Just a few weeks ago, the news came from South America: President de Kirchner of Argentina has decided that now is the time to reopen the debate over the Falklands. As far as Argentinian postulating goes, the argument has been on the agenda for a while, despite Argentina being comprehensively beaten in the 1980s, both on an intellectual level and in warfare.

But sadly the ugly murmurings of war have once again hit the headlines. Whether there is really a popular call for capture (or reclaiming) of the islands by the Argentine population is extremely unlikely at best. But the political will is certainly there; the nationalist de Kirchner is doing badly in the polls, and needs something to boost her popularity. The problem in this case is that if she really thinks an invasion is wise, she is playing with people’s lives. Even for those who completely discredit Kant, it is difficult to see people as anything other than ends in themselves in the 21st century. To cause the death of Argentine soldiers, and indeed British, in an unnecessary conflict is utterly disgraceful behaviour.

There are two reasons she would be unwise to invade. Firstly, they don’t stand a chance. Even if the whole of South America decide that they will support her (and their pledges thus far have been lukewarm at best), Britain simply will not let the islands go, and this time it is unlikely that the USA will sit on the sidelines. If they were to do so, all of Obama’s high talk of freedom would rather lose its gloss.

There were a few angry voices even around Cambridge last week when Argentina made the pronouncement that they were going to attempt to get the UN involved. Ban Ki-moon, who thus far has been a fairly wet Secretary General, would spark outrage amongst the major world powers if he were to even suggest that the islands be given back to the Argentinians. The fact is, they have absolutely no right to claim them.

One argument put forward by the Argentine Government in the current situation is their need for the resources which are to be exploited by the Falkland Islanders, and on this they may have a point. But the solution certainly is not occupation, but rather negotiation. Even in this regard, they have shaky grounds for their arguments – perhaps it would be better for the British to offer some form of free trade with Argentina rather than to hand over what will be a major (and necessary) natural resource for the islanders to exploit in order to survive.

The Argentine claim comes from the fairly chequered history of the islands, but falls short on one fundamental point: the islanders now are British and, more importantly, have decided again and again to remain so. This leaves the islands in the position of having an entirely British population, who, by self determination, wish to remain so. This concept, springing even from the League of Nations in the first half of the last century, reigns supreme still to this day, and was part of the reason for the breakup of the USSR in the early 1990s.

This means that the Argentine claim is entirely about territory, whereas the British defence is of people, of their own citizens, which they are obliged to do at all costs. If Argentina were to declare war, they would be fighting for land and resources, whereas the British would be forced to defend people from what would be, in effect, unrepresentative occupation. This is unacceptable to the majority of countries in the world, and indeed the situation now seems to resemble inverted colonialism. Britain may once again be forced to fight for its own citizens, to prevent them becoming subject to a regime out of their control. If the islanders wanted to become Argentine, it would be different – in fact, we would have no claim, and would be unjustified in remaining there. But this is very much not the case.

The days of claiming land against the interests of the local population are very much gone. Even the so-called occupation of Iraq was not seen as a long term solution, and that country has once again been returned to its people for governing. Britain hasn’t helped itself, however, in the argument for self-determination; it is of course arguable that invading Afghanistan, even under the auspices of peacekeeping, has prevented the Afghans from being ruled by their own people. The difference there is that Britain is helping NATO fight not only to allow Afghans the opportunity to be represented in the form of a democracy, but also to prevent attacks on British citizens, which it should do once again in the Falklands. We cannot, and I believe will not, have a situation where we have to welcome to Britain British refugees, fleeing from Argentine occupation. Although every single life lost in war is a tragedy, if we are once again tested over this claim, we must act decisively, and, if necessary, fight to keep our citizens free.