The CIMSEC Chinese Military Strategy topic week ran from August 3-7, 2015 and featured shortly after a new Chinese Military Strategy white paper was released in May 2015, and after a new U.S. National Military Strategy was released in July 2015. Authors sought to identify key takeaways from the new Chinese white paper, establish historical context, and several compared the new Chinese document to the American strategy.
Authors: Paul Pryce Sherman Xiaogang Lai Chad M. Pillai Jack McKechnie Jan Stockbruegger Chang Ching Eric Gomez Debalina Ghoshal Amanda Conklin Justin Chock Xunchao Zhang
Editors: Eric Murphy Dmitry Filipoff Matt Hipple Matt Merighi
John Stryker
This is the fifth installment in a five-part series summarizing and commenting the 5 December 2014 US Department of State “Limits in the Seas” issue explaining the different ways in which one may interpret Chinese maritime claims in the South China Sea. It is a long-standing US policy to try to get China to frame her maritime claims in terms of UNCLOS. Read part one, part two, part three, part four.
[otw_shortcode_button href=”https://cimsec.org/buying-cimsec-war-bonds/18115″ size=”medium” icon_position=”right” shape=”round” color_class=”otw-blue”]Donate to CIMSEC![/otw_shortcode_button]
Whereas the assertion that China has not actually made a claim may not be shared by everybody, in particular given the language flowing from Beijing which the DOS report itself cites, the reference to the “high seas” between mainland China and some islands seems stronger proof that Beijing was not making a historic claim. However, we must again stress that this would be the case if we followed the prevailing interpretation of the law of the sea, but there is no reason why China should adhere strictly to it, and even less that Beijing should not have changed her mind since 1958, when she had little more than a coastal navy and her economy was closed and in tatters. It may be true, as the report notes, that the 1958 Declaration only made a historic claim to the Bohai (Pohai) gulf in northeastern China, but again this should perhaps be judged from a wider historical perspective. After 1949 the PRC took a much more uncompromising stance concerning its North-East than its South-East (and wider maritime) borders. With a pragmatic arrangement in place with the United Kingdom concerning Hong Kong, and a strong economic and political relation with the Soviet Union, it was at the other end of the country where, in 1950, Beijing (not without an intense internal debate given the state of the country), decided to resort to force to prevent the presence of hostile forces close to her border, intervening in the Korean War, pushing back the advancing Allied forces and reversing the impact of the Inchon landing, ultimately forcing a stalemate on the ground. In 1958, just five years after the Korean armistice, nearby waters may have thus been much more present in Chinese leaders’ minds. In addition, these were also the waters directly leading to Tianjin and Beijing, the venue for foreign interventions in both the Opium Wars and the Taiping Rebellion. It would not be until the late 1970s that China’s South-Eastern flank would begin to receive more attention, in part thanks to the rapprochement with the United States and in particular once economic growth and the country’s move to become a net energy and commodity importer turned the waters of the South China Sea into a vital venue and potential choke point. It is true that in December 1941 the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in the South China Sea had enabled the Japanese to land in Malaya and ultimately conquer Burma, closing the last land route to besieged Nationalist China, but this did not result in a comparable imprint on China’s historical consciousness, among other reasons because the episode did not involve Chinese naval forces and was subsumed into a much larger, dramatic, and quickly-developing picture.
Vietnamese-Americans demonstrating against Chinese claims in the South China Sea. Note the banner in favor of US ratification of UNCLOS.
