Historic map of the Falklands/Malvinas by thejourney1972 (South America addicted), on Flickr

Foreign Affairs Minister Héctor Timerman, who arrived in London on Monday 4th February to begin talks with the UK government about the sovereignty of the island, affirmed this morning that Argentina “does not want to sanction, but only to improve the life of the inhabitants of the islands”.

This relatively amicable statement comes after the controversy coming from the refusal of Timmerman to have any contact with the representative of the British population residing in the Islands.

At the same time, Timerman questioned again this morning the companies that drill oil in the islands zone. He said that Argentina has the intention of sanctioning the companies that operate in the South Atlantic. “They are stealing natural resources,” Timmerman said.

In reaction to Timerman’s statement yesterday, the islanders answered with irony, via Twitter, saying “it was more probable for Argentina to plant a flag on the moon in the next twenty years than in the islands.”

Ecuador has granted asylum to WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange in the latest development in a complicated political situation that began on 19th June when Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London to ask the Andean nation to help him avoid extradition to Sweden.

In a speech in Quito,  Ricardo Patino, Ecuador’s foreign minister, said they believed Assange’s fears of persecution were legitimate.

However, Britain has insisted that the Andean nation’s decision does not change anything, and has said it will not grant him safe passage to Ecuador.

Ecuador responded by accusing the UK of making an “open threat” to enter the embassy to arrest him, something the UK claims is within its rights. Were it to do so, it would have to give a week’s notice.

British Prime Minister David Cameron chose to display the flag of the Falklands today on Downing Street, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the end of the Falklands/Malvinas war.

Cameron vowed to continue defending the islands against the “aggressive threats” of Argentina, honouring veterans and relatives affected by the conflict.

The Argentine government, meanwhile, published a declaration in British newspaper ‘The Times’, calling for an end to colonialism and requesting compliance with UN resolutions.

The open letter was signed by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who again asked Britain to “give peace a chance” and referred to her appearance before the UN Committee on Decolonisation.

“Today we will speak at the United Nations Committee on Decolonization about a case of colonial anachronism in the South Atlantic: the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich and the surrounding maritime area, located at the southern tip of the Americas, less than 700 miles from our shores, and 14,000 miles from Britain,” the text reads.

Over 70 countries have given support to Argentina’s goal of UN reconciliation through the “Malvinas Committees”, including Germany, Angola, Australia, Italy, Kuwait, Syria, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Map of land-locked Paraguay, circa 1875 (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

It is commonly said that the Triple Alliance War, or Guerra Grande (1864-70) was a watershed in the Paraguayan history as it marked the death of hundreds of thousands of Paraguayans, led to significant territorial loss at the hands of the winners, put an end to an autonomous process of development, and was the start of continuous foreign intervention in the country’s political life.

The war, which pitted Paraguay against Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, had devastating, long-lasting effects on the landlocked country. In fact, the conflict meant the loss of approximately 60% of the Paraguayan population and 90% of the male population. According to the 1871 census, the post-war Paraguayan population was 116,351 inhabitants, including only 28,000 men: a holocaust never seen in the Western hemisphere since independence swept through the region in the 19th century. It was also a tragedy that ended in several paradoxes.

Why the war began

Unlike many Latin American countries, in 1811 Paraguay gained independence without a war. Due to the isolation imposed by dictator Rodriguez de Francia a few years after the declaration of independence, Paraguay achieved a considerable level of economic development, based on national self-sufficiency and almost no contact with other countries. The state had a monopoly over international trade and started to play a commanding position over increasing aspects of the national life.

After the dictator’s death in 1840 and with Carlos Antonio López ruling the country (first as a member of a Consulate, and since 1844 as a president) Paraguay continued deepening the role of the public sector in economic development, while at the same time ending the traditional isolation and started a period of increasing interaction with its bigger neighbours: Brazil and Argentina. Even though both countries recognized the independence of Paraguay in 1843 and 1852 respectively, this increasing interaction brought out into the open the matter of unresolved boundary limits, which had arisen during colonial times, between the Spanish and Portuguese Crowns, and among some Spanish provinces in the New World. Carlos Antonio López was unable to solve this aspect and the situation got even worse during his son, Francisco Solano López’ government (1862-70).

