We were going to avoid this subject because it is a charged topic for Argentines and because of our scant knowledge of the accompanying history… However, at Discovering Buenos Aires our ignorance is one of our endearing traits, almost our raison d’etre here in BA, so, we’ll cast aside our better-judgment and give you our take on this 25th anniversary of the conflict…
We recently read an article over at the International Herald Tribune, which if we weren’t living in Argentina, we probably wouldn’t have noticed anything, but since we are here in Argentina it seemed to us that the article was slanted unfairly towards the Brits…
The Anglos have the attitude that Argentina should give up it’s silly claim on the islands. But, geographically (and historically as you’ll see), one would think that Argentina would have rights to the islands 300 miles from the Argentine mainland.
However, British imperial claims die hard even if they be thousands of miles away from Britain… British institutions are indeed strong and foster economic growth, ie. Hong Kong, but does that give them ownership of dirt they “found” a million-miles away in some else’s backyard?
As we understand it this war was completely avoidable, as most tend to be, and because of the pigheadedness and arrogance of the countries leaders (mostly trying to score political points) just under a thousand had to die…
Also we hasten to mention that the Malvinas are desolate, fairly useless, little islands that no one would really need to fight about anyway…
Fellow blogger Yanqui Mike has some background details (which are accurate according to other sources, not that we don’t trust Yanqui Mike…)
“With independence, they [Argentina] got the Malvinas from Spain as a package deal.
“The UK then signed a treaty recognizing Argentina’s independence.
“The newly minted Argentina sent a governor, built a prison, and started to farm and trade. A few years later, the settlers gave birth to some babies…the first people ever born on the islands.
“Now comes the yanquis [USA]. The Argentine governor of the islands had placed some pretty strict rules on the hunting of seals. Not long after, he caught a US merchant ship illegally hunting seals and seized it.
“The US consul in Buenos Aires protested that his government didn’t even recognize Argentina’s ownership of the Malvinas.
“The US sent a warship to get the ship back but the yanqui captain overstepped his orders and destroyed the entire Argentine settlement.
“The UK then took advantage of the confusion and seized what was left of the islands without firing a shot. They later deported all the Argentines. That was 1833.
Of course this was a sore-spot for Argentina for many years… And more from Wikipedia about the period leading up to the war…
“…Argentina was in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the repressive military junta that was governing the country. The Argentine military government, headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri, decided to play off long-standing feelings of nationalism by invading the islands, although they never thought that the United Kingdom would respond. The ongoing tension between the two countries over the islands increased on 19 March when 50 Argentines landed on the British dependency of South Georgia and raised their flag, an act that is seen as the first offensive action in the war. On 2 April, Galtieri ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands, triggering the Falklands War.
“Britain was initially taken by surprise by the Argentine attack on the South Atlantic islands, but launched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air Force, and retake the islands by amphibious assault. After combat resulting in 258 British and 649 Argentine deaths, the British eventually prevailed and the islands remained under British control. However, as of 2007, Argentina shows no sign of relinquishing its claim to the Falkland Islands (the claim is included in the National Constitution).”
The victory was a political boost for the Thatcher government and a wave of nationalism swept the UK… The loss was politically devastating to the military dictatorship of Argentina, which was forced out and a democratic election took place shortly thereafter.
Because of the attack by the military junta Argentina’s claim to the islands has been discredited to this day. But the historical rights of Argentina over the Malvinas are undeniable. Of course, the people of the islands, the Falklanders, who have been there for generations and consider themselves British also have their rights.
Argentina is still healing from the wounds inflicted by the military dictatorship. The loss of the Falklands War was a painful part of those troubled times. But Argentina should not suffer forever because of the sins of unelected leaders during a period of turmoil.
There must be a diplomatic solution to this, similar to what Britain negotiated with the Chinese in regard to Hong Kong… The British can only ignore Argentina for so long.



3 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 4, 2007 at 3:26 pm
jon
An interesting overview of the (ongoing) historical conflict.
Have read recently that post-war, the Falkland economic base shifted from
agriculture/sheep to fishing. The islands asserted a sphere of influence extending some 200 miles into the South Atlantic. As a result the islanders now enjoy a PER CAPITA income of some USD $50,000 , one of the highest in the world!
April 4, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Federico
Oh, how naive we are!…our governments persuade us of risking our lives in stupid wars with only mentioning how great our Nation is and how proud we should be!
Nationalism is the worst cancer one can think of.
April 18, 2007 at 9:05 am
Fernando Cassia
The problem is not nationalism per se, is the right wingers’ use of flags and “patrioterism” to foster their agenda. There was a good article recently in Pagina/12, about what nationalism is and what is not. I’ll see if I can find it and translate it to english then post in my blog.
In other words, did the countries that join the EU act in their national interest? Yes of course, they are better now than they were before, did they had to regisn to some of their “sovereignty” yes of course. Was the move a “nationalist” one? Yes, if you define nationalism in serving the people’s and the country’s best interest. But I digress…
Another weird side often not reported was that Mr. Galtieri was PRAISED by the ameircans (remember how the US backed every military dictatorship throughout South America back then), and that made him think that the US would SIDE WITH ARGENTINA (which shows how little he knew about the US or Britain, for that matter).
And how about the Neocons who wanted to side poor-actor Ronnie to side with Argentina?? that’s almost laughable:
See here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950686,00.html
(See below, ROFL!!!)
==============
After Argentina invaded the Falklands last April, Kirkpatrick cautioned
that the U.S. should remain neutral lest Washington force Buenos Aires
into the orbit of the Soviet Union. When the Administration eventually
accepted Haig’s argument and took Britain’s side, Kirkpatrick spoke
against providing London with military intelligence and equipment.
Alexander Haig
Haig exploded when he learned that Kirkpatrick had met in New York with
Air Force Brigadier José Miret, a political-military strategist in the
Argentine government, to discuss U.N. peace initiatives. Haig tracked
her down by telephone at an aide’s apartment where, TIME has learned,
she was conferring with Enrique Ros, the Deputy Argentine Foreign
Minister. Haig, understandably angry at Kirkpatrick’s apparent
disagreement with U.S. support for Britain, blasted her for undermining
U.S. foreign policy and blindly supporting Latin interests. Kirkpatrick,
in turn, charged Haig with being ignorant of Latin American affairs and
suffering from an acute case of Anglophilia. After the 45-minute
snarling match, Haig pushed for Kirkpatrick’s resignation. She then
further enraged Haig last week by taking her case directly to the
President. The pair met for 40 minutes in the Oval Office on Memorial
Day. The upshot: Haig and Kirkpatrick were told to stop bickering and
get back to serious business.
==============