Rejecting the validity of a possible historic claim by China. Concerning whether, if China “Made a Historic Claim”, it would “have Validity”, the DOS paper insists that “such a claim would be contrary to international law”, stressing the limited degree to which UNCLOS recognizes this category of claims, as evidenced by its “text and drafting history”. The text argues that “apart from a narrow category of near-shore ‘historic’ bays” in Article 10, and “historic title” concerning “territorial sea boundary delimitation (Article 15)”, “modern international law of the sea does not recognize history as the basis for maritime jurisdiction”, citing the Gulf of Maine ICJ case. It also underlines the fact that UNCLOS provisions concerning the EEZ, continental shelf, and the high seas “do not contain any exceptions for historic claims” to the detriment of coastal states and all estates enjoying certain freedoms. Concerning fisheries, the report acknowledges that UNCLOS refers to “the need to minimize economic dislocation in States whose nationals have habitually fished” in the EEZ (Article 62(3)) and to “traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities” (Article 51), but restricts the impact to the possible granting by one state to another of fisheries resources “based on prior usage”. The text stresses that no such traditional fishing practices can “provide a basis for sovereignty, sovereignty rights, or jurisdiction,” adding that UNCLOS rules on oil and gas development contain no “exception for historic rights in any context.” Again we note how a purely legal report like this may be missing part of the picture, given the great importance that fishing vessels have in the ongoing conflict over the South China Sea, where they are one of the pillars of asymmetric naval warfare.
Chinese scholars Gao and Jia have argued that UNCLOS does not regulate “historic title” and “historic rights,” which fall instead under the purview of general international law. In their view, UNCLOS “was never intended, even at the time of its adoption, to exhaust international law. On the contrary, it has provided ample room for customary law to develop and to fill in the gaps that the Convention itself was unable to fill in 1982” as clear from its preamble, which reads “matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law.” The DOS report explicitly rejects this position, saying that “it is not supported by international law” and goes against the “comprehensive scope of the LOS Convention.” Experts like Mark Valencia, on the other hand, hold that China’s posture may be compatible with the international law of the sea.
The text does not stop at arguing that it is not open to a state to make historic claims based not on UNCLOS but on general international law, laying down a second line of defense. It explains that, “even assuming that a Chinese historic claim in the South China Sea were governed by ‘general international law’ rather than the Convention,” it would still be invalid since it would not meet the necessary requirements under general international law, namely “open, notorious, and effective exercise of authority over the South China Sea,” plus “continuous exercise of authority” in those waters and “acquiescence by foreign States” in such exercise of authority. Furthermore, it explains that the United States, which “is active in protesting historic claims around the world that it deems excessive,” has not protested “the dashed line on these grounds, because it does not believe that such a claim has been made by China,” with Washington choosing instead to request a clarification of the claim. Whether this view is also meant to avoid a frontal clash with Beijing, in line with the often state policy goal of “managing” rather than “containing” China’s rise, is something not discussed in the text.
The report concludes by criticizing another view put forward by Gao and Jia, namely the relevance of claims made before the advent of UNCLOS. While these two scholars argue that “In the case of the South China Sea as enclosed by the nine-dash line, China’s historic title and rights, which preceded the advent of UNCLOS by many years, have a continuing role to play,” the DOS paper says that “The fact that China’s claims predate the LOS Convention does not provide a basis under the Convention or international law for derogating from the LOS Convention,” adding that “permitting States to derogate from the provisions of the Convention because their claims pre-date its adoption is contrary to and would undermine” the convention’s “object and purpose” stated in its preamble to “settle … all issues relating to the law of the sea.”
Conclusions. Long-standing American policy towards China stresses the need to manage the latter’s rise, so that it does not threaten the post-Second World War system, based among others on freedom of navigation and a ban on territorial expansion as a legitimate causus belli. As a result, Washington has often called on Beijing to clarify her claims on the South China Sea, in an attempt to constrain them while avoiding a frontal clash. This position also seeks to reinforce the perception that the United States focuses on the rule of law at sea, rather than on supporting one claimant against the other over disputed waters. The DOS document, in line with this approach, carefully dissects Chinese claims, analyzing whether they may be compatible with standard American interpretations of international Law of the Sea. The conclusions are rather pessimistic, exposing how, despite having ratified UNCLOS, the Convention’s provisions are not seen in the same light by Beijing and Washington. This should not surprise us, since international law seeks to constrain power but at the same time it is shaped by it, thus as countries rise they seek to play a greater role in the fate of rules and principles. In the case of China this is even clearer due to historical perceptions that it was to a large extent seaborne power which subjected the country to a semi-colonial status for a whole century. If Beijing’s claims in the South Chinese Sea cannot be seen in the light of UNCLOS, the question arises what ultimate Chinese goals are. Could this be the subject of a future paper by the Department of State? Or does Washington prefer to wait until the international arbitration case launched by Manila concludes? While the second option seems more likely, as time goes by the idea that China’s rise may be shaped, rather than constrained, increasingly seems less and less realistic. However, if the time comes to draw a line in the sand, a whole of government effort will be needed, going beyond the naval circles that to date have been most vocal in articulating the need to resist Chinese expansion.
