The British government has released over 3,500 official documents from 1982 related to the ten-week war on the Falklands/ Malvinas islands. The documents include testimonials by then-British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, given behind closed doors to the Falkland Islands Review Committee in October 1982.

The papers were released under the 30-year rule, which states official documents must be declassified after 30 years, unless the information contained within them could put Britain’s national security at risk.

Key revelations include how the Argentine invasion of the islands took Thatcher by surprise. She told the committee: “I never, never expected the Argentines to invade the Falklands head-on. It was such a stupid thing to do, as events happened, such a stupid thing even to contemplate doing.”

They also show the fears Thatcher had over re-taking the islands. Speaking of 31st March 1982, when “raw intelligence” proved the invasion was imminent, she said: ”That night no-one could tell me whether we could retake the Falklands – no-one. We did not know – we did not know.”

Such were her fears, that days after the Argentine invasion, Thatcher contemplated ceding administration of the archipelago to the United Nations, in view to granting them independence.

The papers also reveal failed attempts by the former Mexican president, José López Portillo, to coordinate a meeting in Cancún between Thatcher and Argentina’s de-facto leader Leopoldo Galtieri in May 1982.

However, various documents, including some related to the submarine that sunk Argentina’s Belgrano warship, have not been made public.

The war lasted from 2nd April to 14th June 1982. Casualties included 650 Argentine soldiers, 255 British servicemen and three Falklands civilians.

In the most recent attack in the wave of violence gripping Mexico, the mayor-elect of Matehuala, a city in the central state of San Luis Potosí, was killed when leaving a party in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Edgar Morales was shot to death along with his campaign manager, Juan Francisco Hernández Colunga. The driver and another man survived the attack, and reported that they were leaving a 15th birthday party when they truck they were driving in was fired upon. Police found casings from .223mm and 7.62mm weapons at the scene.

Morales had been elected on a joint PRI-Partido Verde Ecologista de México ticket, and was due to take power on 1st December, after winning the 1st July elections.

In an alarming trend, mayors and political leaders are the latest target in the on-going drug war which has claimed some 60,000 lives since it began at the end of 2006. At least six municipal leaders were killed in 2011, adding to 2010′s toll of 15.

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.

Former British Primer Minister Margaret Thatcher has been put on the spotlight once more (Press Image)

The 30th anniversary of the Malvinas/Falklands War has spawned a number of cultural events -books, films, exhibitions- which seek to analyse and to make sense of the motives behind the war. At a time when the United Kingdom is being governed by the Tories after a 13-year hiatus, the figure of former British Primer Minister Margaret Thatcher has been put on the spotlight once more.

The play ‘Hundan el Belgrano’, which opens tonight, is a satirical take on the behind-the-scenes of the war and of one of its most crucial and tragic moments, the sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano. The play is based on ‘Sink the Belgrano!’ by British writer Steven Berkoff. It revolves mainly around the character of Thatcher, called Maggot Scratcher in the original and renamed Amargas Cachas for the Argentine version (something like ‘bitter bum cheeks’).

The play has only been performed once before, in London in 1986, to mixed reviews. Unsurprisingly, since 1986 was only four years after the war and Thatcher was still the triumphant primer minister. About the play, the author has stated that “…this kind of theatre is so powerful, so visceral, that it forces audiences to react: either they feel like fleeing the building or they are suddenly convinced that it is the best thing they have ever seen”. That is a fair description.

In the current adaptation by director Claudia Marocchi, the stage is empty but for a couple of big wooden modules that get shifted around between scenes. Lighting and music effects are powerful and make up for the bare scenography. There is a guitar player on stage at all times and every now and then the characters break into song.

The wardrobe is definitely odd: all the male characters, save for the Argentine president, wear high heels. Some even wear patent leather, S&M-style knee-high boots. The dialogue, in verse, is crude but funny at the same time.

Just like Berkoff said, the spectators find themselves wondering what on earth is this bizarre display they are witnessing, only to forget about their reservations the moment the next funny line comes along (and they abound). The eccentric and hilarious interactions between Amargas Cachas and her sidekicks are interrupted by scenes of the submarines making their way south, and trying to make sense of their situation. The brief solemnity is in turn interrupted by bouts of camp Village People-style dancing and the appearance of the Admiral in his tight, silver hot pants.

Whilst bizarre and laugh-out-loud funny, the play is deeply political. It brings to the forefront the domestic political landscape of the UK

"Hundan el Belgrano", an original play deeply political (Press Image)

in 1982 -the unemployment, the strikes, the threat of the Labour party- giving a context to the decision to fight back against Argentina. Amargas Cachas’ question “Where are the Falklands?”, repeated a couple of times at the beginning of the play, reinforces the point that this war was not about the islands or the islanders. In that respect, the main message of ‘Hundan el Belgrano’ is faithful to the maxim of Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz, who famously said that “war is merely a continuation of politics by other means”.

The actors do a great job in their physically demanding roles, especially the protagonists Monina Bonelli (Amargas Cachas) and Gastón Rodríguez (Alcahuete/Admiral). The translator, Rafael Spregelburd, deserves a special mention for adapting the language of the play to an Argentine slang-heavy, curse-heavy dialogue that is funny and doesn’t sound contrived.

Whilst the play is a satire, it never forgets that it’s dealing with a serious historical event. Towards the end, as the moment when the sinking of the Belgrano approaches and the message about the hundreds of lives lost hits home, the comically bizarre reveals itself tragically grotesque. The burlesque-style music number at the end of the play is not enough to shake the viewer out of a reflective mood. Because despite the glitz, war is always a serious matter.

It’s Good Friday again!

It’s a holiday. It’s early. And yet here I am, half asleep, writing for you.

I hate you all so much.

Specially since I know that none of you will be reading this today. Maybe on Monday, when you’re back from your Holy Week escapades, you’ll casually remind yourself that you haven’t checked the news and visit this column. The world may be over by then, but no, you still don’t care right?

Whatevs.

So first things first, here are this week’s best suggestions for my weekly opening statement:

• “I don’t care if Monday’s blue, Tuesday’s gray and Wednesday too.Thursday I don’t care about you, It’s Friday I write for you!” - By Jenny F.

• “Fuck this shit, it’s Friday. I’m out!!!” - By Leandro DS

• “Give me an F! Give me an R! Give me a… – ah, whatever, it’s Friday.” - By Mateo R.

