Islands of the South Atlantic, a proposal

On another occasion I wrote about this thorny topic, now I’m doing it again because I believe it’s a good time to meditate on the subject before another anniversary finds us on what I’m going to expand on in this journalistic note. The first thing is to recall a thought of Jorge Luis Borges: “Other times will come when we will be cosmopolitan, citizens of the world as the Stoics said, and borders will disappear like something absurd”. It should be borne in mind that, from the point of view of an open society, at the present stage of cultural evolution, the territorial divisions between countries have the sole purpose of avoiding the phenomenal risks of the concentration of power in the hands of universal government. But to go from there to believe that there is a difference in nature between the local and the foreign, that constitutes pure stupidity encouraged by nationalist chauvinists who avoid with their navel only within the framework of greater intellectual poverty. and material.

Mario Vargas Llosawrote: “Let’s briefly summarize what nationalism (…) Basically, to consider what is one’s own as an absolute and indisputable value and what is foreign as a devaluation, something that threatens, undermines or impoverishes or degenerates the very spiritual personality of a country (.. .) That such fillers are as hollow as they are cacophonous, true conceptual gibberish, is no obstacle to them being able to appeal to many people, due to the patriotic air that seems to surround them (… ) nationalism is the culture of the uneducated and these are legion (…) No culture has been born, developed and reached its fullness without being nurtured by others and without, in turn, nurturing others, in a continuous process of loans and donations (…) country strengthens and develops its culture, it is by opening its doors and windows wide (…) the same freedom and the same pluralism which must reign politically and economically in a democratic society”.

That said, it is necessary to emphasize that the origins of the South Atlantic islands to which we refer, from the sixteenth century, passed portuguese navigators (Américo Vespucci, then in the service of the Kingdom of Portugal, was the first to arrive on the islands on April 7, 1502), french explorers (Louis de Bougainville established the first colony, which baptized with the name whose textual translation in Spanish is “Iles Malvinas”), The Spaniard conquers (Esteban Gómez from the Fernando de Magallanes expedition), british adventurers (John Davis, Richard Hawkings, John Strong, John Byron, John McBride, James Weddell and James Onslow) y dutch boats (Sebald de Weert at the head of the crew), in addition to various companies such as that of the German Luis Vernet who finally sold his shares of the island on the British market (which gave rise to the Fakland Islands Commercial Fishery and Agricultural Association). Also the result of treaties such as those of Tordecillas and Utrecht, the Nutka Convention and American expeditions such as the Lexington. The titles have many ambiguous and conflicting edges amid repeated disputes, but in any case, for a long time there have been two governments claiming the islands as part of the territory of their respective nations: Argentina as heiress of the Spanish crown and England. .

In 1820, the government of Buenos Aires sent a frigate to take possession of and reaffirms its rights in the Malvinas as a successor to Spain and from 1823 grants the aforementioned Vernet the exploitation of the resources of the islands. Its operations against whalers led the American corvette Lexington to liquidate key installations at Puerto Soledad and in 1833 the British frigate HMS Clio arrived claiming the recovery of the islands.

Given this context and the terrible treatment of the issue by the Argentine government, mainly through two embarrassing efforts (among many others that we Argentines have suffered in vital areas). The Rosas government – typical of jingoists – through its Minister of Foreign Affairs (Felipe Arana), on November 21, 1838, instructed in writing the Argentine representative in London (Manuel Moreno) in the following terms: “Article complementary to the instructions given today to Minister Plenipotentiary Dr. Don Manuel Moreno. In this way he will insist that the opportunity arises in the claim of the occupation of the Malvinas Islands (as we said, an event that occurred in 1833) and then he will explore with sagacity, without it being the idea of this government, if there would be a provision in the SMB to make room for a pecuniary transaction to cancel the outstanding debt of the Argentinian loan” (recorded in file No. 3 of the year 1842 of the Division of Political Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Affairs and Cults of the Argentine Republic, document published by Isidoro Ruiz Brown in The pressBuenos Aires, July 11, 1941, and reproduced by the National Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, under the presidency of Horacio C. Rivarola).

For its part, more recently, the military landing on the islands in 1982, at the origin of the unprecedented and monumental irresponsibility of Nicanor Costa Mendez who, being Chancellor, proposed the idea, which he had already unsuccessfully suggested to another previous military government (of General Juan Carlos Onganía), also”unite the people in a common cause» and thus agitate the xenophobic passions which arise unexpectedly from the basement of this monstrosity which has been called « the national being ». A war – like almost all – to distract the population from serious internal problems and which was denounced as “a military adventure” in the report of Lieutenant-General Benjamín Rattenbach, head of the Commission of Inquiry established in Buenos Aires on December 2, 1982 .by high-ranking soldiers, a document in which severe sanctions were requested for those responsible for this warlike incursion.

