After I built Noddfa, my cabin in the woods at Coed Hills, in 2020, I wanted to ensure it was well used and also wanted to earn back some of the cost of building it. AirBnB was the obvious way to go, although I had no idea how popular the cabin would prove to be.
The AirBnB platform proved very easy to use and brought a steady stream of visitors to Noddfa and Coed Hills. Everybody was happy.
It’s funny, isn’t it, that when something makes our lives easier and/or puts money in our pockets, it makes us happy, and to maintain that happiness we turn a blind eye to things that we know are not right.
I was vaguely aware that in 2018 AirBnB had taken a strong ethical stance by delisting about 200 Israeli properties located in the occupied Palestinian West Bank territories. I was therefore happy that I was working with an ethical company prepared to take a stand. No need, I told myself, to do any further due diligence.
What I wasn’t aware of was that AirBnB had subsequently been sued in a class action (on behalf of the delisted property owners) by a law firm in Jerusalem, with the backing of the Israeli government. The essence of the case was that it accused AirBnB of “grave and outrageous” discrimination against Israelis because it still lists homes in some other geopolitical hotspots, such as Tibet and Northern Cyprus.
AirBnB appears to have crumbled under the pressure and reversed its decision to de-list these properties in April 2019. Its attempted compromise was to say that it would now donate all proceeds from rentals in the West Bank to humanitarian organisations. Airbnb released a statement that said:
“We understand the complexity of the issue that was addressed in our previous policy announcement. Airbnb has never boycotted Israel, Israeli businesses, or the more than 20,000 Israeli hosts who are active on the Airbnb platform. We have always sought to bring people together and will continue to work with our community to achieve this goal.”
Less than 6 months earlier it had said it had removed 200 listings because the settlements were at the “core of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians“. It further stated:
“US law permits companies like Airbnb to engage in business in these territories. At the same time, many in the global community have stated that companies should not do business here because they believe companies should not profit on lands where people have been displaced.”
So, why the decision to backtrack on the ban?
Israeli lawyers filed a class action suit that sought 15,000 shekels (about £3,200) for each host of the 200-ish homes that were due to be deleted from Airbnb’s listings.
Airbnb said that under the terms of a settlement it would “not move forward with implementing the removal of listings in the West Bank from the platform“.
The San Francisco-based company said it would allow listings throughout the West Bank but donate any profit it generated to “organisations dedicated to humanitarian aid that serve people in different parts of the world“.
Airbnb said the same approach would be implemented in the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the Caucasus.
The announcement was made days after Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, promised to annex West Bank settlements, if he was re-elected. He was.
Credit to AirBnB for its initial stance, I suppose, but it had shown itself to have insufficient backbone to resist the pressure. Meanwhile I continued to profit very nicely from AirBnB, blissfully unaware of what I was tacitly supporting, even while attending numerous pro-Palestine demos and rallies in Cardiff and London, and welcoming guests wearing my West Bank-made keffiyeh and considering joining the now-proscribed Palestine Action group.
It was not until somebody that had booked Noddfa a while ago for later this summer contacted me that I was prompted to wake up. She was asking if she could preserve her booking with me once she deleted her AirBnB account as a result of becoming aware of its complicity in Israeli-occupied West Bank territories. This was because of seeing details of the recent report by Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine. Click here to read that report.
And here is Frances Albanese talking about it on DDN (Double Down News) just a couple of days ago from me writing this. Click on the image.
It is absolutely appalling that our governments are not holding Israel to account for this blatant genocide being enacted before our eyes. So, it falls to all of us to do what we can, lest we are all complicit too. In a capitalist, neoliberal world with little effective democracy left, our only real way of exerting pressure is in how we choose to spend (and earn) our money.
I try to support the BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) movement as best I can, and have a long list of companies I avoid dealing with lodged in my mind, and do take heed of priority targets when publicised.
Thus, I have now unlisted Noddfa and listed it on Vrbo instead. I’ll get it on FairBnB too once their website stops messing me around! I wasn’t even aware of these alternative platforms until I started actively looking for AirBnB alternatives. I doubt they will generate as much business, but hey, time will tell. They will catch up if AirBnB don’t get their house in order, I hope.
I’ve also tried to use BDS apps like ‘No Thanks’ and ‘No Thank You’ but it sure slows down shopping and it is quite shocking just how vast the connections to Israel are in the business world. I have given up on this to be honest, but my list of big companies to avoid has certainly grown substantially.
The aim of this post is not to preach, not to shame, not to bully anyone into supporting BDS or any other ‘boycotting of companies’ campaign. All I want to highlight is that it is down to all of us to realise that just about every purchase we ever make is a political decision in some way. We support and endorse one choice, at the expense of all the other alternatives, every time we buy anything. That is just as political as choosing who to vote for.
We vote in ignorance and we, of course, buy things in ignorance of all the implications. And then we pretend there was nothing we could do to alleviate the problems and misery in the world. I am as guilty of this and guilty of my consequent hypocrisy. I fully acknowledge this.
But my conscience does get pricked and I do then do some due diligence from time to time. It is a lot better than doing nothing. I’m especially fortunate in that I can afford to make some ethical choices that cost more money. I understand that not everybody can in these ideologically austere times (I did try to warn everybody about Starmer, but Labour members voted for him and the public duly elected him).
Thus, for the foreseeable future, it is no more AirBnB! They have promised me a response to my concerns and passed it up to someone ‘trained to deal with such issues’. Watch this space!
I have recently returned from a lap of the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea; the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden, Åland Islands and Finland, plus the former USSR Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (and the Baltic coast of Poland, for good measure).
Perhaps surprisingly, most of these countries I had never visited before, but I had learned quite a bit about them in various contexts over the years. I had developed the impression that these were countries we could, indeed should all learn more from, but was keen to visit and witness life there to challenge my views and see how valid they are.