• ‘Last Friday, zero were the amount of fucks given about ur thoughts on my column’ - By Pablo G.

Thanks for your efforts kids! You truly outdid yourselves. All others who didn’t make it this week is because they sucked.

Now this is what you need to know:

• 

  I don't know what's up with this weird-looking photo of Boudou, but this is all Wikipedia had. Sorry. (Photo/Wikipedia)

  Well, now that the 30th anniversary of the Malvinas War is over, let’s all hope that this whole diplomatic rift goes away forever (until next year). As expected, there were commemorations of the conflict on both sides of the ocean, as well as political speeches, marches and riots. And where do you think most of those took place? You guessed right: here (but that’s probably because mostly no one in the UK gives a shit about this)! So last Monday we had:

• President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s speech that she gave in Ushuaia, where she once again called for the UK to sit down and negotiate the island’s sovereignty. And even though she sometimes used her controversial rhetoric, I must say it wasn’t as bad as I expected. In fact she even seemed conciliatory when she said that this was a day to also mourn those British soldiers who perished in the war because “the death of a young person is always a tragedy.” She also stressed that the Argentine population is peaceful and that it will continue to be peaceful in the sovereignty negotiations. Here’s the video of her speech, for those two readers genuinely interested in it.

• The Sun, of course, considered her speech to be “incendiary.”

• And, speaking of incendiary, those assholes from Quebracho, the extreme left-wing organization that the entire Argentine population seems to hate and yet they somehow continue to exist, decided that the best way to prove that Cristina was right about that “peaceful” part was to attack the British embassy in Recoleta. So they threw Molotov cocktails at the water cannon truck that was trying to disperse them and attacked the infantry officials with slingshots and marble balls (yes, a slingshot), all in the name of peace.

• Cristina was certainly not amused.

• Now onto something else: Sometimes, when a political scandal erupts, I usually wait until it becomes a big thing to talk about it here. Mainly because most of them they just disappear into the night as fast as they crawled out from under a rug, and end up being irrelevant. This week, however, a corruption scandal involving none other than Vice-President Amado Boudou has entered the main political arena, so it’s time for you to know what’s going on. The case is fairly simple: our favorite Vice-President has been accused of using his influences as Economy Minister to lift the bankruptcy plans on a money-printing company called Ciccone. A judge investigating the case ordered a raid on one of his properties in Puerto Madero in order to prove that there is a connection between Boudou and the Ciccone CEO. (Have I lost you yet? ‘Cause I know that after a couple of lines of not making a joke you start drifting away. Still with me? Good.) OK, so Boudou was pretty pissed and gave a speech in Congress on Thursday, (here’s the video, if you wanna watch it) accusing the Clarín media group of being part of a mafia leading a smearing campaign against him.  So there. Now you’re got something else to talk about next time you end up trapped in a conversation about Argentine politics and need to prove you’re “totally into Argentina’s current political climate.” You owe me a beer.

• Well, now things are bound to go to shit. That’s right everyone, start buying canned food and mineral water. Go to your basement (yes, I know people don’t have basements in this city, whatever) and stock up because  a civil war is coming. Yerba Mate, that bitter, silent anesthetic that has managed to keep Argentines from exploding in a bout of rage for centuries is now impossible to buy thanks to very high prices, caused by, well, no one is really sure. The Government is outraged since they say there is no reason for it to double its price in just a few days, while producers blame the hike on rising costs of production. Whatever the reason, drinking mate is now expensive. But let’s look on the bright side! I don’t like mate. So there.

• Also, the World Trade Organization is pissed about Argentina’s latest import restrictions.  Since you don’t really understand what the WTO does, then it’s OK, you shouldn’t worry.

• Speaking of Boudou, and trade barriers and shit, the Vice-President became something of a laughing stock this week after he tweeted that the Government is not against imports but “just looking after your jobs. We’re looking after the Argentine industry.” Of course that would have made complete sense, except he tweeted it from his personal iPhone, which not only is totally made in China, but is also a product impossible to get anywhere in the country due to the imports ban (unless you buy it in Mercado Libre, where you will surely be ripped off). Oh, well. It’s just a phone, right? I’m sure he doesn’t own any more apple produc…- Oh.

• Also, the guy sitting in front of him with the weird hairdo that looks like the Argentine version of Jason Schwartzman is Economy Minister Hernán Lorenzino. He also owns an iPhone, as you can see in the photo. *giggles*

• In other news, the Government continues its crusade against capital flight so now if you travel abroad and want to get dollars from an ATM, you better: A) Have a bank account that is not from an Argentine bank, B) Rob someone at gunpoint, or C) Have an Argentine bank account in dollars and pay the monthly fee that comes with it (the most difficult option of the three). The positive side of this is A) If you’re a foreigner living in Argentina you probably own an account in a foreign bank, and B) If you’re an Argentine chances are you can’t afford to travel abroad because getting dollars is a pain in the ass. So there. Now there’s no need to rob anyone. Yay!

• Are you the lucky owner of a Movistar line? (You know where I’m going with this, don’t you? You’re already smiling). If you are, congratulations! You’re one of the lucky 16 million people who had no cell phone service for more than five hours last Monday, a service disruption that caused riots of biblical proportions throughout the country as angry teenagers failed to update their Facebook statuses on their cell phones or tweet about how “psyched” they were with the new Justin Bieber single or Skrillex, or whatever it is that kids listen to these days. The service was eventually restored after the company managed to fix a “system problem.” But that, of course, was not enough to appease the angry mob. Fortunately the Government always thinks of the costumer first and announced that they are considering the “worst kind of possible sanction” against Movistar. But wait, there’s more! The company has announced that all users will get compensation for the trouble caused: you will not be charged for that day. Which means you get like a $4 discount! And people say corporations are greedy.

• In all fairness though, Movistar said there would be other freebies, such as free text messages from yesterday until Sunday and other stuff. Check it here.

• Oh. You don’t read Spanish? Tough shit. Maybe you should finally stop relying on this column for everything and start learning the language, don’t you think? I’m a writer, not your nanny.

• OK, so that terrible storm that hit the city last Wednesday was neither a
  

  This photo may or may not be from Palermo. I will conveniently not say. (Photo/Wikipedia)

  tornado nor a hurricane (even though if you look at this photo captured with a cell phone I still have my doubts), but it was still pretty fucking big. At least 15 people have been killed and many others have been injured after they were hit by falling branches or collapsing roofs.  Look, the media even created a video montage to illustrate the gravity of the situation. It has a scary soundtrack and everything! No, but in all seriousness now, politicians and scientists are agreeing that this storm was extremely unusual and that there is no recollection of Buenos Aires ever being affected by such strong winds. So there, maybe you were not here for the 2007 snow storm, but have now witnessed the storm of the century. Congratulations, maybe.