Alex Calvo is a guest professor at Nagoya University (Japan) focusing on security and defence policy, international law, and military history in the Indian-Pacific Ocean. Region. A member of the Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC) and Taiwan’s South China Sea Think-Tank, he is currently writing a book about Asia’s role and contribution to the Allied victory in the Great War. He tweets @Alex__Calvo and his work can be foundhere.
[otw_shortcode_button href=”https://cimsec.org/buying-cimsec-war-bonds/18115″ size=”medium” icon_position=”right” shape=”round” color_class=”otw-blue”]Donate to CIMSEC![/otw_shortcode_button]
Admiral Eduardo Bacellar Leal Ferreira, commander of the Brazilian Navy, gave an interview to the Uruguayan daily El País this past December 2015. The Admiral optimistically declared that “today there is no ocean more peaceful than the South Atlantic, there are no tensions that cannot be solved. We have problems in the Malvinas [Falklands] or in the Gulf of Guinea, but there are no wars. This is the only ocean where the major powers do not have warships.” This statement is an ideal starting point for an in-depth discussion of South Atlantic geopolitics.
A Conflict-Less Ocean?
Due to space issues, we cannot discuss in detail every South Atlantic maritime conflict. Nevertheless, the Brazilian Admiral is incorrect to declare that the only regional disputes are the Falklands/Malvinas and the Gulf of Guinea. A total list includes:
The Falklands/Malvinas: Argentina claims these islands, currently controlled by the United Kingdom (the two countries had a brief war in 1982). In 2013, the inhabitants of the Falklands held a referendum in which they voted to remain part of the UK – Argentina does not recognize the ballot.
Ghana and Ivory Coast: The two countries have a dispute over offshore oil drilling along their border. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) gave an interim ruling in 2015 but a final decision is not expected until 2017.
Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo: In 2014, the Angolan government attempted to redraw the maritime border with the DRC in order to gain control of some 200 additional miles. The two countries have contested their border since the 1970s.
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon: The two countries claim the Mbanie, Cocotiers and Congas islands since the early 1970s. It is believed that there are underwater oil reserves around those islands.
Preventing War
In spite of the aforementioned maritime disputes, Admiral Ferreira is generally correct when he praises the peacefulness of the South Atlantic. After all, the last confrontation in the region was the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War.
Even more, war has been successfully prevented in other disputes: in 1978 Papal mediation helped avoid a war between Argentina and Chile in the Beagle Channel, where the Pacific and Atlantic oceans meet. Moreover, the dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria over the Bakassi Peninsula was solved via international ruling – in 2006 the two governments signed the “UN-backed Greentree Agreement[which set] the terms and timeframe for the implementation of the 2002 ruling of the [International Court of Justice], which transferred the Bakassi Peninsula from Nigeria to Cameroon.” The list of successfully mediated disputes could grow if ITLOS manages to resolve the Ghana-Ivory Coast issue or if the UN’s current mediation efforts between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon are fruitful. In other words there are plenty of examples that highlight the peacefulness of the South Atlantic.