The lessons to be learned are many and varied, so I am dividing them into 2 blog pieces; the first one was on socioeconomic lessons, especially those pertinent to the Welsh Independence campaign, and this one is on the historical and political lessons especially pertinent to the political situation we are all living in right now.
I will focus this one primarily on the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, although their stories are intertwined with those of their Scandinavian/Nordic neighbours.
A BRIEF HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS
As with most nations today, the emergence of their identity goes back to the Middle Ages when tribal groups began to coalesce and settle down in recognisable territories. Thus, the Finno-Ugrians settled in what would become Finland and Estonia; The Livs settled in what is now northern Latvia; and the Samogitians and Aukstaiciai settled in what is most of present-day Lithuania.
They all shared a collection of Pagan beliefs, worshipping the forces of nature personified as divinities. Their religious and cultural life centred on a large body of folk song, known as the dainos, many of which have survived. They encompass the whole of human life’s connectedness with nature and incorporate a strong sense of ethics.
From the 9th century, the area saw a series of Scandinavian Viking incursions, along with Slavic incursions from the south and east that saw the first attempts to bring Roman Christianity into the region. Around the turn of the 13th Century, the Danes conquered much of Estonia while Germans took the rest along with Latvia and Lithuanian.
Lithuania re-asserted itself successfully in the latter-13th and 14th centuries and became something of an imperial power itself, rejecting Christianity in the process, and taking land that is now Belarus and north-western Ukraine, and reached east as far as Moscow, under Great Prince Algirdas (whose name is prominent around Vilnius and beyond to this day).
One of the consequences of this expansion was the strategic intermarrying with neighbouring nobility that led to the reassertion of Christianity across the region. It led eventually to political union between Lithuania and Poland in the 16th century. Meanwhile Latvia and southern Estonia succumbed to Russian tsar Ivan IV (‘the Terrible’ one) and Sweden took northern Estonia and Finland.
The 17th century saw the region succumb to Russian expansionism, taking Estonia, Finland, Latvia and eating into the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which saw itself partitioned between Russia and Germany and disappearing off the map completely as the result of three partitions in the 18th century.
This situation persisted throughout the 19th century, with attempted Polish and Lithuanian uprisings quashed and met with the intense russification of all the Baltic lands.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 and the arrival of Marxist values led to the peoples of the Baltics regaining confidence to reassert themselves. The three nations started by demanding national autonomy and Lithuania went so far as to demanding an autonomous Lithuanian state based on ethnic boundaries. Russia conceded that Baltic peoples could elect their representatives to the imperial parliament (the Duma) and allowed the consolidation of the national societies and use of the indigenous language in public life and schools again.
The collapse of the German and Russian empires during WWI allowed the Baltic peoples to finally establish independent states in 1918. It was far from plain sailing though. There was a power vacuum that led to fractured politics, the rise of extremism and political violence. Within 10 years all three countries had developed authoritarian systems. Lithuania saw a violently repressive nationalist regime, led by Smetona, eliminate all opposition to become a one-party state. Estonia and Latvia meanwhile were destabilised by exactly the opposite; a multiplicity of parties forming a ceaselessly changing series of weak coalitions.
Thus, when the Russian occupation arrived in 1940, the countries were in no shape to resist at all. There was probably some initial relief in Lithuania when Smetona fled to Germany. But any such relief would soon disappear as the region found itself in the violent grip of Stalin’s sovietisation of the three countries. The Soviet regime imposed manipulated elections that ensured the countries ‘voted’ to join the U.S.S.R.
By the 1970s the Baltic area had emerged as a hotbed of anti-Soviet dissent, with demonstrations and riots beginning to occur. The writing was on the wall (literally at times) and Mikhail Gorbachev understood the zeitgeist. He allowed increasing autonomy, which was especially relished in the Baltic states as they had never reconciled themselves to the loss of their independence, even though it had been politically difficult. It was driven by the strong sense of cultural identity among the indigenous populations. Diplomatic pressure was strong too, as virtually no country in ‘the West’ had ever recognised the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the U.S.S.R.
Elections in early 1990 clearly established pro-independence majorities in all three countries. Lithuania declared U.D.I. in March, followed by Estonia in April and Latvia in May. Moscow declared these illegal and asserted pressure in terms of economic sanctions designed to weaken the resolve of the people. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence where Soviet military tried to interfere with or control infrastructure. However, tensions within the corridors of power in Moscow culminated in the disintegration of the U.S.S.R in August 1991, facilitating the acknowledged implementation of the independence of the three Baltic States. By November, the Russians acknowledged the illegality of Stalin’s incorporation of the Baltic states in 1940.
Thus, we enter the short history of these proud nation’s growth as independent nations in the modern world. The 1990s saw the development of new constitutions, new currencies, and new foreign markets for each of the Baltic states. The immediate post-Soviet period, however, was marked by economic instability, and in 1998 a financial crisis in Russia had repercussions throughout the region. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 21st century, the Baltic states experienced sustained economic growth and closer integration with the nations of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—two groups that all three countries joined in 2004. Their socio-economic success in this period is examined in Part 1 of this two-part blog.
The success of these newly independent nations
Compared to the chaotic nations that had independence in the 1920s and 30s, the Baltic states of today have been shining examples of what can be achieved by small nations gaining freedom and complete independence from much bigger oppressive neighbours. They should inspire and give confidence to nations like Wales, Scotland, Catalonia etc.
One of the keys to their current and ongoing success has been them learning lessons from their Nordic neighbours from the outset of gaining their independence. They set up their constitutions and legislatures along similar lines to them to try and ensure a strong and stable democracy and an economy that could develop mutually beneficial trade links with them and the rest of Western Europe, facilitating entry into the EU and the Eurozone.