• Three years ago, the Argentine population was introduced to a non-fictional character that would become the nation’s pet peeve for several months. When transvestite Zulma Lobato was discovered during a television interview in April 2009, she became an instant hit. Her off-key singing, her unexpected outbursts of rage and endless collection of wigs all contributed to her instant rise to celebrity status. For months, people (myself included) would shamelessly giggle at her quirkiness and deliriums of grandeur, since time after time she would repeat that she was destined to be on Dancing With The Stars even though her chances were rather slim. Not because she lacked the talent, of course (we all know you don’t need to be talented to be on that show). No, Zulma’s biggest liability was that she was not a hot, slutty 25-year old piece of ass. So the call never came, and when it finally sank in that people were laughing at her, not with her, she had a stroke on live television. And that’s when everyone said “Oh. Shit,” and realized we had all been making fun of a mentally-unstable person. But, alas! We live in a liquid society, in which we’re outraged by a Kony 2012 video, so we angrily post it on our Facebook profile, rallying others to join us in our global fight against injustice, until we see this video of two cats speaking French and we totally forget about it. So in a matter of seconds, Zulma disappeared from our televisions… until now! That’s right, she’s making her comeback! You know, if Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan have all had it, why couldn’t she? The problem with her new music video, besides reeking of amateurism, is that it seems to be just another excuse by some unscrupulous producer to keep laughing at her. So now it’s up to you. You can be an asshole and laugh at it, or angrily post it on your Facebook profile, rallying others to join you in your global fight against injustice, until you see this other video of two cats speaking French.

2nd April, 1982: under orders from former dictator Leopoldo Galtieri, Argentine forces invaded the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. The move started a conflict that lasted only 74 days, but the war’s effects are still felt today.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the assault, and the view that the islands do rightfully belong to Argentina still permeates public consciousness through the media and in general conversation – and in that which is taught to children.

This week, the Argentina Independent hit the streets to find out exactly what influence people feel the education system has in creating a collective memory and the opinions regarding the controversial islands.

Juan Cruz Ezequiel Sanchez, 21, student, Olavarría

I think, yes, the Argentine education system influences people’s opinions regarding the Malvinas. In my opinion, if you grow up with other relationships, like in a university or a larger city, you can forge a more independent ideology than in the Argentine education system. When students pass through it, they form own opinions on the Malvinas. They don’t tell you in school how drunk Galtieri was when he sent 20,000 boys to potential deaths against English forces – neither do they tell you in England that [former British prime minister] Margaret Thatcher went to war when her government was in decline.

Nicholas Elzegebe, 18, student, Neuquén

I believe people are going to form their opinions and ways of thinking not so much in formal education but in the informal part, in their relations with other people. That said, I think that, actually, there are certain frozen facts; you can analyse them fact by fact regarding who has sovereignty, looking more at the economics, the people – but you can’t see the 100% panoramic view, only a little part.

Raul Latasen, 32, software designer, Corrientes

Definitely – education has a lot of influence on the way people think of the Malvinas. About the war, about the sovereignty, about all of that. We are taught from elementary school that the Malvinas are a part of our national territory because of the legacy that came from independence from Spain. So that definitely influences it.

However, I believe that that’s not the only educational force at play. I make the distinction between formal education and informal education, because some people here – much to my regret, I would say – unfortunately, have a different view of Malvinas although they are Argentine. At the end of the day, it’s a game of beliefs that one has grown to believe, and in that regard, I think that on both sides of the ocean education makes a big difference. We are both told that they belong to us in every case.

Yes, I would say it plays a big factor, and I think that’s fine. It is how it’s supposed to be. One way of defending every country’s sovereignty is teaching their childen from an early age what they’re country’s all about, what is their territory, their culture, and all the things of which they should be aware.

Claudia Morales, 46, clerk, Buenos Aires

We have education programs where for us, the Malvinas have always been ours. And, they say in Great Britain that they’re theirs. That’s why there was the war and more. And so, for us, all that we say about the Malvinas will be in our favour and that we should always defend that viewpoint. All the commentary that’s coming out is always going to come out in defense of that point, that the Malvinas are ours – they’re in our continental area, and England took them from us. That’s it.

Jesica Coppa, 23, student, Buenos Aires

Yes, it’s the opinion that we all have, that they’re completely in Argentina’s territory. It’s a commercially strategic point, that England has them, and that’s all they’re doing. And definitely, education influences opinions, and we know that. Perhaps the history, the why they were taken – that’s not coming in education now. It was said before, but now not as widespread.

Susana Tononi, 49, psychologist, Buenos Aires

The truth is I believe that teachers work really hard. If it weren’t for them, kids wouldn’t be open to learning about the Malvinas. They wouldn’t know what happened or anything. I think it’s really important to know there’s a bit of earth that’s ours, that for things in history we can’t have. But to me it seems that the teachers are really, really good. There are always perceptions, but the teachers are teaching the kids.

My mother-in-law was a teacher; she retired. My husband works in education. The other part of education that I have seen from the side of my sons – who are grown up, but are going to college – the truth is that, yes, they work really hard. If it weren’t for teachers, kids wouldn’t know anything, neither what happened nor what’s happening. What teachers are doing is important.

Malvinas propaganda on the streets of Buenos Aires (Photo: Beatrice Murch)

Thirty years after the Falklands/Malvinas war, its memory lives on in the echoes of the veterans’ protests and in thousands of posters plastered on almost every Buenos Aires’ wall. Claims for the ownership of the islands and foul-mouthed graffiti directed towards the English and sprayed across walls in Buenos Aires -in a language that seems right out of a football pitch- make the national discourse clear.

The debate about the islands’ sovereignty is not only a political one, but also a discussion about Argentina’s own identity, of which the lost islands have become a potent metaphor throughout the years.

“Malvinas […] is a way to ask ourselves what kind of country wants to be the one that would eventually retrieve the islands and welcome its inhabitants,” once wrote Federico Lorenz, historian and author of the book ‘Las Guerras Por Malvinas, 1982-2012′.

