“RENTED DEMOCRACIES”

Why are some in Washington questioning the role of the US during the war between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands or Malvinas Islands?

 

By Sir Charlattam

 

Shortly after the 41st anniversary of the South Atlantic war, some in Washington are coming to realise that Ronald Reagan's administration was not exactly up to the task at the time, and that is why the anti-American sentiment in Argentina will never be healed.

It is amusing to read some columns from neo-conservative quarters showing an apparent concern that until just a year ago they did not show about the Falklands episode and its hemispheric consequences, and so I wonder what Washington and perhaps the Foreign Office in London are up to?

I learned modestly in the life of service that in this world nothing is given without paying something in return. Even more so in the world of intrigue. That is why this smells so strange and I suspect it has something to do with what is happening in Europe today.

At the time the young Democratic senator Joseph Biden was a strong and steadfast supporter of Britain, which should come as no surprise to anyone. Biden was always a neo-conservative in the guise of a Democratic sheep. Excuses that there was a right-wing dictatorial regime in Buenos Aires that oppressed and disappeared its people do not exactly excuse the Americans from their role in that state of affairs. The close relations that existed at the time between the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA with Buenos Aires could never have been closer, although today the “intelligency” tries to say otherwise.

Nor should we forget that the British establishment and in particular MI6 played -as they do today in Ukraine- very closely with US partners in supporting, indoctrinating and preparing these dictatorships, very useful at the time to curb possible Soviet expansion.

Today, these editorials that try to argue a supposed lamentation over that position on the Malvinas question are nothing more than a clear masquerade that tries to win the sympathy of an Argentina that is practically in liquidation. But the question remains: why?

Many in Argentina remember how the US betrayed its commitment to TIAR and thanks to it, many Argentine soldiers died for the cooperation in intelligence, logistics and weapons with which Thatcher and her admirals would not have prospered. The thrashing of the Task Force was memorable and nearly put it out of action. Commander Jeremy Moore himself acknowledged this before he died.

At the time, the Foreign Office and, of course, “Maggie” cared little for the brutality of the regime led by Chilean General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, who did not hesitate for a second to give his cooperation to London. That he later sold him out (because Margaret Thatcher did not lift a finger in his favour) and had him arrested during his stay on British soil was undoubtedly what one might call "poetic justice" for the Argentines.

But why is it in Washington's interest today to generate a clean face in the eyes of the Argentines? Be careful guys, the wolf pauses to look at its prey before it attacks. But leaving aside this silly little joke, in reality the matter is serious, so much so that to complete the metaphor Argentina should understand that it is a succulent lamb about to be gobbled up. I will now explain.

As soon as General Mario Benjamín Menéndez signed the surrender in June 1982, Argentine politicians, taking advantage of the misfortune of their own soldiers (whom they had despised for years), set off to regain power, accepting all the conditions that would not appear in the final document. One of them was not to reclaim sovereignty and to keep their country unarmed. That was why it was a formality for the Foreign Office to arrange with the Americans how Argentina's political situation would be settled.

The only thing Argentina did in April 1982 was to reclaim possession of its islands and the entire surrounding archipelago, which had been occupied by British troops since 1833. Looking at a map you can see that the islands are about 300 kilometres off the Argentine coast. Even a child can see that someone whose country is thousands of kilometres away cannot justify himself to another country that is only a few kilometres from the mainland. So how was international law interpreted at that time?

For Washington and London at the time it was an invasion, but from the point of view of the development of Argentina's political history and an interpretation of international law, it was nothing more than retaking an unredeemed territory stolen by an imperial power, and it certainly was. Had Operation Rosario been carried out by a civilian government it would have meant the same to the bureaucrats in the Foreign Office; though on second thoughts it would have been much easier for London to abort the attempt as it is an imperial (not Bill Gates) custom to deal with enemies, before fighting them "try to buy them off". And believe me, as corrupt as Argentine politicians are, there would not even have been an Operation Rosario. Believing otherwise is a demonstration of supreme ignorance and even unforgivable political twaddle, don´t you?

In the case of the Falklands or Malvinas Islands for the Argentines, the arrival of the “democratic” governments was an unbeatable strategic gain for London and it was for this reason that the Conservatives with “Maggie” at the head claimed to be the architects of Argentine democracy and, worst of all, the political class in Buenos Aires nodded in silence.

In the current circumstances of the war between the US and its partners against Russia, it should not be surprising that NATO might seek to enter Argentine Patagonia in order to reposition itself on the continent to complement its presence in the northern hemisphere of the continent, in Colombia and obviously with a view to controlling the movements of China, a silent and stealthy spectator of what is happening in Ukraine. The political possibilities are at hand and certainly neither Washington nor London will pass it up. NATO's electronic intelligence facilities in the Falklands are simply not sufficient to deal with a possible unconventional escalation with the Russian Federation. I'm pretty sure the Argentines don't have a clue about this.

Today more than ever, the Argentines are a long way from getting their claims, on the contrary the Foreign Office bureaucrats are already speculating on the outcome of the Argentine elections as they have very good contacts with a section of the local political class who, desperate to get into power, may sell the sovereignty claim by throwing it like a stone into the ocean, i.e. impossible to stop, let alone to refloat it.