There was therefore a strong desire to foster and build upon strategic links between the Nordic and Baltic states, both economically and politically. It has become known as the NB8 and is, in effect, a pact of co-operation between the Baltic Council, that was created by the three Baltic countries in the immediate aftermath of gaining independence on 1990, and the Nordic Council that has existed since 1952. A similar confederation was proposed in the 1920s during the previous period of independence for the three Baltic states, but political instability prevented it happening then. Lithuania was a prime mover for this new pact in the 1990s, recognising the importance of strength in numbers before securing membership of the EU and NATO.
As tensions within the EU (the U.K. has left and others may well follow) and NATO (with Trumpian USA not committed and many others, including me, unhappy with its destabilising expansionism and interventionist approach), it makes sense for nations to foster even greater co-operation, trade and sharing of resources and expertise elsewhere and closer to home.
Thus, the NB8 has developed and become a stronger entity since its inception in 1992. Indeed, a meeting of all the Ministers of Foreign Affairs met in Middelfart in 2000 to reassert the strength of the co-operation programmes (as well as formally adopting the NB8 moniker). A programme of regular conferences for a range of ministers was put in place:
This is backed up with a comprehensive and cohesive network of cooperation activities in political, military, economic, environmental, cultural, and other aspects. Landmark achievements include the 2004 establishment of the ‘NB8 Task Force Against Trafficking in Human Beings’, the 2010 ‘Cross-border Financial Stability Agreement’, and the 2012 ‘NB8 Wise Men Report’ that strengthened co-operation in foreign policy, cyber security, joint energy ventures, and defence.
Were it not for the spectre of Putin’s growing imperialism, the future would look secure and bright for all these countries. But however this pans out, there is a lot of inspiration to be had for other small nations aspiring to independence.
WHAT CAN WALES LEARN?
First and foremost, small nations can and do thrive when achieving independence.
Once achieved, independence becomes precious and worth fighting to retain. Indeed, countries that achieve independence very rarely ever want to reverse it.
On gaining independence, ensure you set up your constitution and legislature properly in order to preserve democracy and maintain stability.
It is important to have good friends and neighbours, preferably that you have things in common with.
The dissolution of the U.K. should not be acrimonious and there should be no reason for friendship and co-operation with England to not continue in most things. The Baltic States didn’t have this; it was gaining independence from a violently oppressive entity. It should therefore be easier for Wales and Scotland to make a success of independence.
Even if relations with England were to deteriorate, there is plenty of scope for other alliances, akin to the Nordic Council and Baltic Assembly.
The Celtic League already exists (founded in 1961) to promote and foster a modern Celtic identity and culture across the 6 Celtic Nations of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Isle of Man, Cornwall, and Brittany. It is primarily focussed on promoting the Celtic languages, buy does also advocate for further self-governance in these nations and ultimately for each to become an independent state it its own right.
The common design features of the Orkney and Shetland flags serves to illustrate the overlapping histories they share with the Nordic countries. Given the fact that Orcadians and Shetlanders are fully aware of this history and have even been agitating about seeing a brighter future in realigning themselves with their Nordic neighbours (Lerwick is much nearer Oslo (@425 miles) than London (@600 miles) after all), it is entirely possible that we could see further overlaps develop in the diagram above.
The overwhelmingly strong message that I have received from both studying and visiting these nations is that there is so much potential to improve our lives in Wales by pursuing independence than from sticking with the status quo. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is madness (are you still voting Labour in the Assembly elections?).
I may have only spent a very short time in each country on my recent trip, but the places and the people all presented a sense of calm assurance and self-confidence that, despite the challenges of the modern world, they are on the right track.
I saw nobody homeless on the streets, no mindless vandalism, very little litter (other than that created by seagulls), no fly-tipping. You can’t say any of that around our cities, especially Cardiff. I spoke to people paying high taxes but not moaning about it because they feel they are getting good services for their money. Paying a lot doesn’t guarantee quality, but you can’t get quality in the bargain basement.
I spoke to polite, articulate, confident, multi-lingual young people everywhere I went. They are few and far between in Bridgend.
The people of these nations are proudly independent people in proudly independent nations, working together for a better future for everyone.
I have recently returned from a lap of the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea; the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden, Åland Islands and Finland (and Norway recently too), plus the former USSR Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (and the Baltic coast of Poland, for good measure).
Perhaps surprisingly, most of these countries I had never visited before, but I had learned quite a bit about them in various contexts over the years. I had developed the impression that these were countries we could, indeed should all learn more from, but was keen to visit and witness life there to challenge my views and see how valid they are.
The lessons to be learned are many and varied, so I am dividing them into 2 blog pieces: this one on socioeconomic lessons, especially those pertinent to the Welsh Independence campaign, and another on the historical and political lessons of small European nations gaining independence.
I am going to divide these nations into two groups:
The Nordic Group = Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland (to which can be added Iceland, which I visited not so long ago too)
The Baltic Group = Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Let me start by presenting some data to give some evidence-based context.
Firstly, let us just acknowledge that these are all small countries in terms of population. The Nordic countries are mostly about twice the size of Wales (Sweden x3, Iceland the size of Cardiff), while the Baltic states are all significantly smaller, with Estonia less than half the size of Wales. The oft heard claims that Wales is too small to thrive as an independent country is patent, nay ridiculous nonsense. (Altogether, there are more than 20 European countries smaller than Wales’ population.)
Right from my earliest days as a geography student, I have always been fascinated by the Nordic countries consistently impressive scores across all sorts of metrics, be it wealth, equality, health, education, happiness etc. Stretching from the same latitudes as Scotland, up into the Arctic Circle and with no major resource advantages over the U.K., I was intrigued as to how they achieved so much. The answer is very straightforward, as it turns out. It is the ‘Nordic Model’.
The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordiccountries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargainingbased on the economic foundations of social corporatism, and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based economy.