Much has been written about the diplomatic controversy between Argentina and the UK. On the 30^th anniversary of the invasion, it is interesting to look instead at the paradox raised by Lorenz: how is it possible that the crowd gathered in Plaza de Mayo to cheer for Leopoldo Galtieri announcing the invasion was the same that had taken to the streets only three days before in protest against the dictatorship?

The reasons lie in what the ‘Malvinas cause’ is to Argentines. As Lorenz argues, “it is perfect for the banal patriotic discourse to work: it is the right cause [to fight for].”

But what exactly is the ‘Malvinas cause’? Argentine political scientist and member of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Vicente Palermo, defines it as a discursive aspect of Argentine nationalism that includes “a narrative of the past, an interpretation of the present and a mandate for the future”, and which has helped to shape national identity.

Two factors have been crucial in developing and keeping the ‘Malvinas cause’ alive: the constitutional mandate and the education system (of which the Constitution is both cause and consequence).

The ‘Malvinas Cause’ at School

'Sal en las heridas' by Vicente Palermo

In his 2007 book ‘Sal en las heridas’, Vicente Palermo recalls that his first memory related to the Malvinas dates back to when he was 12, and he was wearing his first pair of long trousers.

Asked to write a wish to his aunt travelling to Europe, an embarrassed young Palermo all of a sudden wrote “Las Malvinas son argentinas“, without even thinking about what he was writing.

Similarly, historian Federico Lorenz said: “I learned that the Malvinas are Argentine at school. We used to write letters to soldiers in class, confident about what we were doing, and the teachers would help us with the envelopes. Somewhere we learned that this or that is homeland, and that someone stole a part of it away from us.”

Behind the obsessive mantra “Las Malvinas son argentinas“, lies a whole set of patriotic messages children come in contact with from a very young age, at school.

With the aim of tracing the origins of the widespread malvinero nationalism back to school, Carlos Escudé, a renowned political scientist and leading figure at the CONICET, analysed the way geography was taught in Argentina from 1879 to 1986.

The results of his study, conducted in 2000 by examining 77 geography textbooks used in primary and secondary schools, were stunning.

What Escudé calls “the indoctrination about territorial nationalism” is a process that consolidated around 1945, more than a century after the islands were taken over by the British.

“Geography textbooks printed before the 1940s attributed to Argentina a territory of 2.800.000 km², while later textbooks attributed it lands for approximately 4.000.000 km²,” he wrote in his essay.

“In previous years, talking about the so-called disputed territories,” – such as Malvinas and other southern islands, Beagle Channel, Cape Horn Archipelago and Argentine Antarctic Sector – “was a task for diplomats only, not for teachers.”

According to Escudé, the use of these “indoctrination” methods was not specific to the Peronist era, but it also extended to the last decades of the 20th century.

“These images promoted by writing exercises, readings and essays at school stay engraved in children’s memories. [...] I have the impression that [continuously looking at and sketching maps] has a strong psychological impact.”

In a controversial article titled ‘Are the Malvinas really ours?’ published on La Nacion on the 14th February, Argentine historian Luis Alberto Romero wrote that: “We have outlined [the frontiers of the Argentine territory] so many times at school that we ended up believing this was the reality.”

The Origins of Territorial Nationalism

The words of Vicente Palermo help give a framework to Escudé’s studies. Palermo explains that Argentine education policies root back to the massive plan of immigration from Europe ordered by the liberal elites at the end of 19th century to provide the country with a larger workforce.

“From 1880, timid education policies were turned into a powerful apparatus of free, compulsory, public education,” Palermo elucidates. “Given the large quantity of foreigners in the country, education is quite nationalistic, featuring a strong element of identification with national symbols and the official history. It is visible in this galloping love for flags; marches and anthems sung everyday while raising the flag.”

Likewise, historian Luis Alberto Romero wrote that Argentine politics are imbued of a nationalistic syndrome. “At the beginning of the 20th century, the obsessive quest for a national identity started […] developed by strong institutions like the army, the [catholic] church and the two biggest democratic movements, Yrigoyenist radicalism and Peronism”

According to the experts, the lost Malvinas islands are at the core of a nationalism constantly looking for itself.

“This is a fundamental part of the dogma. We are a righteous country and our pacifism has turned us into victims. We lost big territories […] but we are morally superior,” Carlos Escudé wrote.

Today: the Righteous State Mission

Speaking before the 41st Assembly of the Federal Education Council on the 28th March, Minister of Education Alberto Sileoni said: “the Malvinas belong to the ministry too,” asking for an increasing prominence of the issue “in all the classrooms of the country.”

“This is because the National Education Act establishes that, and also because the Malvinas were, are, and always will be Argentine,” he added.

'Soberania es recuperar lo nuestro' (Sovereignty is recovering what is ours) posters along Avenida de Mayo. (Photo: Beatrice Murch)

The minister was indeed speaking the truth. National Education Law No. 26,206, in its third article, states that one of the aims of the education system is “to reaffirm the sovereignty and national identity.”

In particular, article 92 of the same law establishes that the common basic curricula should provide resources for the building of a national identity from a regional Latin American perspective (Mercosur) and the inclusion of the “recovery of the Malvinas islands.”

Similarly, the Senate of the Province of Buenos Aires passed law 14.222 (made effective in 2010) to promote the teaching of the sovereignty rights over the Antarctic Sector, the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur.

“They have to stop with this ‘malvinismo educativo’ (‘educational malvinism’),” comments Vicente Palermo. “Government should promote a sober education: this instilling children with clichés about the ‘Malvinas cause’ seems toxic to me. And it is still in school nowadays.”

In a paper published in 2010 within the booklet Pensar Malvinas, academics Iván Falcón, Evangelina Aceval, Nicolás Cardozo, Eduardo Gómez and Patricia Bernasconi showed how young generations perform a clear dissociation between the Malvinas and the last military dictatorship.

In their study, they interviewed adolescents between 17 and 18 years old in four schools of Corrientes. What they found was that approximately 90% of the interviewees, when asked to tell what was the first thing they could think upon hearing the word ‘Malvinas’, answered: 1. they are Argentine; 2. the bad conditions of the soldiers during the war; 3. their geographical location.

Thus, as they reflect, “the memory is formed and forged in a systematic way, without a deep reflection about the ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’”.

On the opposite side of the dispute, the war of 1982 – known in Argentina as the ‘righteous cause in the hands of bastards’ – was not taught in Falklands’ schools up until 1999.

