“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.