Norway is a partial exception due to it sharing a huge resource advantage with the U.K. in the shape of North Sea oil and gas. Unlike the U.K. though, it hasn’t allowed capitalists to largely piss it up the wall but has nurtured it by creating the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund that secures the country’s wealth and well-being indefinitely. It underpins the large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. All the Nordic countries are highly democratic and all have single chamber legislature and use proportional representation in their electoral systems. They all support a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility, with a sizable percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force in areas such as healthcare, education, and government), and a corporatist system with a high percentage of the workforce unionised and involving a tripartite arrangement, where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy is mediated by the government. As of 2020, all of the Nordic countries rank highly on the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, the Global Peace Index, as well as being ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report.
Doesn’t it sound wonderful? Yet we have suffered and endured 45 years of unremitting neoliberal capitalism selling off our public assets and services, hollowing out remaining public services and non-stop ‘austerity’ for the poor while the rich accumulate obscene wealth. Is it any wonder that the Shetland and Orkney Islands have considered abandoning the U.K. and returning to Norway (they were gifted to Scotland by King Christian of Norway in 1472). An independent Wales could never join Norway, but it could certainly adopt the Nordic Model if it elected the right people.
The Nordic model was originally developed in the 1930s under the leadership of social democrats, although centrist and right-wing political parties, as well as labour unions, also contributed to the Nordic model’s development. The neoliberal zeitgeist across Europe and beyond in the last 45 years has impacted the Nordic countries to an extent, with increased deregulation and expanding privatisation of public services. However, it remains a distinctive approach retaining strong emphasis on public services and social investment.
The Baltic Nations have a very different history, of course. As any Pole knows, the boundaries of countries in central Europe have been fluid throughout much of history, but the underlying nations have survived and, debatably, the current borders match the national identities of the peoples of Europe as well now as ever. (There remain some nations subsumed into larger states, of course, such as Wales and Catalonia.) The Baltic nations achieved independence from tsarist Russia as part of the violent fall-out of the Russian Revolution around 1917-18. They remained independent until the German occupation in 1940, followed by the Soviet occupation up until 1991.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Baltic states looked primarily towards their Nordic neighbours for inspiration as to how to set up their legislatures. They also warmly embraced a Scandinavian initiative to create a Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS) in 1992. This consisted of all the Nordic group countries (once Iceland joined in 1995), all the Baltic group countries, plus Poland, Germany, and Russia (until it was kicked out after its invasion of Ukraine). There is scope for the largely cultural focus of the Celtic League of Celtic nations to evolve similarly with Welsh and Scottish independence.
Integration with the rest of Western Europe became a major strategic goal for the newly-indepndent Baltic states and all three were in NATO and the EU by 2004.
The statistics reveal that the Baltic states have made rapid progress across most metrics, but still have quite a way to go to emulate the Nordic states. But they seem to remain focussed on achieving this, and surely will if Putin doesn’t throw an enormous spanner in the works.
The Baltic countries have built their economies on innovation and trade. Small and highly connected to global markets, they have developed industries that excel in technology, manufacturing, and services. This focus has allowed them to remain competitive in an ever-changing economic landscape.
Investment in education and infrastructure has played a key part in their growth. Skilled workforces and modern transport systems attract businesses and encourage local entrepreneurship. Governments in the region have supported these efforts through policies that promote transparency and efficiency.
Tourism also contributes to the economic success of the Baltics. Visitors are drawn to the region’s cultural heritage, natural beauty, and vibrant cities. This steady flow of international visitors supports local businesses and boosts national revenues, helping to strengthen their economies further.
The Baltic countries are expected to continue their economic growth in the coming years. According to the European Commission, Estonia’s GDP is projected to grow by 3.5% in 2024, while Latvia and Lithuania are forecasted to grow by 3.3% and 3.8%, respectively. These figures are driven by a combination of export growth and domestic consumption.
Renewable energy is a key area of focus for future development. Lithuania aims to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, compared to 38% in 2022. Estonia is also expanding its wind energy capacity, with plans to install over 1,000 megawatts of new wind farms by 2025. Investments in green energy are expected to attract funding and create jobs, boosting regional economies.
Technology and innovation are also driving forward-looking initiatives. Latvia’s IT sector grew by 10% in 2022, with exports of IT services reaching €2 billion. Estonia’s start-ups are thriving, with over 1,300 start-ups contributing €1.4 billion to the economy in 2022. These sectors are seen as key to maintaining competitiveness and ensuring steady growth in a rapidly changing global market.
There is nothing here that Wales could not emulate, given the freedom to fully capitalise on its natural and human resources. Independence is not a silver bullet that ensures any sort of success in and of itself. But it is a golden opportunity; a golden opportunity to fulfil a people’s potential that is rarely afforded when subservient to a dominant paymaster.
I’ve recently returned from a trip to Argentina that saw me visit Buenos Aires, coastal Patagonia and Ushuaia, Terra del Fuego. I quickly felt more comfortable identifying as Welsh rather than British, not because I was in any way intimidated or threatened (quite the contrary), but simply because of historical evidence and propaganda everywhere I went.
Before I delve into this further, let me present some historical context.
Argentina was, of course, initially part of the Spanish Empire, but parts of Argentina, such as Rio de la Plata (including Buenos Aires) and Islas Malvinas (a.k.a. Falklands Islands), were squabbled over between the Spanish and British in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Argentina’s current borders were settled after its War of Independence that saw it declare independence from Spain on 15 December 1823. Britain stayed neutral in the war but was quick to recognise the newly established republic. Argentina effectively shelved its claims of sovereignty over the Falklands in return for British economic investment that played a major role in the Argentine economic boom that lasted from the mid 1800s through the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Things changed after WW2 (during which over 4000 Argentine volunteers served with British armed services). The British policy of ‘Imperial Preference’ directed most of its overseas investment to its colonies. The Perón regime then nationalised many British-owned industries, further diminishing British influence.
By the mid-1960s, the military were calling the shots and there was a military coup in 1966. The military junta soon saw value in resurrecting claims of sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falklands.
Initially, and under pressure from the UN, the British government, or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) at least, saw the islands as more of a nuisance and obstacle to trade in South America and were inclined to cede the islands to Argentina in 1968. Parliamentarians sympathetic to the plight of ‘British’ islanders, frustrated these plans.
Thus, throughout the 1970s (and both Labour and Conservative governments) the Argentine government were kind of teased about British willingness to cede the islands once political issues in the UK were resolved. The FCO even tried to make the islanders more amenable by allowing Argentina to increasingly supply the islands with things like oil and food, hoping they would feel increasingly dependent on Argentina and less dependent on the UK.
In 1980, a year into Thatcher’s first term, her foreign secretary, Nicholas Ridley was despatched to the Falklands to try and persuade the islanders of the benefits of a ‘leaseback’ scheme. It failed, despite Ridley conceding in private that he knew that the Argentines were running out of patience and could decide to invade and take the islands.
For the Argentine junta, things came to a head in 1981, They had been in charge for 5 years and the economy had stagnated and was crumbling. Large-scale civil unrest was erupting all over the country. The new junta head, General Galtieri, needed a PR boost and hoped to divert public attention from the floundering economy and human rights issues by mobilising the long-standing patriotic sentiments of Argentinians towards Las Malvinas. He and his advisers were convinced that the British would never respond militarily. They had miscalculated.
By 1982, Thatcher’s popularity was plummeting, and the Falklands looked a no-win situation that could sink her completely. Quietly ceding the islands was one thing, seeing them invaded and snatched away was quite another. But going to war over them, given the logistical challenges involved and the lack of a certain outcome seemed crazy. However, ten weeks later, the Falklands were retaken, and Thatcher could do no wrong for most Brits.
But the Argentinians have never lost the conviction, so successfully embedded in them ever since the 1970s, that Las Islas Malvinas belong to them. The British, meanwhile have become ever more aware to the potential riches in the relatively shallow waters of the seas around the Falklands, and potentially in Antarctic territory beyond. Positions have become re-entrenched. However, we see or hear very little about the Falklands back in the UK these days. It is very different in Argentina, as I saw with my own eyes while travelling around. I became increasingly gob-smacked. Here are just some of my photos, firstly from Buenos Aires:
Just 100m from my Buenos Aires AirBnB. 8ft tall 4-sided memorial. The other three sides list the Argentinian ‘heroes’ who gave their lives. Why 2009? I don’t know. There are countless other memorials dotted all over the city.
At least half the buses in Buenos Aires had this stuck on the side. A law passed in 2014 by the Argentine Congress says public transport must have signs saying “Las Islas Malvinas son Argentinas” (‘the Falkland Islands are Argentine’).
I went to a Boca Juniors game in January 2025. An essentially left-wing club in the dock area of the city still has banners at home games asserting the Malvinas are Argentinian.
Moving on to Welsh Patagonia, I wondered if the strong Welsh affiliations and affections altered the attitudes towards the Malvinas/Falklands. Nope, not at all.
This adorns the Town Hall in Trelew. It was the only conspicuous memorial I stumbled across in this town, but some buses in the town had the same poster as those in Buenos Aires. Why 2024? Again, I don’t know.
The county town of Rawson, nearer the coast, ramped things up a bit more. Near the County Hall is an extensive collection of Malvinas memorials:
Translating the plaque beneath one of them:
Worker stopping with one hand raised
The advance of the internal and external enemy
That oppresses the people
And with one hand pointing
A barbed wire fence
Symbol of invading capitalism
Towards South American territories.
That’s the working classes of South America resisting the capitalist colonialists of Europe, Britain specifically in this case. Which is an interesting perspective for people largely descended from capitalist colonialists of centuries gone by, Spain in that case, but hey!
Rawson is also home to a museum dedicated to the Falklands War; the ‘Museum of the Malvinas Soldiers’:
It appears to have been put together and curated by local families of soldiers who lost their lives there. It is, however, free to enter and I guess is financially supported by government at some level. It was staffed by a man in his 30s; quite an intense guy who recognised my Welsh soccer shirt. He got a bit emotional when I shook his hand and said ‘muchas gracias’ as I left.
Soldier of my country…
Boy of my people…
What unfathomable nights
your dreams sheltered!
I cry for you at night and…
At dawn I still remember…
Emotional stuff. But looking at the visitor book, I don’t think this museum sees many visitors. It is the public displays in the town centres that (a) keeps the emotion alive for the locals, but also (b) smacks the visitor in the face, especially British visitors. And thus, onto Ushuaia!!
There is a special context to Ushuaia’s obsession with Las Islas Malvinas. This map, cut into thick sheet steel, is down by the port entrance:
Ushuaia is on Tierra Del Fuego in the top left of these maps. The Argentinian Government regards it as the capital city of all the territories on this map, thereby including the following territories that the map on the right identifies as UK territories: Islas Malvinas a.k.a. Falkland Islands, Islas Georgias del Sur a.k.a. South Georgia, Islas Sandwich a.k.a. South Sandwich Islands, Islas Orcadas a.k.a. South Orkney Islands and Antartida Argentina a.k.a. British Antarctic Territory.
Ushuaia doesn’t even attempt to perform any governmental functions outside of Tierra del Fuego as it regards these other territories as under illegal occupation by the British. But this doesn’t stop it attempting to maintain communications, if only via radio:
This is Nacional FM broadcasting from Ushuaia across Tierra del Fuego and, it would seem, to the Islas Malvinas. It would be interesting to know the listening figures from there!
But there are ‘in-your-face’ messages all over town:
Clockwise from top left: Memorial plaques from all manner of organisations / Entrance to large memorial plaza / Eternal flame in memory of the dead built at the 30th anniversary of the war / 40th anniversary war memorial / one of about twenty poster size photos displayed around the plaza.