The ‘Malvinas Cause’ in the Constitution

In 1994, former Senator Eduardo Menem pushed for the introduction of the so-called ‘first provisional clause’ in the National Constitution. The clause requires the government to peacefully “seek to retrieve full sovereignty over the [contended] territories and maritime spaces.”

“[In doing so,] it imposes to respect the life and the customs of the islanders, which above all means to respect their interests,” Eduardo Menem recently answered to Luis Alberto Romero, who had questioned the islands’ sovereignty from the same La Nación columns. In his comment, Menem also added that it was in the islanders’ own interest to become Argentine.

“If we stick to the Constitution, there is no way Argentina and the UK can negotiate a middle-ground position. The constitution imposes to seek the full sovereignty,” Vicente Palermo explains. “However, this can’t be done whilst respecting their lives: it is a contradiction in terms since the kelpers have a clear political will and do not want to be Argentine.”

Vicente Palermo has raised the same point with 16 other intellectuals in an open letter published in February. In their manifesto, ‘Malvinas: an alternative vision’ they criticised “a climate of nationalist agitation”, pointed out that the issue bears little relation to the country’s main problems, and called on Argentina to accept the rights of the islanders to self-determination.

“They were saying that perhaps we should investigate a bit deeper what Malvinas really mean to Argentines,” commented former BBC correspondent for the Americas Daniel Schweimler.

“As far as I can see, they were greeted by a barrage of insults and death threats. It would help their cause if they could open the debate a bit more, although we have books being written and people are starting to discuss the issue a bit more.”

In fact, as Palermo confirms, a second manifesto is being prepared: “Things are starting to change in Argentina. It seems to me that there are many more different voices in the opposition now. The country seems less homogeneous about it. It is a good thing.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, Schweimler states that for the British, the Falklands are still a distant worry.

“There is this often repeated story about the 1982 invasion. When it started, most of the Brits thought the invasion was off the coast of Scotland, so of course they said that ‘we should fight back’. When they realised where the Falklands were, it simply stopped being an issue. Most British people had no idea where the islands where, and now 30 years later most of the young people wouldn’t probably know where they are,” said Schweimler.

“But here, all of the Argentines have an opinion on it. Some are stronger than others, but they reflect various level of consciousness about the issue.”

To find out what Argentines think about the effect of the education system on their opinions about Malvinas, click here.

It’s Friday again!

And yes, this week’s column is mostly gonna be about the Malvinas/Falklands clusterfuck once more.

Have you rolled your eyes at me yet?

Good. Because I don’t care.

This is what you need to know:

You might run into this while walking around Olívos. How dangerously exotic! (Photo/Wikipedia)

• Previously on Weekly News Roundup: it was the UK’s turn to spice things up a bit in this Malvinas/Falkland never ending stupidity, so they sent the HMS Dauntless, a nuclear submarine and Prince William to the islands just in case Argentina decided to call them “silly.” That’s it.

• Everyone was caught off guard this week when the National Government announced that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was going to be making a statement on national television in relation to the ongoing diplomatic conflict. While many feared she was going to make a formal declaration of war, others were more optimistic and suggested that she was going to offer the islanders a deal to create a weekly flight from Buenos Aires to the islands, which would have been really cool because I totally want to visit them. But alas, the cameras went on and the circus began. The Government had invited members of the opposition and war veterans to witness her speech, but they also let in a bunch of chanting idiots who started waving their flags and singing insults towards the British (because I’m sure the islanders are just gonna love that). And then, as the world anxiously awaited her “important announcement,” she finally said that since the UK has not complied with Argentina’s demands, she has no choice but to keep making them. Well, not really but kind of. She accused the UK of “militarizing” the South Atlantic, which is kind of hyperbolic but whatever, and warned she was going to file a formal complaint before the United Nations and the Security Council. Something she could have announced without the need to appeal to shallow nationalism.

• And while everyone was still oozing peace and love from their pores and singing about giving peace a chance as they were leaving the Government House, some Malvinas War veterans showed up and beat up Kirchnerite lawmaker José María Díaz Bancalari just because. I guess that is how they roll.

• The British press had a lot of nasty things to say about Cristina after the announcement. She’s “authoritarian” and “a quintessential bully,” they said. But the fuck up of the week goes to the Malvinas/Falklands-based online newspaper Penguin News, after the Argentine press learned that the photo of Cristina they used for their main piece on the website last Tuesday was uploaded under the name “bitch.jpg”. Whoops!

• Also, the Telegraph ran an article saying that Argentina has no more claim to the islands than Canada does to Alaska. Well, I’m sure that if being a part of Canada meant getting rid of Sarah Palin, Alaskans would sign up for Canadian citizenship like that. Just saying.

• And since the Barack Obama (really, you clicked on that? Wow) administration seems to support Argentina’s claim on this matter (their position is that the only way to solve this is through diplomatic dialogue), Cristina is super happy and wants to be BFFs with the United States. Yay! Argentine ambassador to the US Jorge Argüello said his goal is now to take the bilateral relationship to the best place possible. Nice! Maybe they can go back to being fuck buddies, like they were called in the 90s. You don’t believe me? It’s true! Back in the 90s, the US and Argentina were so close that the local Government and press began saying that they were having “relaciones carnales” which in Spanish means – you guessed it – fucking. Of course the true story is that Argentina was in fact getting fucked by the neoliberal policies of the Washington Consensus but whatever. Yay, friends!

• Really sad news: a French 52-year old man who was visiting Argentina was brutally murdered in broad daylight by a man who tried to steal his camera while he was taking photos at the Malvinas War Memorial in Plaza San Martín. The man, identified as Laurent Schwebel, was stabbed twice in the chest and tried to walk for a few meters, asking for help. He eventually collapsed as horrified bystanders tried to assist him. The police have arrested a suspect who they believe was responsible for the murder. This proves that even though Buenos Aires is a relatively safe city you must always be aware of your surroundings and stay alert. Be safe, OK?

• Also, this tragic death aside, this is the third French tourist to be murdered in Argentina in less than a year. Half a year ago two women were raped and murdered in Salta, and even though the men who did it were quickly arrested, this is still terrible PR for Argentina. I would understand it if the French decided to stop visiting out of fear. Let’s hope they don’t.

•  Oh and also, a few meters away from where the French man was brutally murdered, a cable got caught in a freight truck that was passing by, causing a traffic light to fall on top of a Brazilian tourist who was just standing there. So… yeah, you know where I’m going with this.