Certainly, there is always the possibility of an unforeseen “X factor” that could jump-start a war. The battle over precious resources like oil is a likely reason as most of these conflicts have to do with control of maritime areas where large deposits of oil are believed to be located. In the case of Argentina, there is a high degree of patriotism over the Falklands/Malvinas themselves, but the recent discovery of newoil deposits by Rockhopper is another reason for Buenos Aires to desire control over them. This scenario is also plausible on the African side of the Atlantic. An October 2015 report by the Institute for Security Studies entitled “Why Africa must resolve its Maritime Boundary Disputes,” argues that “the location of oil fields and natural resources deposits can result in considerable complications when states unilaterally determine and apportion exploration blocks that infringe upon areas of disputed ownership by a neighboring state.”
Should other sources of state-revenue dry up, governments may become more willing to engage in a war, or at least aggressively push for negotiations, over any of the aforementioned maritime disputes.
New Navies But For What?
In a 2011 essay for Small Wars & Insurgencies, I argued that South America was involved in an arms race. The situation has changed in 2016, particularly among the South Atlantic states. For example, the Brazilian Navy continues with its ambitious programs, in spite of its economic woes, which include the construction of a nuclear-powered submarine, four Scorpene subs, and repairing its Sao Paulo carrier. Furthermore, in late 2015 Brazil purchased the multipurpose vessel TCD Siroco from France – it has been renamed the G-40 Bahia. Nevertheless, these purchases have not made Brazil’s neighbors perceive it as a security threat, as Uruguay’s Navy has not carried out major purchases in years while Argentina has only repaired the submarine ARA San Juanand purchased four Russian vessels that will be utilized for search and rescue operations and Antarctic research. Neither Montevideo nor Buenos Aires appear to expect an invasion from the Portuguese-speaking giant.
As for the African South Atlantic states, Equatorial Guinea commissioned a frigate, the Wle Nzas, in June 2014. “This warship is the flagship of the Equatorial Guinea Navy and it will [help] to ensure security in the Gulf of Guinea,” said President Teodoro Obiang Nguema. Meanwhile Gabon has ordered two offshore patrol vessels from KERSHIP, a joint-initiatives of PIRIOU and DCNS (though a January report by DefenceWebargues that the contract may have been deferred). As for Nigeria, it constructed the NNS Andoni in 2012; “with a speed of up to 25 knots (46km/h), this can quickly go to intercept the pirates,” said Commanding Officer Adepegba. The country also acquired a patrol vessel from China in 2014. Finally, the Angolan government announced in late 2015 that it will purchase “two fast-attack naval craftand several coastal radar and repeater station systems worth €122 million from two subsidiaries of Italy’s Finmeccanica.”
As has been discussed in various analyses, due to the general inter-state tranquility of the South Atlantic, regional navies are looking for a new raison d’etre. Protecting natural resources and non-traditional security threats are the standard reasons. Without a doubt, Africa’s West coast continues to have a major problem with piracy, including the hijacking of transport ships, so it is in the interest of regional governments to have strong navies to monitor their waters. As for protecting natural resources within a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, this includes both oil exploration as well as combating crimes like illegal fishing. Nevertheless, while African states have valid reasons to upgrade their naval forces, Brazil has a more difficult case regarding its projects. Without addressing the nuclear submarine or carrier by name, in his interview with El País, Admiral Ferreiraargues that Brazil must maintain a deterrent force to protect its natural resources, “we have [offshore] oil fields, and if there is an energy crisis it is necessary to deter anyone from coming to Brazil to take our resources.” While there is an obvious logic to the Brazilian Admiral’s statement, it is unclear exactly who is this enemy that requires a nuclear-powered submarine to defeat.
Global Powers
Finally, Admiral Ferreira argued that no world power has vessels in the South Atlantic. That is generally true, particularly since 1986, when the United Nations created the South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation Zone, which declares that the South Atlantic is a nuclear weapons-free zone.