Brazilian soldiers during the war (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Studies on the Triple Alliance war traditionally focused on the ‘’tangible’’ causes of the conflict, namely: the issue of frontiers inherited from colonial times; the search for a power balance in the Río de la Plata; Brazilian intervention in Uruguay to overthrow the Blanco Party (traditionally allied to López) in favour of the Colorado Party (closely linked to Argentina and Brazil); as well as Francisco Solano López’ inability to understand an increasing complex and tense regional scenario and his excessive confidence on his powerful army. But in recent decades studies have been focusing on the ‘’intangible’’ causes. Among the most important ones are: the role of Great Britain as a strong supporter of the allies against Paraguay; and the Brazilian need for Paraguay to fully guarantee free navigation of the Río Paraguay – essential for reaching and populating its vast western territory (due to the uneven and hilly Brazilian geography, it was very difficult to build railways connecting the coast of Brazil to the west).

Some historians claim that Britain played a key role in the war for very important reasons: one of them is the need to have access to the provision of cotton for its thriving textile manufacturing companies, something that had been in danger due to the outbreak of the American Civil war (1861-65). On the other hand, Paraguay, with its autonomous and self-sufficient economic model, was considered a ‘’black sheep’’ for the dominant logic of world economy based on the ideas of the free market, ideas that were supported and expanded by Britain as the hegemonic power of the time. Arguably, such a bad example against the established world order had to be destroyed and converted into the logic of the free market.

Just an international war?

Paraguayan prisoners at the end of the war (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

There is another paradox as a result of the war: The local understanding of the conflict and the long-standing period of internal Paraguayan fights that arose from 1870 on. Indeed, not only was it an international war but it also brought Paraguayans against Paraguayans. Article 7 of the Secret Treaty of the Triple Alliance said: “Being the war not against the Paraguayan people but against their government, the allies are able to admit in a Paraguayan Legion every citizen of this nation who would want to attend to the overthrowing of said government, and will provide them with the elements they would need, in the form and conditions agreed upon.”

Many Paraguayans who opposed López’ rule and were living in exile, mainly in Buenos Aires, joined the Paraguayan Legion, and with the fall of Asunción in 1869 (one year before the death of López in Cerro Corá) they gained increasing political influence in the post-war years. Nevertheless, the creation of this legion was a hub for an internal division in Paraguay among Lopiztas and antilopiztas, and for overwhelming instability and violence that the country lived during the rest of the 19th century and a great part of the 20th century.

Another Paradox: independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity

Even though Article 8 of the Secret Treaty stated that “the allies commit to respecting the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Paraguay. In consequence the Paraguayan people shall choose the government and institutions best suited for them, without incorporating themselves or requesting protection from any of the allies, as a result of the war”, the end of the conflict led in great territorial loses for Paraguay, the killing of a great a percentage of its population, the ransacking of Asunción, and the beginning of a period characterized by the military occupation of the allied forces until 1876 and the establishment of puppet governments.

This fact also opened a period of Paraguay’s pendular foreign policy towards its neighbours: according to the needs of the time and the ideological affinity of the political party in power with Argentina or Brazil (Liberals tended to be more pro-Argentina while Colorados tended to favour a closer relationship with Brazil) there were some periods in which the relationship with one of the bigger neighbours was stronger in detriment to the other one. This also helped spark the rivalry for regional influence between these former allies.

More paradoxes, even in the post-war years

Artist Victor Meirelles' rendition of a fallen Paraguayan soldier (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

As it was mentioned above, the Triple Alliance war meant the devastation of Paraguay, the destruction of an autonomous economic model, the genocide against its population and a degree of political instability and violence never seen before in the country and which long standing recurrence after many decades lead to Alfredo Stroessner’s dictatorship (1954-89). But it also had negative consequences for the region: after the end of the conflict, Argentina and Brazil started to compete for more regional influence.