• Avoid Plaza San Martín altogether, is what I’m trying to say.

• And while we’re at it, you might want to avoid Vicente López as well since a blood-thirsty puma is apparently terrorizing the neighborhood. Yeah, that’s right. A puma (as in: a motherfucking puma). Oh, please! Spare me the “this shit doesn’t happen where I come from” face.  It does and it does. Shut the fuck up already.

• Have you ever tried walking across the Pan-american Highway (click here to see what it looks like outside of Buenos Aires)? Well, you may be a coward but as you can see in this video grandma isn’t, so she did. And she didn’t care who could have died in the process.

• And here’s my good deed of the day: next time you land at the Ezeiza International Airport or the Aeroparque Airport and you’re walking like a zombie, dragging your suitcase while trying to cope with your jet lag, please remember NOT TO head over to Global Exchange to trade your dollars/euros for some pesos. Because as it turns out, these mischievous guys will take your money for a 20% less value than any other money exchange place.  For every dollar they will give you 3.47 pesos (when they should be giving you close to 4.35). See? And some people say this column has no value to society.

• Since this week private vehicles are no longer allowed into the Downtown BA area on weekdays from 11 am to 4 pm, in an effort to cut down traffic jams. Not that you care because you don’t own a car.

• Great news people! The National Government just announced that if you don’t have your SUBE card yet there’s no reason to worry! Because they’ve decided to push the deadline to March 2nd. since apparently there’s a couple of losers who didn’t get the memo saying that if they don’t have their SUBE cards soon, they will lose their public transportation subsidy benefits. Which means you stood in line for three hours under the searing siesta sun for nothing.

Rest in peace, Spinetta. The Wachiturros will never even come close to your music. (Photo/Wikipedia)

• Rock legend and Argentine icon Luis Alberto Spinetta died on Wednesday after battling with lung cancer for more than six months. The entire country and even Latin America will continue to mourn this musical genius for days, since he is considered to be one of the forefathers of what is locally known as “rock nacional.” He will be remembered by many songs, but his most popular hit will always be “Muchacha ojos de papel,” a sweet ballad he wrote after being inspired by his muse back in 1969 that still fills 50 and 60 somethings with nostalgia. Listen to it, it’s pretty nice.

• Remember a few months ago when local football megastar Martín Palermo announced he was retiring, and they threw this huge farewell party at the Boca Juniors stadium, and everyone paid a lot of money to go there and everyone was crying because it was an emotional moment and they even gave give an actual goal as a gift and stuff? Well, as it turns out that wasn’t the real farewell party, for some reason! And if you thought so then you must have misunderstood. You see, the real farewell party was last Sunday and if you wanted to attend you had to pay again of course.  Isn’t football great? Yeah. Great way to make money! Like some bright mind tweeted recently: “I loved Martin Palermo’s farewell party last Sunday. I really hope the next one in six months is even better.” Clap, clap, clap.

• Oh, and before I forget: please don’t write to me explaining how one was a farewell ceremony and the other was a farewell game. I really, really, really don’t give a shit.

Have a great weekend everyone!

It’s Friday again!

And I’m mortified to say that this may be our last Weekly News Roundup ever, since the way things are going it’s very probable that in a few days Buenos Aires will be replaced by a highly radioactive wasteland after a British nuke goes off somewhere in the City, the result of David Cameron’s unilateral escalation of the Malvinas / Falklands sovereignty conflict.

Haha, I’m kidding of course!

However, don’t tell your mother about these jokes because you know how parents react to all this. You make a joke about war and they start freaking out, yelling at you for abandoning the comfort of your first-world lifestyle to leave for “Argelina or one of those countries near Brazil” (“Brazil” being the only country they more or less know how to locate on a map of South America. Yeah, that’s right, it’s always Brazil. It’s not Colombia, it’s not Paraguay and God knows it’s not Guyana, a country that even I thought was in Africa for several years. I know it. You know it. We all know it.)

Deal with it.

This is what you need to know:

• 

  Prince William. His country may have nuclear weapons and rule the Malvinas, but he's going bald and there's nothing he can do about that. (Photo/Wikipedia)

  Since apparently Mr. Cameron is dealing with some troubles at home he needs to divert attention and find a cause that will fire up the population. And what better way of doing that than appealing to the most primal of stupid nationalism? And while Argentina keeps saying “let’s talk about how those islands should belong to us,” the British government replies “Oh my God, invasion!!” So in order to protect the Malvinas/Falklands from a certain non-invasion and bring all of us closer to war, Great Britain has:

• 1) Decided it would be a great idea to send the HMS Dauntless to the islands in order to protect them from Argentina’s non-invasion. Despite its totally gay name, the Dauntless is a powerful anti-air destroyer capable of shooting down Argentina’s non-existing air force. Of course the British government said it was just “routine,” but we all know what that means.

• 2) In addition to that impressive warship, they also thought it would be smart to deploy to the islands none other than Prince William himself, who I’m sure is thrilled to have to stay at some barren, windy outpost north of nowhere for six weeks. I can totally see him, scotch in hand, going ”What the fuck am I doing here?” and such. Of course the British government said it was just “routine,” but we all know what that means.

• 3) As if that were not enough, Meryl Streep‘s latest film, “The Iron Lady,” which depicts the life of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and focuses somewhat on the 1982 war between England and Argentina, opened yesterday and now everyone is depressed because it reminds them of that drunken military president who went to war with the UK because he needed to rally the country’s population behind some random cause to retain power. So I would suggest you avoid the issue altogether unless you wanna get punched in the face.

• أخبار عظيمة للجميع! (That’s supposed to be “Great news, everyone!” in Arabic according to Google Translate. It should have been in Farsi, but the option is not available so fuck it.) Inhuman rights champion and President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmedinejad officially launched last Tuesday a new Spanish news network which he expects will present “the cultural reality of Iran, the Middle East and Latin America.” In a very contrived Spanish, good old Mahmoud said: “Death to America!” “Viva España! Viva America Latina!” That’s great Mr. President! And you know, his administration is changing after all. A few years ago they would stone women to death, but now they “kinda call off the whole stoning thing.” A few years ago they would also execute the gays just for being gay, but now they have no more gays! They must have cured them or something. Right? Right?? Also, I’m pretty sure he was high when he made that video.