And it is not just war memorials. In an attempt to assert that the Malvinas are theirs, there are also big diplays about the wildlife, ecology and need for ‘proper’ conservation on the islands:
There are a lot of references to “Argentinas y Fueguinas” to emphasise that the islands are not just Argentinian, but more specifically of the Tierra del Fuego administartive area, of which Ushuaia is the capital.
This was on the back of business premises overlooking the port.
Next to the port entrance, and elsewhere, there are lots of things stressing that the Islands are relatively close to Ushuaia (but that is still about 500 miles), compared to Buenos Aires, and also that the UK is ridiculously far away; 12,700km or 7,900 miles.
Also next to the port entrance, and quite pointedly in both Spanish and English, given the large number of English-speaking tourists passing through, are these two unequivocal statements on large noticeboards:
I would love to know what has been deleted from the bottom!
So, the message is loud and clear and unequivocal; Argentina has not given up on being able to assert sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, at the very least, and over other UK held territories in the South Atlantic/Southern Oceans.
However the language used by the current President (at the time of writing), Javier Milei, has been tempered compared to some of his predecessors. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce43zv3qln9o
There clearly is no desire to physically fight over the islands again. But it is also clear that a diplomatic resolution is nowhere near even being on the horizon again. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce43zv3qln9o
In the meantime, a two prong PR campaign that has been going strong since the 1970s continues. First is all the messaging on public transport and public buildings aimed at keeping the idea firmly implanted in the mind of the Argentinian public. Second is the uncompromising messaging to visitors to Argentina, especially conspicuous around ports and airports used by tourists, presented extensively in English so that British and American visitors, in particular, cannot miss the message.
Here is the main tourist information online portal for Ushuaia:
The map link at the bottom goes to the map below that shows the whole array of public installations to do with Las Malvinas, but which is far from inclusive of all mentions of Las Malvinas around the town.
So, what do I conclude about the Las Malvinas/Falklands situation now, in 2025, well over 40 years since the war?
British tourists, as far as I can see, and in my experience, suffer no discrimination from the Argentinian hospitality sector, nor from the vast majority of the Argentinian people. There seems to be an understanding about the capitalist interests driving the current determination of the UK establishment to hold onto the Falklands and other territories in the region. But it is this feeling that they are being robbed of potential resources that belong to them that will not let them give up on the aspiration to have sovereignty over the islands recognised and achieved.
There is no hint of any desire to go to war over the islands again right now, but in this age of Trumpian powder-keg diplomacy, that could change if the conditions were right, and some sort of trigger event occurred. There are possible trigger events on the horizon such as the uncertain future of the Antarctic Treaty’s Environmental Protocol when I it comes up for review in 2048.
Perhaps even more imminent is the “Blue Hole” issue of the fishing free-for-all going on around the Falklands due to the waters being caught in the middle of the territorial dispute between the UK and Argentina. One of the consequences of this is the lack of any agreements on fishing in these waters; it is one of the only areas of sea not covered by any regional fishing agreement. The consequences of the resultant over-fishing are dire for Falkland Islanders (the fishing industry makes up two-thirds of the Falkland Island’s economy) but also for the impact on fish stocks in neighbouring waters. https://www.ethicalmarkets.com/falkland-islands-dispute-is-causing-fishing-free-for-all-in-nearby-blue-hole/
This may yet convince the Falkland Islanders that their prosperity and future might actually be more secure under Argentinian jurisdiction. This was, after all, an argument the UK Governments put forward themselves back in the 1960s and ’’70s, remember?
That would be a fascinating turn of events given that the (duplicitous) pretext for fighting the war in 1982 was the Islanders explicit desire to stay ‘British’. If they were to change their minds (and Shetland/Orkney Islanders, for example, are increasingly changing their minds and considering to self-determine themselves as Norwegian instead of British), then how could the UK say ‘no’? The UK is destined to dissolve in any case, sooner or later, with Scottish and Welsh independence and the re-unification of Ireland. Where this would leave British dominions and far-flung overseas territories, such as the Falklands, is an interesting consideration. The UK has only recently (just 6 months ago, in October 2024) given sovereignty of the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius. This is a interesting precedent. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o
It is my view that there is natural justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice that should ultimately settle all such issues, if and when a fair and balanced consideration of material facts and human and environmental impacts can hold sway. I do not wish to prejudge such things, but nonetheless, I am of the opinion that this would lead to not just the dismantling of the UK as described above, but also the recognition of islands that cannot (or want not to) sustain themselves as independent nations belonging to the nearest and/or geologically consistent land mass country.
Thus, I do think that eventually the Falkland Islands should and will become recognised as Las Islas Malvinas of Argentina.
But what of the Islanders desire to remain ‘British’? A major part of this is cultural. They are almost all of British descent; English-speaking, but mostly descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled from 1833 onwards. More recent immigrants have stemmed the population decline in the islands and have come mostly from the UK, St Helena and Chile. The 2012 census https://web.archive.org/web/20130520184434/http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/Headline-Results-from-Census-2012.pdf showed 59% of residents identifying as Falkland Islanders, 29% as British, 9.8% as Saint Helenian and 5.4% as Chilean (N.B. adds up to more than 100% as some identified as belonging to more than one category). A small number identified as Argentinian and of other nationalities.
I deduce a few things from these figures. Firstly, the Islanders do not see themselves as essentially British; they see themselves as essentially unique and distinct. Secondly, beyond the cultural matters of language, religion (most are protestants), and education, their loyalty to Britain is probably essentially pragmatic – that the UK guarantees its well-being and security to the tune of £60m a year, not counting major infrastructure investment of military significance, such as the recent £7m refurb of the Mount Pleasant military base. That represents more than £30,000 a year for each full-time inhabitant. (For context, that £60m could cover the £20 increase in Universal Credit given during Covid but since removed despite no end to the cost-of-living crisis. Or free school meals for 150,000 kids. But hey, I digress).