In spite of the fact that both countries had committed to supporting each other in their territorial claims against Paraguay, after the signature of a treaty in 1872 settling the limits between Paraguay and Brazil, the country put obstacles against Argentina’s aspirations over the complete Chaco. As a consequence, the Irigoyen – Machaín Treaty (1876) signed by Argentina and Paraguay, established the Central Chaco (today the Argentine province of Formosa) as an Argentine territory, being the Northern Chaco divided in two parts, one part under Paraguayan sovereignty and the other one subjected to international arbitration of the US President Rutherford Hayes, whose country remained neutral during the war. In 1878, the arbitration decision was favourable to Paraguay due to the fact that this country produced much more evidence of sovereignty than their Argentine counterparts.

This competition between Argentina and Brazil, and the subsequent distrust of the Paraguayan population towards their former enemies, led to military conflict being the golden rule to relate to the neighbours in the years to come. No economic integration was going to be possible till the end of military governments, in the last decades of the 20th centuries.

In spite of all the terrible consequences for Paraguay, it is possible to say that to some extent, and without being aware of it, the country took revenge on its former enemies:

Alfredo Stroessner, dictator in Paraguay years later as an indirect result of the war (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

In early 1871 the city of Buenos Aires was ravaged by the outbreak of yellow fever epidemic. This episode is remembered as the Great Epidemic of 1871 as it killed almost 15,000 people, according to some estimates, and caused a decrease of a third of the city’s population as thousands of dwellers abandoned the place.

Some historians and sources claim that this epidemic might have been originated in Asunción due to the deplorable condition of the city and the survivors of the war, and could have been brought to the Argentine capital by war veterans who were coming back home by that time.

The war had finished the previous year, but it continued, somewhat, in the way of a sanitary catastrophe.

Another paradox of the conflict is a political one, and it was related to the end of the Empire and the foundation of the Republic in Brazil in 1889. The abolition of slavery in this country the year before is mentioned as one of the causes of the change in the political system as many fazendeiros who resented because they lost their slave workforce, stopped supporting the monarchy and were in favour of a Republican political system. But what is the relationship of the twilight of the monarchy and the Triple Alliance war? A very important one: many Brazilian soldiers were slaves who went to the battlefields with the promise to get their freedom. And with some years of delay the Imperial government honoured its promise.

There is also a paradox that has to do with Britain, the “intangible” cause of the war. Even though this country gained more influence in the region, this was not going to be for so long a time. As a consequence of the war, and with President Hayes’ arbitration, another actor was determined to play a very important role in its hemisphere, displacing the European hegemony: the United States.

The Triple Alliance war ended 142 years ago and it still remains controversial in all the countries which were part of the conflict. There are so many lessons we can learn from this conflict. However, the most important one (incredibly or not in this case) is to learn how to come to terms with the past.

Following President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s speech at the Casa Rosada yesterday, a spokeswoman for Downing Street rejected her notion that Britain is militarising the islands and expressed disapproval of Argentina taking its case to the United Nations.

“We are not militarising the South Atlantic,” the spokeswoman said. “Our defensive posture in the Falklands remains the same.”

The overall of message of Fernández de Kirchner’s announcement was that Argentina plans to continue building international support for a diplomatic solution to the conflict over the islands. The president stated that militarisation poses a grave risk for international security and stressed the key role that natural resources will play in future conflicts.

In addition to reassurances of support from countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, it was reported today that Hector Timerman, Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, will meet with an ambassador sent by US President Barack Obama to discuss the issue of sovereignty in the Malvinas/Falklands.

While the frayed relationship between Argentina and Britain over the disputed archipelago has involved posturing on both sides, Argentina’s reluctance to go to war, together with a protest before the UN and limited commercial restrictions, will continue to force the issue of opening up diplomatic channels.

The British do retain the ability to veto any resolution brought before the UN Security Council, and it is widely expected that they will do so if Argentina makes a strong case before the General Assembly.

“The people of the Falklands choose to be British,” the Downing Street spokeswoman said. “Their right to self-determination is a principle enshrined in the UN charter. The Falklands are already discussed by a UN committee and it is up to the Argentines to decide if they are going to raise it at the UN.”

