They are just normal training
:11:36. > :11:41.exercises. In some cases the Falklands is being used as a
:11:41. > :11:45.training ground for troops before they are posted to other, more
:11:45. > :11:50.dangerous destinations. You could argue there is no need to do it
:11:50. > :11:54.there, you could do it somewhere less provocative. Obviously, the
:11:54. > :11:58.people in charge find it a convenient place to do it. Apart
:11:58. > :12:03.from anywhere else, they are welcomed with open arms. They can
:12:03. > :12:09.fly as low as they want whenever they want. This is quite an
:12:09. > :12:15.expensive commitment Britain makes. The estimates are �61 million in
:12:15. > :12:23.terms of defence costs in this financial year. The economist
:12:23. > :12:26.newspaper reports it might be as much as �200 million. How long do
:12:26. > :12:32.you think Britain is going to be prepared to carry on paying VAT
:12:32. > :12:42.bill? I think that Bell is not entirely accurate all to the
:12:42. > :12:46.defence of the island. -- bill. It is the additional cost of moving
:12:47. > :12:51.them to and from the islands which are counted. That is a matter for
:12:51. > :12:57.the British Government, not one we can dictate. In a sense you are
:12:57. > :13:01.dictating it because you are saying, we want to retain the status, we
:13:01. > :13:07.feel threatened by Argentina, we require this investment by the
:13:07. > :13:14.British. We hope that the British people support the fact that the
:13:14. > :13:18.islands were retaken, not simply for the islanders, but as a
:13:18. > :13:24.demonstration that aggression by a large and greedy neighbour should
:13:24. > :13:30.not be allowed to succeed. We hope the deterrent is there for the same
:13:30. > :13:33.reason. The wall was 30 years ago. Anyone under the age of 40 will
:13:34. > :13:41.barely remember it. There were plenty of surveys during the course
:13:41. > :13:50.of the year showing support for the status quo among many age groups,
:13:50. > :13:55.but 18-24-year-olds, 49% supported negotiations with a view to a
:13:55. > :13:58.handover. 39% against. Are you concerned there may be a
:13:58. > :14:08.generational shift as the memory fades and it might affect
:14:08. > :14:09.
:14:09. > :14:15.I regularly attend the party conferences and talk with many
:14:15. > :14:19.party members, young and old, and I want to explain the facts to them.
:14:19. > :14:24.They take a different view. It may be that they are simply not aware
:14:24. > :14:31.of the facts. Let's talk about the facts and that is the question of
:14:31. > :14:37.the status of the Falkland Islands. By what right do you claim that you
:14:37. > :14:44.should determine who is legally and constitutionally responsible for
:14:44. > :14:50.maintaining the islands? Who has sovereignty?
:14:51. > :14:56.By the fact that we were born there, we have lived there in some cases
:14:56. > :15:03.for eight or nine generations. It is the only homeland that people
:15:03. > :15:06.know. By what might does Argentina says it should be otherwise? On the
:15:06. > :15:12.question of homeland, what proportion of people who live on
:15:12. > :15:18.the islands, 3,000, were born there? I don't know the precise
:15:18. > :15:23.figures. Probably around half of them. Half our income has? Who had
:15:23. > :15:28.chosen to live in the Falkland Islands? It has been settled by
:15:28. > :15:32.Canada, New Zealand, so many South American countries, by waves of
:15:32. > :15:38.immigration over the many years since the 1830s. The difference
:15:38. > :15:42.with the Falklands is we did not replace an Indigenous population.
:15:42. > :15:48.The Argentines say that the people who were on the island in 1833 were
:15:48. > :15:54.booted out by a military expedition and it was at that point Britain
:15:54. > :16:00.established its right to govern. That has been well and truly
:16:00. > :16:04.disproved by research in the archives in when a series. So, not
:16:04. > :16:09.true. Some people were given the option of leaving. The vast
:16:09. > :16:15.majority chose to stay. All for those who left, I don't know if
:16:15. > :16:21.there were more than a hand for who were what you would call Argentine
:16:21. > :16:27.today. A question, I suppose, is if you are so confident with this, why
:16:27. > :16:29.don't you tested in the law? Why not refer your case to the
:16:30. > :16:36.International Court of Justice and get a definitive ruling? I don't
:16:36. > :16:42.know why that has never been seriously suggested by either side.
:16:42. > :16:47.Maybe because we believe we are right. But there is no legally
:16:47. > :16:52.defined definition of eight people. Nobody knows how to test that. You
:16:52. > :16:55.argue that the evidence is in your favour. Put it to an international
:16:55. > :17:01.tribunal, let a ruling be made and then you won't have to deal with
:17:01. > :17:07.this constant argument over who you belong to. I am not sure who we
:17:07. > :17:12.belong to is a question. We see ourselves as Falkland Islanders.
:17:12. > :17:16.Falkland Islanders, by definition, are British because we are a
:17:16. > :17:23.British overseas territory but the idea that we belong to anyone is
:17:23. > :17:27.foreign to me, difficult for me. You are effectively talking about
:17:27. > :17:29.the territory being effectively the responsibility of the UK. One
:17:30. > :17:37.international lawyer says that if the dispute went to the
:17:37. > :17:41.International Court of Justice, it is not clear who would win, that it
:17:41. > :17:47.is not clear if the Falkland Islanders are a people or not.