Nevertheless, warships from the global powers routinely cross the South Atlantic; just this past April 2015, the USS Spearhead arrived in Gabon and carried out exercises with the local navy as part of the Africa Partnership Station. “During our visit, we’ll conduct marine-to-marine training along with medical subject matter expert exchanges, thus helping build a stronger Global Network of Navies,” said Commander Matthew Flemming. In May of the same year, the French offshore patrol vessel L’Adroitdocked in Cape Town. As for the other side of the Atlantic, the USS America visited Brazil in 2014 while the aforementioned French OPV L’Adroit docked in Uruguay in mid-February 2016. Furthermore, apart from the Falklands, London also controls South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. Moreover, the British-controlled Ascension Island was a strategically important stopover for British warships and transport vessels during the Falklands War.
Hence, Admiral Ferreira’s declaration is a slight overstatement. While there are no British battle groups patrolling the Falklands nor does the U.S. Navy have a fleet stationed in Ascension Island (though the U.S. Air Forcedoes utilize an auxiliary field there), global powers do have a constant presence in the South Atlantic’s waters.
A South Atlantic NATO?
Even though Admiral Ferreira did not discuss South Atlantic integration, it is important to mention that that the two sides of the Atlantic have increased defense ties in recent years. For example the ATLASUR naval exercises bring South American and African navies together, while Brazil and South Africa (along with India) have carried out the IBSAMAR exercises.
Nevertheless, calls for greater South-South cooperation have not ended in some grand new maritime defense initiative. The aforementioned exercises are important, but neither Brazil nor South Africa, the two powerhouses of the South Atlantic, have taken major steps to bring together all these navies towards some common objective (i.e. forming a trans-oceanic task-force to combat maritime crimes). The region already came together in 1986 with the SAPCZ and there is already a modern precedent for various countries attempting to deal with maritime affairs – namely, the African Union’s “2050 Africa’s Integration Maritime Strategy,” which will address (and ideally solve) the continent’s maritime issues, such as border disputes. We have yet to see the South Atlantic capitalize on its general peacefulness to address non-traditional defense problems.
Final Thoughts
Brazilian Admiral Ferreira is generally correct by praising the peacefulness of the South Atlantic. Of course, an unforeseen incident could occur or a series of decisions within a government that prompts it to decide to start a war with a neighboring state. The possibility of petro-money is an enticing reason to engage in violence, particularly as this non-renewable commodity becomes scarcer in the near future or, as the aforementioned ISS report explains, “maritime boundary disputes, many long dormant, are increasingly exacerbated by a growing interest in exploring and exploiting natural resources.” Nevertheless, the region can praise itself for having avoided inter-state war in spite of several border disputes.
Currently, the South Atlantic’s maritime security issues revolve around cracking down on piracy, drug trafficking and protecting natural resources (like oil deposits and the maritime ecosystem). Robust navies, including coast guards, are an obvious requirement, but there is a thin line that separates obtaining equipment that is needed (like Argentina purchasing search-and-rescue vessels or Angola buying crafts) to other whose usage is questionable (i.e., Brazil’s acquisition of a nuclear submarine).
W. Alejandro Sanchez is a researcher who focuses on geopolitics, military and cyber security issues in the Western Hemisphere. His research interests include inter-state tensions, narco-insurgent movements and drug cartels, arms sales, the development of Latin American military industries, UN peacekeeping operations, as well as the rising use of drones in Latin America. The views presented in this essay are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated. Follow him on Twitter @W_Alex_Sanchez.
This article originally featured on the Phoenix Think Tank, and is republished with permission. Read it in its original form here.
By Hal Wilson
Even thirty-three years after the end of hostilities there, the Falklands Islands still enjoy close attention. Diplomatic skirmishes and oil exploration at the islands merit recurring interest. But perhaps above all, the positioning of the Argentine military draws attention which few of its other Latin American counterparts receive.
In 2012, the Royal United Services Institute released a thorough review of the Anglo-Argentine security ‘equation’.1In 2014, David Axe of War is Boring reviewed the Argentine Air Force (FAA) in close detail.2Geopolitics help drive this attention – as Axe highlighted, Argentina “aspires to be a regional power”. Likewise, after investing blood and prestige in 1982, Britons remain concerned about the Falkland Islands’ security.