The British Navy announced today that it will send a warship to the Falkland / Malvinas Islands in the next few months.

Although the deployment was reported as previously scheduled, this comes at a time of heightened tensions between the Argentine and British governments over the sovereignty of the Islands.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence insisted to the BBC that the Navy “has had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic for many years.”

“The deployment of HMS Dauntless in the South Atlantic has been planned for a long time, is entirely routine and replaces another ship patrolling done,” the spokesperson said.

The HMS Dauntless is reportedly replacing a smaller warship, and to join an already stationed military presence in the South Atlantic region. The Type 45 Destroyer HMS Dauntless is one of the most advanced and powerful warships in the British Navy, equipped with advanced navigation systems costing £1bn.

The naval statement coincided with a speech by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister of State Jeremy Browne in the House of Commons about the Argentine government. It was reported in Clarín that Browne said Argentina “could intensify pressure on the islands as the 30th anniversary of the war between the two countries closer.”

“The British government already has a legal obligation to uphold both the principle self-determination. So we do not see the need to do additional work in this area,” he also said.

These statements follow British Prime Minister David Cameron’s accusation of Argentina being “colonialist” in their attitude, and the Argentine government’s counter attacked that Britain is the one being “colonialist”.

On the other hand, British Ministry of Defence official Gerald Howarth put the situation into perspective by stating that Argentina has neither the capacity nor the intention to take back the islands.

British Prime Minister David Cameron reaffirmed his refusal to negotiate sovereignty of the Falkland/Malvinas islands in a speech to Parliament today. “As long as the Falkland Islands want to be sovereign British territory, they should continue to be sovereign British territory. Period. End of Story,” he said.

Cameron’s strong words come one day after the 29^th anniversary of the end of the war. Regarding the state of the archipelago three decades after the war, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said yesterday, “We will never tire of raising our voices to demand the return of something we never should have lost…It’s ridiculous to hold sovereignty of something that’s 14,000 kilometres away.”

At the traditional 14th June Liberation Day speech yesterday, Falkland/Malvinas Islands government representative in London, Sukey Cameron, denounced what she described as Argentina’s campaign to “claim sovereignty” and “disrupt [the Falkland/Malvinas Islands] economy”. She added that the Falkland/Malvinas government will continue to work toward “self-determination and self-sufficiency”.

Last week, the Organization of American States (OAS) urged Argentina and the United Kingdom to negotiate “as soon as possible” to find a solution to the dispute over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Tory congressman Andrew Rosindell asked the Prime Minister that on his next meeting with the United States—one of the 36 nations of the OAS—he remind Barack Obama that Britain will never accept negotiations with regards to the archipelago.

The government has presented documents to the UN with the aim of extending Argentina’s continental platform from 200 to 350 miles from its coast. It has formally laid claim to 1.7m square kilometres of ocean, stretching as far as the Antarctic and contending territories governed by Britain and Chile.  

The documents were organised into 40 volumes, which weighed 800kg, and were presented by vice-chancellor Victorio Taccetti to the UN headquarters in New York, where the offices of the Commission of Continental Platform Limits are located.   

They include scientific measurements of the depth of the sea around the Argentine coastline, their purpose being to prove the extent of the continental shelf way out into the ocean. This is significant, as under current international legislation, a state’s ownership of the continental shelf can exceed 200 nautical miles until its natural extension ends.

Foreign Minister, Jorge Taina, informed ANSA that the submission of these documents “is an important act of sovereign affirmation, a milestone in the subject of limits and national frontiers, and a culmination of a technical and diplomatic effort which has lasted for 11 years.” He added that Argentina should be in control of the exploration of the region and of the exploitation of its natural resources.  

The desired territory includes the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. Argentina has clashed with Britain over the sovereignty of these islands for over 170 years.

While Britain has reserved the right to make a similar claim to extend its Antarctic continental platform territory beyond 200 miles, Taina announced that Argentina would object any such claim made to the disputed Falkland – Malvinas – Islands.