The point is that I feel sure that the islanders could easily be convinced that their livelihoods (mostly fishing dependent) and well-being (access to healthcare especially) could easily be matched, if not bettered by being under Argentine jurisdiction, and that assurances and guarantees about preserving their cultural identity and ways of life as English-speaking, tea-drinking, Anglicans would be enough to seal the deal.
After all, there is another part of Argentina that has done just that for another group of settlers of British descent, namely Welsh Patagonia.
Which brings me neatly to my reflections on what I saw and learned in and around Welsh Patagonia.
Welsh Patagonia is generally recognised as coinciding with the Argentinian province of Chubut. Having initially landed at Puerto Madryn, the early settlers were guided to the more fertile land along the lower Chubut valley by the indigenous Tehuelche people, thereby creating the towns of Rawson (named after Guillermo Rawson, the Argentine Minister of the Interior who championed and supported the Welsh settlement in Argentina), Trelew (initially Trelewis, the Welsh for Lewistown – a village just outside Bridgend), Gaiman (the name originating from the Tehuelche place-name meaning “rocky point”), and Dolavon (derived from the Welsh for “river meadow”). These are the five towns I visited.
Sometime later Welsh settlers migrated across the pampas and set up towns in the foothills of the Andes, such as the initially flour-milling town of Trevelin (from the Welsh ‘Trefelin’ = mill town) and Esquel (derived from Tehuelche words for “marsh” and ‘thorny plants”). I didn’t have time to get to these towns.
The story of the Welsh arriving in Puerto Madryn is a sad one.
The onset of the Industrial Revolution saw wealthy English capitalists investing heavily in the South Wales coalfield valleys and saw mass migration into the area. Welsh speakers became a nuisance and began being persecuted not just in the workplaces but by parliament. An 1847 parliamentary report on Welsh education (that became known as the ‘Treachery of the Blue Books’) https://www.library.wales/discover-learn/digital-exhibitions/printed-material/the-blue-books-of-1847 poured scorn on Welsh speakers and advocated punishments like the ‘Welsh Not’; a piece of wood hung around the necks of children caught speaking Welsh.
This persecution saw many join the waves of migration to America, but this didn’t make it easier to maintain the speaking of Welsh (although they did create ‘Welsh’ towns at Utica in New York State and Scranton in Pennsylvania). The idea of creating a remote utopia away from the influence of the English language became an obsession for some.
One such was a Caernarfon publisher and printer, Lewis Jones (honoured in the naming of Trelew), who in 1862 travelled to Patagonia’s Chubut Valley, accompanied by Welsh Liberal politician, Sir Love Parry-Jones (whose home estate, Madryn, would give its name to the port in which the settlers would land). They met with Guillermo Rawson, the Interior Minister, and he was amenable as he saw it as a way of gaining more control over a large tract of land disputed with their Chilean neighbours.
Having obtained Rawson’s agreement, the next step was to round up a group of initial settlers. A Welsh emigration committee met in Liverpool and published a handbook, Llawlyfr y Wladfa (Colony Handbook) to publicise the Patagonian scheme. The handbook was widely distributed throughout Wales and in America.
The first group of settlers, over 150 people, gathered from all over Wales, but mainly north and mid-Wales, sailed from Liverpool in late May 1865 aboard the tea-clipper Mimosa. Passengers had paid £12 per adult, or £6 per child for the journey. Blessed with good weather the journey took approximately eight weeks, and the Mimosa eventually arrived at what is now called Puerto Madryn on 27th July.
Unfortunately, the settlers found that Patagonia was not the friendly and inviting land they had been expecting. They had been told that it was much like the green and fertile lowlands of Wales. In reality it was barren and inhospitable windswept pampas, with no water, very little food and no forests to provide building materials for shelter. Some of the settlers’ first homes were dug out from the soft rock of the cliffs in the bay. I learned most of this from the Museo Del Desembarco:
Those shallow hollows where those first dishevelled migrants landed were the homes for most of them for a quite a few weeks, such that they cut out discernible recesses to act as shelves etc.
The future looked bleak, but the indigenous Teheulche Indians took pity on them and tried to teach the settlers how to survive on the scant resources of the area. This was my view of the area as I flew into Trelew.
They essentially survived by receiving several mercy missions of supplies until, with Tehuelche help, they identified a hopefully viable proposed site for the colony in the Chubut valley, about 40 miles from Puerto Madryn. It was here, where a river the settlers named Camwy cuts a narrow channel through the desert from the nearby Andes, that the first permanent settlements of Rawson and Trelew were established from the end of 1865.
The colony suffered badly in the early years with floods, poor harvests and disagreements over the ownership of land. In addition the lack of a direct route to the ocean made it difficult to bring in new supplies; Puerto Madryn remained the best landing point in the region.
History records that it was a certain Rachel Jenkins who first had the idea that changed the history of the colony and secured its future. Rachel had noticed that on occasion the River Camwy burst its banks; she also considered how such flooding brought life to the arid land that bordered it. It was simple irrigation (although backbreaking work to create) that saved the Chubut valley and its small band of Welsh settlers.
This history is preserved in Trelew’s ‘Pueblo de Luis Museum’ named in tribute to Lewis Jones (‘The people of Lewis’ Museum), based in what was the railway station eventually built for the line up the valley.
Over the next several years new settlers arrived from both Wales and Pennsylvania, and by the end of 1874 the settlement had a population totalling over 270. With the arrival of these keen and fresh hands, new irrigation channels were dug along the length of the Chubut valley, and a patchwork of farms began to emerge along a thin strip on either side of the River Camwy. The plan of the plots is in the museum. It appears that many changed their first names to Spanish equivalents – John Evans becomes Juan Evans, William Thomas becomes Guillermo Thomas, Henry Griffiths becomes Enrique Griffiths.