The latest flurry of interest comes with the retirement of Argentina’s ‘fast-jet’ fleet – leaving the FAA with an inventory of subsonic fighters and training aircraft. A layman might assume this marks the end of the Argentine military threat – but these waters are muddied by plenty of spilled ink.
In August 2013, the British Sunday Express highlighted potential sales of Spanish Mirage fighters to the FAA.3Then again in February 2014 the Express announced a £3 billion increase in the Argentine military budget, including “£750 million for 32 procurement and modernisation programmes.”4 Later that year, both Spanish-language5and English-language6outlets covered potential Russian leases of Sukhoi attack aircraft to Argentina.
In January this year the Uruguayan news outlet MercoPress reported on potential Chinese fighter aircraft sales to Argentina 7, news substantiated later by Jane’s Defence Weekly.8 Both MercoPress 9 and Jane’s 10returned to this topic in February – this time highlighting the sale of the Chinese P18 corvette to the Argentine fleet.
Put simply, a cursory review suggests a determined Argentine policy to enhance its military power.
There is real merit to this recurring emphasis on Argentina’s air and naval inventories: Power projection capabilities are often the most important metric of military power. While land forces can secure and defend territory, only air and naval forces have the reach to intimidate, deter or attack distant targets. Indeed, the critical role of the FAA in 1982 makes it a natural focus-point for anyone familiar with the Falklands Conflict.
That said, attentive readers will already see the fault in accepting the first-glance impression from the press: Not only are the FAA’s last supersonic jets retiring – they are retiring without replacement: Argentine efforts to procure replacement fighters through both Spain and Sweden failed. The Chinese jet program also failed amid increasing costs, leaving a last, doubtful option for replacements from Israel.11
Argentina’s stock of air-launched missiles – though barely publicized – likewise seems of dubious standards. The venerable Exocet anti-ship missile, infamous in 1982, still features: Spanish-language coverage reports that efforts began in 2005 to extend Exocet lifespans,12 but by 2014 these had apparently met with only partial success.13 Latin American social media and Argentine military blogs both refer to another anti-ship missile model – the AS-25K – but reliable details are less forthcoming on stockpiles and capabilities.
But given the Argentine fighter inventory now stands at just 25 subsonic A-4 jets,14 their armament is almost a moot point. Deadly enough in 1982 but increasingly obsolete today, these aging fighters will also suffer increasingly poor serviceability – the FAA is cutting back on working hours and maintenance, not just its jets.15 While the FAA’s transport fleet of five C-130 planes is undergoing a limited upgrade, even this is not expected to be completed until May 2019.16
But what of the Argentine Navy? Annual bilateral exercises are held with the Chilean Navy17 and a vital life-extension program for its P3 Orion patrol aircraft is underway.18 Coupled with the acquisition of Chinese P-18 corvettes, initial impressions suggest a service intelligently building core capabilities – but a fleet is more than the vessels it operates.
Argentina’s maritime-industrial supply chain, on which any navy relies for upgrades and maintenance, appears to be chronically underperforming. A Mid-Life Update for one of the fleet’s two submarines had a seven-year turnaround;19 the Argentine Navy icebreaker AlmiranteIrízar completed its refit in August 2015 – eightyears after suffering a fire in 2007.20 With such a track record, the 2010 announcement that a nuclear submarine would be built in Argentina21 appears unrealistic at best.
The Argentine Navy itself comes off little better. A sensational 2012 MercoPress article revealed a host of striking shortcomings: Each of Argentina’s four destroyers were reportedly suffering engine problems and expired ordnance; while submarine crews were receiving 19hours rather than the 190 days minimum submerged training.22 In a 2014 TV expose, Former Argentine Minister of Defence Horacio Jaunarena identified the fleet as Argentina’s most modern armed force – but estimated it as only 40% operational.23 To date, little appears to have been done to remedy the situation.
ARA Santisima Trinidad, the only British Type 42 destroyer built outside Britain. She was the lead ship of the Argentine landing force on the Falklands/Malvinas islands in April 1982.
Argentina’s air and naval capabilities are trapped in a deep malaise. But what lessons does this hold for British military and political leaders, who have more reason than most to take note?
As RUSI’s Michael Clarke highlighted in 2012, “there is no plausible mainstream military option open to Buenos Aires”24for capturing the Falklands Islands. The British press occasionally raises concerns regardless, whether stressing “aggressive Latino diplomacy”25 or possible Argentine special forces raids26 as subverting Britain’s position in the South Atlantic. More thoughtful commentators draw parallels to ongoing tensions in the South China Sea.27
But how relevant are such ‘hybrid’ threats to the Argentine context? Where asymmetric tactics have succeeded – as in the Ukraine or the South China Sea – China and Russia materially and economically dominate their opponents. A militarily weak Kiev was caught surprised and uncertain by Russia’s lightning invasion; Vietnam and the Philippines are divided and outclassed against China’s fleet. The hybrid threat rests on conventional power, and the ability to project or escalate a confrontation.
Britain’s position in the Falklands, by contrast, is challenged by a dysfunctional economy wielding a shrinking arsenal of aging, ill-equipped air-naval assets of minimal power projection value.
The core lesson in this context is for UK policymakers to hold their current course. Key capabilities at the Falklands garrison are already being improved, including enhanced air mobility28 and radar upgrades.29 Both steps are politically and militarily valuable for deterring Argentine initiatives, whether conventional or hybrid. Combined with British diplomatic clout – Argentina’s bid for Swedish jets was doomed by British pressure – the Falklands will remain secure against the full spectrum of possible threats.
Hal Wilson graduated with first class honors in War Studies and History from King’s College London in 2013. He wrote his dissertation on the counterinsurgency lessons of the Afghan War, and also specialized in modern naval history. He works as an analyst in financial services, and has also worked as Principal Administrator of the Phoenix Think Tank since late 2012. Hal has a continuing interest in British maritime history, and its lessons for current policy.
[1]Michael Clarke, ‘The Falklands: The Security Equation in 2012’ in RUSI Analysis (16 Mar. 2012) https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4F6324444BE2E/#.Vdmy9PlVikp (Accessed 23/08/2015)
[2]David Axe, ‘Sad and Hopeful Tales of Extinct Air Forces’ in War is Boring (24 Dec. 2014) http://warisboring.com/articles/sad-and-hopeful-tales-of-extinct-air-forces/ (Accessed ibid.)
[3] ‘Jet fighter threat to the Falkland Islands’ in Sunday Express (13 Aug. 2013) http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/419522/Jet-fighter-threat-to-the-Falkland-Islands (Accessed ibid.)
[4]Marco Giannangeli, ‘New arms threat: Argentina’s £3 billion boost to military’ in Sunday Express (23 Feb. 2014) http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/461327/New-arms-threat-Argentina-s-3billion-boost-to-military (Accessed ibid.)
[5] ‘Aseguaran en el Reino Unido que Rusia le ofreció aviones de combate a la Argentina’ in Infobae.com (28 Dec. 2014) http://www.infobae.com/2014/12/28/1617683-aseguran-el-reino-unido-que-rusia-le-ofrecio-aviones-combate-la-argentina (Accessed ibid.)
[6]Jaroslaw Adamowski & Andrew Chuter, ‘Report: Russia May Supply Su-24 Aircraft To Argentina In Exchange For Food’ in DefenseNews (2 Jan. 2015) http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2014/12/30/russia-argentina-jets-food/21045405/ (Accessed ibid.)
[7] ‘Chinese jet fighters, an option to re-equip the Argentine Air Force’ in MercoPress.com (14 Jan. 2015) http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/14/chinese-jet-fighters-an-option-to-re-equip-the-argentine-air-force (Accessed ibid)
[8] Gareth Jennings, ‘Argentina and China agree fighter aircraft working group’ in IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly (5 Feb. 2015) http://www.janes.com/article/48726/argentina-and-china-agree-fighter-aircraft-working-group (Accessed ibid.)
