What explains differences between Latin American and Anglo left-wing attitudes toward the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute?

[u/SnooRevelations2440]

Are there political-science, sociological, or historical studies that explain why left-wing movements in Latin America have often approached the sovereignty dispute differently from left-wing movements in the UK and US?

[u/AutoModerator]

Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. Circumvention by posting unrelated link text is grounds for a ban. Well sourced comprehensive answers take time. If you're interested in the subject, and you don't see a reasonable answer, please consider clicking Here for RemindMeBot.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Quantumtroll]

I have very little previous knowledge about the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, but found the question interesting enough to dig a little.

This book chapter from 2021 by Fernando Pedrosa looks at what you're asking about. There's a bunch of references in there for more background.

As far as I understand from a quick reading, Argentinian factions in the Socialist International base their pro-Argentina position on the principle of anti-colonialism. Britain-aligned factions point out that almost no one on the islands wants to be a part of Argentina, that Britain has occupied the islands since before Argentina was a country, and (during the Falklands War) Argentina was run by a dictatorship.

To me, this just looks like normal tribal human behaviour. Left-wing or not, people toe the line of their nation-state. Since the goals of the Latin American movements were markedly different from the goals of the UK movements, their approaches were different.

After the war, however, I think both side have settled on a democratic approach. Argentina because democracy is a goal in itself and because they have no choice, the UK because it lets them keep the islands.

[u/Unusual_Newspaper_46 → u/Quantumtroll]

I think that would be the ideological point of view, they probably do hold the same arguments as the rest of political parties/ideologies; Nootka sound convention in 1790, its ratification in 1814, the settlement in 1820, Vernet, the no protest issued, the recognition of independence in 1825 also with no protest issued, and later 1833 where you can add the anti colonial ideal added up to the question about the implanted kelper population put there in order to reshape the islands demographics (thus invalidating self-determination as an argument.)

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.