In 1875 the Argentine government granted the Welsh settlers official title to the land, and this encouraged many more people to join the colony, with more than 500 people arriving from Wales, including many from the south Wales coalfields which were undergoing a severe depression at that time. This fresh influx of immigrants meant that plans for a major new irrigation system in the Lower Chubut valley could finally begin.
There were further substantial migrations from Wales during the periods 1880-87, and 1904-12, again mainly due to depression within the coalfields. The settlers had seemingly achieved their utopia with Welsh speaking schools and chapels; even the language of local government was Welsh.
In the few decades since the settlers had arrived, they had transformed the inhospitable scrub-filled semi-dessert into one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas in the whole of Argentina and had even expanded their territory into the foothills of the Andes with a settlement known as Cwm Hyfryd. Bridgend boy, John Murray Thomas was prominent in this expansion, with his story told in the museum:
He was born in 1847 in Penybont ar Ogwr, South Wales. He arrived in Chubut on board the Mimosa in 1865. He was married to Harriet Underwood. From 1877 onwards he made several exploratory trips through the interior of Chubut, highlighting the expedition led by Fontana in 1885 which resulted in the discovery of the Andean valleys and the subsequent founding of the Colonia 16 de Octubre, seat of Esquel, Trevelin and the Futaleufu dam. He died on 3 November 1924 at the age of 77 and his remains rest in the Moriah Chapel cemetery.
These now productive and fertile lands started to attract other nationalities to settle in Chubut and the colony’s Welsh identity began to be eroded. By 1915 the population of Chubut had grown to around 20,000, with approximately half of these being foreign immigrants.
The turn of the century also marked a change in attitude by the Argentinian government who stepped in to impose direct rule on the colony. This brought the speaking of Welsh at local government level and in the schools to an abrupt end. The Welsh utopian dream of Lewis Jones et al appeared to be disintegrating.
Welsh however remained the language of the home and of the chapel, and despite the Spanish-only education system, the proud community survives to this day serving bara brith from Welsh tea houses and celebrating their heritage at one of the many eisteddfodau.
Speaking to locals in all of the towns in the area, it is amazing how many proudly claim to be descendants of early Welsh settlers, and especially of those first 150 or so on the Mimosa. They seem proud of the story and declare that they would love to visit Wales one day. Most learned a bit of Welsh in school, but I found nobody claiming to be proficient in the language, although I was told that they do exist.
The future of the language in the area will need some help, as it has back in Wales. In 1997 the British Council instigated the Welsh Language Project (WLP) to promote and develop the Welsh language in the Chubut region of Patagonia. Within the terms of this project, as well as a permanent Teaching Co-ordinator based in the region, every year Language Development Officers from Wales are sent to ensure that the purity of the ‘language of heaven’ is delivered by both formal teaching and via more ‘fun’ social activities, especially eisteddfodau. Whether this will be enough, only time will tell.
So, and in conclusion, what, if anything, does the history of the Welsh in Patagonia have to say of relevance to the future of the British in the Falklands?
I think the essence of it is that anything is possible with a combination of the determination of the players to make things work and a degree of political expediency for the powers that influence things to allow things to work.
The Welsh settlers in Patagonia were political refugees escaping persecution in their homeland and determined enough to make a fresh start that they could find away to overcome the problems they encountered, with a little help. It was politically expedient for descendants of the Spanish colonialists to ‘give’ the land of the indigenous Tehuelche to this ramshackle bunch of refugees. The Tehuelche saw the benefits of the new trading opportunities and the land was not precious to them in any case. Everyone was a winner.
The context in the Falklands is very different of course. The settlers there were sponsored and supported by the British government, and still are to this day. There is no reason why, with the right mindset of the islanders and the Argentinians that the Islanders cannot prosper under Argentinian governance. Finding the political expediency to allow this to happen is likely to be relatively easy in Argentina. I get the impression that allowing the Islanders to remain and allowing them to maintain their language and cultural identity would not be a big issue in finding a settlement. As in Chubut, it might get eroded over time, but that depends on how strongly it is practiced and maintained. Getting British Government support might prove trickier – despite the attitudes it presented back in the 60s and 70s – as it is in the grip of rabid neoliberal capitalists who control the zeitgeist. But this has to change sooner or later.
My experience of Argentina is that Argentinians welcome and value British visitors and have no issue accommodating them as residents either, allowing them to be themselves. The issue between the countries is at Governmental level and focussed on the territorial disputes off the shores of Argentina.
Self-determination is a very important principle. It was denied to Welsh speakers in their homeland. Their determination to create a new homeland far away eventually succeeded because that determination was given self by the Argentinian respect for what they wanted to do in difficult terrain and respect and help offered both ways between those settlers and the indigenous Tehuelche people of the area.
Self-determination was given as the main reason for the military response of the British in 1982. While I may scoff at the notion that this was the primary motivation, it is an honourable enough motivation in most circumstances. We can argue about the legitimacy of self-determination claims of people shipped many thousands of miles to lay claim to uninhabited land, but if we put this aside, the most likely resolution of the dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas, in my opinion, is for the Islanders to come to the decision that they would prefer to be governed and supported by Argentina than the UK.
The Welsh migrants had had enough of British rule harming their way of life. The independence campaigns in Wales and Scotland are focussed on the conviction that living standards and well-being can be better once divorced from British/UK rule. The Northern Irish are coming around to the conclusion that they would be better off being part of a reunited Ireland, divorced from British rule. Shetland and Orkney Islanders https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-66066448 are actively exploring the benefits of divorcing from the UK and returning to Norway (they were Norwegian for 500+ years from the 10th to 15th centuries). Being part of the UK is patently less desirable as time goes on, and there is no sign of that changing any time soon. Once the UK crumbles I foresee the Falklanders quickly accepting the inevitable.
Bridgend's Green Leftie 