The outcome of this week’s meeting between European and Latin American and Caribbean leaders appears to be a Europe more closely aligned with the Argentine left — against Britain, and much to the delight of Communist China. For Brussels has approved an Argentina-backed declaration that refers to the Falkland Islands by its Argentine name, Islas Malvinas. Buenos Aires has called the designation a “diplomatic triumph.”

What might first appear as a mere matter of nomenclature is in fact significant for what it imparts and advances. The summit of EU and Latin American and Caribbean leaders — the first since 2015 – aimed to strengthen diplomatic ties between the two regions. In the face of an unrelenting war in Ukraine, and aware of the need to decrease its resource dependence on Communist China, Europe has turned to Latin America.

Up for discussion this week was a free trade agreement between the EU and the Mercosur trade bloc, which comprises Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. Announced in 2019, it has since been stalled over environmental considerations. It will remain stalled, as the summit failed to make any headway. In a nod to his comrade, Xi Jinping, too, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said any trade deal with Europe must be “win-win.”

European leaders also failed to persuade Latin American and Caribbean leaders to condemn Russia’s war, despite pre-summit musings over shared values. The final summit communiqué expresses “deep concern on the ongoing war against Ukraine.” The use of the term “against” is regarded as a diplomatic win for the EU. The initial formulation — “in Ukraine” — would have bypassed mention of an aggressor.

In its inability to negotiate on its key policy priorities, Europe has emerged from the week’s proceedings geopolitically weakened and increasingly isolated. The 45 billion euros that it now intends to invest in Latin America is also unlikely to do much to shore up long-term regional alliances. Pandering to the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States’ assertions of colonial misdoings, however, might.

The “European Union took note of Celac’s historical position,” reads the communiqué on “the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands.” It is the first time that the EU appears to have recognized the Argentine stance in the dispute. 

A similar assertion was made in a joint statement issued by Beijing and Buenos Aires last February. China “firmly supports Argentina’s demand to exercise sovereignty on the Malvinas Islands,” the statement read. Beijing has previously chastised Britain and the West for their “colonial mindset” over the Falklands and, similar to the EU-Celac statement, has called for “dialogue and respect for international law.” China again demanded Britain hand over the Falklands to Argentina in June.

When asked in 2013 whether they wished to remain a British Overseas Territory, 99.8 percent of Falklanders — on a turnout of more than 90 percent — voted “yes.” But no matter.

For Beijing, its interests in the Falklands are strategic. The islands could provide it with a critical outpost in the South Atlantic along its Maritime Silk Road. They could also ostensibly enable it to secure access to two continents — South America and Antarctica, between which are extensive undersea oil and gas fields — and two oceans, the Atlantic and Antarctic. Argentina joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative last year.

Argentine jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands could also advance Beijing’s vision of a new, multipolar, global order forged against what it regards as the “hegemonism and power politics” of the prevailing American-led international system. A dissolution of Western relations and alliances would likely draw nearer that aim. As it does along its disputed borders with India then, China has taken to renaming localities to assert its claims.

Less clear, however, are European motivations. It could be that by acquiescing to the Argentine position, EU leaders hope to win diplomatic favor with a region they realize they now need. It could be rhetorical gymnastics to set right historic wrongs. Europe’s decision could also be a veiled snub at Britain, with which it has been engaged in talks over the Horizon science scheme — or a tacit nod to, and show of alliance with, China’s global ambitions and its worldview. Whatever the case, the greatest “diplomatic triumph” it seems, could yet be Beijing’s.