• Did you enjoy that overrated French movie, Amelie? Did you also enjoy that clearly underrated masterpiece The Da Vinci Code but are too ashamed to admit it? In both cases you probably enjoyed Audrey Tautou‘s performance. So if you care to get her autograph, you should know that she’s loose in San Telmo right now, according to every media outlet in the country. Yeah, that’s right. This is news, for some reason.

• Your dream has come true: Facebook Buenos Aires is now hiring! Too bad your resume is a million light years away from the kind of resume they’re looking for. Oh well. Pizza Hut and KFC are about to open in BA too and they will probably be looking for some “driven, outgoing individuals interested in workin in a fun, exciting environment.” Just saying.

• Mother Nature must have been pissed this week, because she’s been coming down hard on us humans.  A freak storm was unleashed over Córdoba city, catching everyone by surprise. Two people were killed, more than a dozen were injured and hundreds had to be evacuated.

• But the worst came on Wednesday when whatever Greek god is up there got pissed and decided it was time to
  

  The Constitución Train Station. I'm sure you're all going "Why, it looks just like New York's Central Station!" but trust me, it's nothing like that. (Photo/Wikipedia)

  teach us all a lesson, so he opened the floodgates of hell over Buenos Aires, effectively flooding the whole city within seconds.  And when I say “flood” I mean it. It was like that movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” only with more realistic special effects and better acting. If you had been waiting for the subway, this is what you would have run into. If you had been riding the bus, this is what you would have run into. And look! A geyser in the middle of the city! God bless Climate Change.

• Are you one of the million people who listened to my advice last week and stood in line for five hours under the sun/rain in order to get your SUBE card before the February 10 deadline? Well, like I’ve said a thousand times before, you should never listen to me. Because this week the Government set up a web site where people can order it online and get it in the comfort of their homes. No waiting. Sorry!

• And this is why you should never go to a nightclub in Constitución.

• Yeah, I know I just said you should never listen to me, but trust me on this one.

• Oh, and speaking of neighborhoods: Recoleta, Palermo and Nuñez are now the most expensive areas to rent in the City. If you live there (most of you do), congratulations! You’re now living like a rich person despite your average income.

• Rive Plate played against Boca Juniors again in the “second part” of that fake Superclásico that the AFA pulled out of its ass in order to make more money. River Plate lost again. The AFA won again. You lost again.

Have a great weekend everyone!

The British flag and a bird fly over the Malvinas (Photo: eddybox43)

This April marks the 29th anniversary of the Falklands War (known as the Malvinas War in Argentina), which claimed the lives of 650 Argentines and 258 British soldiers. But beyond the battle is a territorial dispute that has raged for 178 years and shows no sign of disappearing. With lucrative fishing licenses, oil prospects, Antarctic ambitions, and a military base with 2,500 troops said to be defending a population of the same size, is the UK actually afraid of Argentine aggression or is it afraid of compromising on such a strategic and valuable holding?

“Two bald men fighting over a comb,” said Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges of the war between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands Islands. It’s a metaphor that became branded to what many believe to have been a senseless war between two deeply unpopular governments, both looking to win points at home, over a cluster of islands in the remote South Atlantic. UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s popularity was plummeting thanks to a series of neoliberal domestic policies, and with 30,000 disappearances to its name the Argentine military junta and its iron-fisted rule was losing any legitimacy it once had.

War was the perfect way for both countries to ratchet up nationalism and divert attention from unrest at home. Argentina sent its out-matched army to invade the islands in April 1982 and retreated ten weeks later with a new appreciation for Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, one of the most equipped in the world. End of story.

Yet the pointlessness of the actual war overshadows the true conflict. Beyond nationalist pride, what is the real fuss over these frigid islands? Upon closer look at what control of the Falklands actually means for the British today – between the sale of fishing licenses, oil exploitation, increased militarization, and access to the Antarctic – it turns out that the measly comb so many have mocked is made out of solid gold.

History and International Law

The conflict over the Falklands stretches far beyond the war in 1982 and involves an endless list of UN resolutions (issued and ignored), sovereignty claims, bilateral talks and unilateral actions.

Britain successfully colonized the islands in 1833, 26 years after two unsuccessful attempts to capture Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires. At the time, a tiny gaucho population under the authority of Argentine colonel, Jose Maria Pinedo, inhabited the islands. The colonel was asked to remove the Argentine flag, replace it for a British one, and get lost. Without the numbers to mount any defense, he obeyed, and the islands have been under British control ever since.

Control of islands nearly 13,000km from the shores of the UK and 500km off the coast of Argentina didn’t rustle many international feathers until the 1950s and 60s, when decolonization movements around the world gave impetus to milestone UN resolutions like 1514 – passed in 1960 – that supported independence movements of colonized countries and peoples. The General Assembly then passed Resolution 2065 in 1965, which specifically acknowledged the conflict over the islands and called upon both sides to “proceed without delay” in negotiations and to refrain from taking unilateral decisions or actions. The resolution goes on to say that it “was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing an end everywhere to colonialism in all of its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands.”

It was the first of 11 UN resolutions regarding the conflict, eight of them issued after the 1982 war and the most recent passed in 2010 by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization. Each one restates the previous, with the acknowledgement of a colonial situation and a request for a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute. Yet despite Argentina’s continued pleas for international law to be respected, they have done little to change the present situation of the islands.

Status Quo: Profit and Expansion

Fishing Boats (Photo: Luciano Osorio)

By ignoring Argentina and the international community and evading serious negotiations, the UK has been able to sustain a position of occupation and unilateral action throughout the years. The status quo has been good to Britain. For example, it has enjoyed over three decades of exclusive rights to the sale of fishing licenses in perhaps the richest waters in the world, as reported by the Food and Agricultural Organisation. When it unilaterally established maritime jurisdiction over the 200 nautical miles surrounding the islands in 1986, and set up the Falklands Islands Fishing Ordinance, it began selling fishing licenses to countries like Poland, Japan, and South Korea. According to a 1997 report in the ‘Maritime Briefing’ on the Falklands, after the ordinance was established, “license fees subsequently brought in several million pounds per year,” with the harvest of squid alone yielding £20.6m  in 1992.

Mediated negotiations have historically been shut down due to Britain’s refusal to discuss the issue of “sovereignty”. In fact, the only moment the UK entertained bilateral negotiations was in the 1990s, when Argentina’s neoliberal economic policies lifted restrictions on British imports. The countries signed a Joint Declaration and agreed to “umbrella sovereignty”, whereby no action taken by either government would be interpreted as supporting or rejecting the other’s claim of sovereignty. It was a passive and confounded agreement mostly designed to ease Argentine concerns rather than those of the British.