[9] ‘China to supply Argentina five ‘Malvinas Class’ offshore patrol vessels’ in MercoPress.com (5 Feb. 2015) http://en.mercopress.com/2015/02/05/china-to-supply-argentina-five-malvinas-class-offshore-patrol-vessels (Accessed ibid.)
[10]Richard D Fisher Jr, ‘China, Argentina set for defence collaboration, Malvinas-class OPV deal’ in IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly (1 Feb. 2015) http://www.janes.com/article/48512/china-argentina-set-for-defence-collaboration-malvinas-class-opv-deal (Accessed ibid.)
[11] Jose Higuera, ‘Argentina Eyes Second-Hand Kfirs to Replace Mirages’ in DefenseNews (25 Jul. 2015) http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/07/25/argentina-eyes-second-hand-kfirs-replace-mirages/30247999/ (Accessed Ibid)
[12] ‘La Armada de Guerra Argentina presenta los misiles Exocet repotenciados’ in Infodefensa.com (18 Aug. 2011)
[14] David Axe, ‘Wave Goodbye to the Argentine Air Force,’ in War is Boring (19 Aug. 2015) http://warisboring.com/articles/wave-goodbye-to-the-argentine-air-force/ (Accessed Ibid.)
[15] Diego Gonzalez & Inigo Guevara, ‘Argentine Air Force cuts working hours, retires Mirage fleet,’ in IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly (16 Aug. 2015)
[16] ‘Rockwell Collins to support Argentine Air Force’s c-130 upgrade programme’ in airforce-technology.com (20 Apr. 2015) http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsrockwell-collins-to-support-argentine-air-forces-c-130-upgrade-programme-4556677 (Accessed 24/08/2015)
[17] ‘Argentine and Chilean navies in Beagle channel joint sea and air exercise’ in MercoPress.com (20 Aug. 2015) http://en.mercopress.com/2015/08/20/argentine-and-chilean-navies-in-beagle-channel-joint-sea-and-air-exercise (Accessed Ibid.)
[19] ‘Argentine Navy receives refurbished TR1700 class submarine ARA San Juan’ in MercoPress.com (19 Jun. 2014) http://en.mercopress.com/2014/06/19/argentine-navy-receives-refurbished-tr1700-class-submarine-ara-san-juan (Accessed 24/08/2015)
[20] ‘Sener completes ‘Almirante Izmar’ [sic] refit’ in The Motorship (3 Aug. 2015)
[23] See 21:00 onwards, ‘#FuerzasDesarmadas: el informe completo de PPT’ in El Trece (20 Jul. 2014) http://www.eltrecetv.com.ar/periodismo-para-todos/fuerzasdesarmadas-el-informe-completo-de-ppt_070512 (Accessed 26.08/2015)
[25] ‘Falklands: are we ready for the latest threat from S America?’ in The Week (23 Nov. 2011) http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/falkland-islands/42902/falklands-are-we-ready-latest-threat-s-america (Accessed 26/08/2015)
[26] Dan Warburton, ‘Special Forces in Falklands threat as ‘Argentines may seize the tiny island’ in Daily Mirror (29 Mar. 2015)
[27] Alex Calvo, ‘Asymmetric Naval Warfare: Next Stage in the South Atlantic?’ in The Phoenix Think Tank (10 Apr. 2015) http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/articles/alex-calvo-asymmetric-naval-warfare-the-next-stage-in-the-south-atlantic.html (Accessed Ibid.)
[28] Philippe Naughton & Jenny Booth, ‘UK to boost Falklands military presence’ in The Times (24 Mar. 2015) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article4391457.ece (Accessed Ibid.)
[29] Ben Farmer, ‘Britain orders £36m air defence radar to protect Falklands from Argentina’ in The Telegraph (25 Aug. 2015)
el 
other side of the Atlantic, the 