:17:47. > :17:53.not sure where you draw the line. Is it way you live? Numbers?
:17:53. > :17:58.Nationality? I am not a legal expert. The law requires a two
:17:58. > :18:03.party dispute to enter into negotiations. About? About the
:18:04. > :18:10.status of the islands. I disagree. Even though there have been UN
:18:10. > :18:15.resolutions going back to 1965? resolutions to suggest that people
:18:15. > :18:22.talk and talking is always a good way to resolve differences but you
:18:22. > :18:29.have got to go into those talks with a willingness to genuinely
:18:29. > :18:34.discuss the subject in hand. And I think the two sides are so far
:18:34. > :18:37.apart on is that talks would not be productive. Do you think this has
:18:37. > :18:41.become a particularly sensitive issue once again not just because
:18:41. > :18:45.of the anniversary but because of the recognition they could be
:18:46. > :18:50.significant oil under the Falkland Islands and around the Falkland
:18:51. > :18:56.Islands? Well, one could take the view that Argentina far from
:18:56. > :19:01.wanting to D colonise the Falklands would like to make the Falklands a
:19:01. > :19:06.colony of Argentina in order that they can get their hands on the
:19:06. > :19:09.resources which belong to that territory. Presumably that is part
:19:09. > :19:13.of the risk that has been identified by some of the companies
:19:13. > :19:20.involved, who have said they are worried that relations are so poor
:19:20. > :19:23.that it could be a risk. One of the company is developing an oil field
:19:23. > :19:28.said it would be foolhardy to dismiss the risk as nothing and
:19:28. > :19:32.they had to think long and hard before signing, taking advantage --
:19:32. > :19:37.advice from the UK government, because they were worried. They
:19:37. > :19:42.have taken advice and on balance, they have decided to go ahead, so
:19:43. > :19:50.clearly, the risk is regarded as a manageable one. And they have had
:19:50. > :19:55.to work around the nuisance that the Argentine activities were
:19:55. > :20:02.trying to create. But they have done it successfully and they now
:20:02. > :20:06.plan to go ahead with production in about 2017. It is extraordinary -
:20:06. > :20:14.8.3 billion barrels being targeted in four Wells this year, three
:20:14. > :20:20.times the size of the UK's reserves. You are sitting on a bonanza.
:20:20. > :20:25.are told, but we are not counting any oil money and to it starts to
:20:25. > :20:29.flow. The trouble is, it is not just flowing, is it? You have got
:20:29. > :20:34.to get it out and distributed and sell it. Does not the example of
:20:34. > :20:38.Sudan show that it is not enough to have oil, you must also have good
:20:38. > :20:41.relations with your neighbours to develop that potential. The oil
:20:41. > :20:46.companies will be confident they can develop that potential in spite
:20:46. > :20:52.of interference from Argentina and there are many other markets in the
:20:52. > :20:55.world. You have still got to get it to those markets. It is unfortunate
:20:55. > :20:59.that Argentina chooses not to have supply for people working there
:20:59. > :21:05.with some of the equipment they need and some of the services they
:21:05. > :21:09.need, which could be beneficial to them as well. Not just Argentina,
:21:10. > :21:14.is it? The Brazilian Foreign Minister says that all Latin-
:21:14. > :21:19.American nations support Argentine sovereignty. And several countries
:21:19. > :21:26.have supported Argentina in its concern to promote that. It is very
:21:26. > :21:29.clear that Argentina is leaning on all of its neighbours to make these
:21:29. > :21:35.pronouncements at the end of the various regional conferences that
:21:35. > :21:40.they have. But the fact is, apart from oil, it is business as usual
:21:40. > :21:44.with those countries. Or perhaps they actually agree with Argentina
:21:44. > :21:48.that you are an anachronism? That it makes no sense for an island 300
:21:49. > :21:53.miles from the South American mainland to be attached to the UK?
:21:53. > :22:00.Perhaps, but if you extend the geographical argument, you change
:22:00. > :22:05.the map of Europe. Both the geographical and historical
:22:06. > :22:10.arguments have huge flaws. If you start putting boundaries back
:22:10. > :22:15.before 1833, the world will be a very different place. Can you be
:22:15. > :22:18.that confident that this will continue to be the case? As the rat
:22:18. > :22:23.in that report which was published at the beginning of this year
:22:23. > :22:27.showed, Britain has made previous overtures to Argentina. It was
:22:27. > :22:34.prepared to consider in the 1960s some form of handover of
:22:34. > :22:39.sovereignty. It was prepared in 1974, and that might have happened
:22:39. > :22:43.were it not for the death of the President of a heart attack one
:22:43. > :22:50.week later, to hand over sovereignty and entertain the
:22:50. > :22:54.prospect of dual nationality. Things could change. Things changed
:22:54. > :23:00.in 1982 when Argentina invaded and that changed the situation. There
:23:00. > :23:03.is no going back? Unfortunately not. On that basis, if there is no going
:23:03. > :23:08.back from your point of view, and you were confident that islanders
:23:08. > :23:13.feel that way as well, once you have that referendum and if it
:23:13. > :23:16.endorses your view, why not on those terms and with that
:23:16. > :23:23.confidence talk with Argentina? will gladly talk with them about
:23:23. > :23:30.matters of mutual interest? -- mutual interest. Have you made that
:23:30. > :23:35.approach? We have indeed. A letter was handed over to them by one of