The Argentine government’s willingness to go along with it was referred to as its “policy of seduction”. Yet it was just unclear who was seducing whom. Though there were joint scientific studies of fish stock, the sale of licenses remained exclusively British. Though the UK allowed families of Argentine soldiers killed during the war to visit the islands, it unilaterally claimed maritime jurisdiction around the South Georgia and South Sandwich islands. And while both countries set up a joint commission in to oversee oil exploration in disputed waters, Britain continued its independent sale of numerous oil licenses.

Oil, Water and the Antarctic

Oil Platform (Photo: Stacy Lynn Baum)

As fish supplies dwindle, securing oil and fresh water reserves has become the main strategic role of the Falklands for Britain. Though scientists had long been suspected there were large oil reserves around the islands, exploration has only begun in the past few years. In February of 2010, British Desire Petroleum began drilling 100km from the capital of the Falklands, Port Stanley, for what may be 200 million barrels of oil worth an estimated £17bn. By May, British Rockhopper Exploration joined the frenzy, along with a host of other companies that have won large contracts for oilrig and equipment services.

Great oil and gas reserves also lie underneath the Antarctic, a continent Britain has also set its sights on. Thanks to its control of the Falklands, it has claimed over 660,000 square miles of Antarctic territory. In May of 2009, before the deadline for countries to make submissions to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, it submitted an additional claim of 386,000 miles of ocean off of its Antarctic holding. Many, including Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, condemned the UK in what is seen as an environmentally dangerous move to secure access to oil, water and other natural resources.

The Antarctic is also the continent that holds 70% of the world’s fresh water reserves, a resource becoming scarcer and more valuable each year. The Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959 has thus far protected the continent’s environment from resource extraction and military activity. However, it neither affirms nor denies territorial claims currently held by seven countries. As access to fresh water becomes more critical, the treaty may become another ideal purported on paper but trampled in practice.

Military Manoeuvres

F3 Tornado of the Quick Reaction Alert Force based at Mount Pleasant Complex (MPC) in the Falkland Islands at dusk. (Photo: Harland Quarrington)

One of the most significant outcomes of the Falklands War was Britain’s construction of the Royal Air Force base called Mount Pleasant, established in 1985. It is complete with four Eurofighter Typhoon jets, transport aircrafts, helicopters, silos for large weapons storage, two runways capable of accommodating heavy aircraft, and last year the Navy deployed attack submarine HMS Sceptre to the area. Currently, more than 2,500 Army, Navy and RAF servicemen and personnel are stationed there.

Though by its own admission the likelihood of an Argentine military attack is slim to none, the military conducts regular exercises simulating invasion that involve heavy artillery fire upon targets off the coast. In October of last year, the base also conducted a series of missile tests that Britain called “routine”. Argentina, backed by Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, called the exercises and tests acts of aggression and lodged a formal complaint to the UN, stating: “A permanent member of the UN Security Council is behaving like something from the colonial past.”

Vice-president of the World Peace Council, Rina Bertaccini, has studied foreign military bases and activity in Latin America for over 30 years. To her, Britain’s military objective is clear: “To maintain military bases, control over maritime routes, and control over the natural assets of the region that they prey on at will.”

Additionally, in March 2010, 150 troops from the 1st Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment arrived at Mount Pleasant to begin training for deployment to Afghanistan to join the other 9,500 British troops stationed there as part of NATO’s continued war. It is a reality that raises questions as to the extent the islands are being used, or could be used, for NATO purposes. Some, like Bertaccini, believe that the difference between the British base and a NATO base is a mere “subtlety”.

“What’s certain,” says Bertaccini, “is that you cannot install a military base with 2,500 troops to defend 2,500 inhabitants, it doesn’t make sense.”

Self-determination

But it is precisely the desires of those 2,500 inhabitants that the UK has used to justify its sovereign claim over the islands. In poll after poll, the people living on the Falklands declare their nationality as British and wish to remain under British authority. Invoking the UN Charter’s principle of self-determination, Britain has stated “there can be no negotiations on sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the Falkland Islanders so wish.”

But applying the principal of “self-determination” becomes tricky when the population is made up of the same colonizing force that seized the islands. Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs Rafael Bielsa said before the UN Committee on Decolonization in 2004: “Sustaining the idea the inhabitants of the islands have a right to self-determination would create a territorial dispute of which the country that has implanted them is part of. Meaning, the colonial power would confirm its own usurpation and implicate itself.” In a 2006 address to the same committee, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Jorge Taina said that the inhabitants are a “British population transplanted with the animus to establish a colony.”

While the assertion that the population of the Falklands is “implanted” is strong, census data collected by Britain reveals that it is largely true. In a 2006 report, Argentine congress member Daniel Oscar Gallo and a team of researchers presented a document that revealed that not only are military personnel often included in the count of 2,500 civilians living on the islands, but that just 40% of the population has lived on the islands for more than ten years, and only 42% of the population was born on the island.

Using UK census data, the document claims that “it is impossible to claim the application of principle of self-determination when in an analysis of the demographic of a period of ten years between two censuses, it turns out that more than 57% of the inhabitants over the age of ten have been implanted.”

Future of the Falklands

Malvinas War Monument from Ushaia (Photo: Esteban)

On this anniversary of the Falklands War, Argentines and Britons alike will mourn the death of soldiers and loved ones sent to battle what was ultimately a senseless war. To truly honour them along with the veterans who have suffered since, we would do well to fully understand the roots of this conflict, why the islands are so strategic and what the future may hold.

At a recent press conference discussing oil scarcity and new exploration, US president Barack Obama assured the North American people that the US government is working with partner nations and industry, and “taking steps to explore potential gas and oil resources off the mid- and south-Atlantic”. It is a statement as vague as it is alarming, as oil exploration and extraction moves forward in the Falklands and the region becomes more and more strategic to global superpowers.

Argentina may be able to diplomatically muscle its way toward negotiations as it has had consistent regional support from Mercosur, Unasur, and the Rio Group. But understanding what Britain stands to lose if it truly engaged in a discussion over Falklands makes it clear why the cries of a far inferior military power like Argentina go ignored. For now and as before, with so much at stake economically and strategically, might will be making right.

Francesca Fiorentini is a freelance journalist based in Buenos Aires. She is also an editor of Left Turn magazine and a regular contributor to WarTimes.org.