Moreover, given the stubborn and arrogant ignorance of successive English governments as to the will of the inhabitants of the islands in the alleged withdrawal of the Argentine claims, we suggest that, given the context, in the present case, both governments should resolve the situation simultaneouslya problem that has dragged on for decades, in the sense of declaring the immediate and full independence of the islanders so that they run their affairs as they see fit without British or Argentine claims to sovereignty, an explosive mix that has created and continues to create so much tension in the local population.

It is to hope that with the knowledge of the political absurdities of the Argentine governments of the last decades with their own population massacred in misery by the rampant statism and, to a lesser extent, those also committed by the English governments with regard to their people, the islanders aim for an open society, respectful of property rights, within the framework of open markets both locally and internationally and with minimum taxes that serve to guarantee security and justice, as some islanders have publicly exposed. Perhaps, in this way, the islands can become an example of freedom and progress for the free world and attract people and investments from all corners of the planet, resorting to the successful Alberdian tradition of the Argentinians and to the equally fruitful liberal tradition which the English knew how to adopt at the time. Although personally I am not fond of the tireless display of national symbols (I prefer the cosmopolitan “Ode to Liberty” of the Ninth Symphony, transformed by Schiller’s censorship into an “Ode to Joy”), in this cases we report that many The inhabitants of They have long had their own flag, which is one of the signs of respect for the desires of independence. However, there are debates about the security that being linked to the British crown provides at the moment (hence the persistence and updating of the same military scheme bet since 1982), but we reiterate the possibility to have real security and justice due to a territory of reduced dimensions in the context of an insecure world would constitute a refuge in which reciprocal respect is the norm, as has been said on the Swiss model. All this with consideration, deep appreciation and emotion for the lives lost in this disastrous 1982 confrontation of Argentine soldiers sent to war who, in this case, are transported without adequate preparation or necessary equipment and food, just to satisfy the whims of soldiers irresponsible. in power, as evidenced by the aforementioned Rattenbach report, which categorically repudiates this military act. All deaths in this conflict must be given due consideration and respect, but in the Argentine case, what happened is clearly unforgivable and contrary to the warnings of so many sensible local and foreign voices against this unfortunate military adventure.

The absurdity was not limited to governmental spheres. Now it turns out no one was in the Plaza de Mayo in April of the year of the invasion, which was overflowing with people shouting “he who doesn’t jump is an Englishman” and other mischief of a similar tenor . They’re the usual shamefaced ones who will come out of their caves again if there’s an opportunity for another nationalist outburst, who go to mass and sing “take my hand brother” with angelic gestures until jingoism strikes at them. cause the so-called brethren to be devoured with genuine malice from other sources. I have already mentioned before that a member of the National Academy of Economics of Argentina (I do not mention his name out of embarrassment) proposed his expulsion as a corresponding member of the Nobel Prize in Economics Friedrich Hayek because he returned from an invitation from me to give lectures in Buenos Aires very judiciously declared, from Freiburg, to a correspondent of an Argentine magazine, that “if all the governments which consider that a territory belongs to them, the invade, the world will become a bigger fire than it already is.” Fortunately, the crazy movement did not prosper, but I record the fact in order to underline the superlative degree of imbalance that prevails.

We must be aware of the possible stupidities of all the governments of all colors and of all countries, in particular, as we have said, those who find themselves in difficulty, because at the least expected moment, it is not uncommon for ‘they resort to belligerent language and attitudes with the intention of covering up political holes. As we have pointed out, this terrible armed confrontation has already happened once.

For his part, and without this sense that the author shares the rantings and the proposal that I leave recorded here (nor that I share other of his conclusions), Juan B. Yofre in his book with the suggestive title Trap He rightly points out that the military junta of the time had “a brutal ignorance of international relations and especially of the world in which they lived. They did what they did to stay in power for a few more years, but the military defeat opened a Pandora’s box that forced them to flee.”

In this context it is healthy to always keep an eye out for those emotional lines from Borges titled “Juan López and John Ward” in which it is described that an Argentinian and an Englishman might have been friends – one admired Conrad and the another was studying Spanish. reading Don Quixote – if not because “they had had a strange time” since “the planet had been divided into different countries (…) this division, dear to cartographers, commanded wars (. ..) They were buried together. Snow and corruption know them.”

Continue reading: