MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas Veteran and Fallen Day remembered in Argentina with two central ceremonies
The 36th anniversary of the Falklands conflict in 1982 will be recalled in Argentina with two main events: Malvinas relatives will be received on Monday afternoon by president Mauricio Macri at his official residence in Olivos while Interior Minister Rogelio Fregerio will head the ceremony in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, next to the Beagle Channel. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhy does Argentina commemorate an illegal invasion that started a war they lost?
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse +4With the war, Argentina lost all hopes of pressing its pretensions.
Such is the way of Trial by Combat.
A strange event to commemorate.
Roger Lorton
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse +4Perversity - perhaps?
Does Macri really believe in the Malvinas myth?
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1The ambassador in London recalled that back in 1997, Macri was interviewed on the issue and his reply surprised everybody. He minimized the claim and stated, “I never quite understood the sovereignty claims of such as big country as ours. We don't have a space problem such as Israel, for example”.
But apparently he did not stop there: in effect as a pro-business man and faithful to orthodox economics, the heir of an industrial and real estate conglomerate added, “as far as I know it costs quite a bit to the English Treasury to keep the Malvinas Islands” so if they are recovered for Argentina, “Malvinas will become an additional deficit for the country's accounts”.
Falklands - Argentina's Imaginary Territory (1 pg):- https://www.academia.edu/35715281/Falklands_Argentinas_Imaginary_Territory
Before any idiot tells me that Argentina are merely remembering their dead, may I point out this morning La Nacion tribute - https://www.lanacion.com.ar/2120661-en-fotos-la-reaccion-popular-por-malvinas-y-como-fueron-los-dias-previos-a-la-guerra
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse +4I don't see any tears. Worse, I don't see any appreciation for the sensitivities of the people who lived through Argentina's illegal and unjustified invasion, and who continue to live through these annual events. Ignored.
Argentina should be ashamed. Very ashamed.
President Macri probably does not believe in this crap, but he has enough difficult people to appease that it is easier to fall into line. When he has the votes and the Parliamentary seats to feel secure lets hope he has the balls to take the decisions that will begin to convince others that he is serious about dragging Argentina into the 21st Century
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse +3The comments on that article aren't celebrating. They're saying how stupid the war was and how pointless the deaths, and the fact the people supported the war doesn't speak well of them either.
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse -1So why on April 2nd? How do you think the people of the Falklands who lived through the same day 36 years ago feel about having the date shoved down their throats every year. The date of the invasion? That is a celebration.
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3We don´t celebrate, we conmemorate, we remember our alive and dead soldiers, and we reaffirm that “las Islas Malvinas” are our because they belong to our marine plarform and England usurped them.
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Well, that picture gallery is very telling, its all about gung ho Argies. Where were the pictures of the sinking Belgrano, the surrender of the Argentine Invaders, Sir Galahad, Simon Weston etc. Not the whole picture, I Think?
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Celebrating a day of Argentinian national shame! The answer is blowing in the wind….
Maribe- care to clarify the history? Think you will find that UK first claimed in 1765.Then yes the treaty between Spain and UK was maybe not the best worded and tends to be interpreted in favour of whichever side one is on- BUT your Country did not exist then. And when the Spanish left in 1810/11 they left to MONTEVIDEO- not Buenos Aires - so if anyone thinks they can claim some vague “inheritance” of the Spanish claim- its Uruguay not Argentina as Uruguay remained a Spanish Colony until mid 1840 I think.
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3No problem with your armed forces having a day to remember their fallen in wars over the years - but it just shows how thick and insensitive your side is to do it on the day you started a war with another !! No other Country in the world does that that I know of!
You can never ever expect us Islanders to believe or trust anything any Argentine Govt ever says the way you have acted in and ever since 1982.
Dont forget the US$200million Argentina spent(mostly on free food shipments) in late 1982 on buying votes in the UG General Assembly to get Res G37/9 I think it was called.
“... I took Possession of this Harbour & all these Islands for His Majesty King George the Third of Great Britain & His Heirs, tho' they had been before taken Possession of by Sir Richard Hawkins in the year 1593 (sic).”
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The words of Byron in January, 1765 - referring to the first claim in 1594.
37/9 in 1982?
“The price of victory was high: Argentina paid more than 200 million dollars ... and in some cases it paid in kind (wheat)”
1982: Los documentos secretos de la guerra Malvinas/Falklands y el derrumbe del pro Juan B. Yofre 2011
Argentina should learn from Germany. They do not celebrate the war they started and later lost. It would be absurd. September 1st is not called “The Day of the Heroes of the Polish Campaign” or something like that. Argentina has of course the right to mourn their fallen soldiers. But not on the anniversary of the their invasion. They should start a Demalvinazion process.
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Dear Islander1
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1England has a long history of colonization. You have a particular interpretation of the documents. But I want to explain you that the Argentine people feel that the Malvinas Islands were usurped and that justice will be done once. But the Argentine people did not decide the war, it was a dictator government that we repudiated. A lot of money was spent and many very
young soldiers died who gave their lives without having decided, but with a patriotic feeling. The dictators used a patriotic sentiment to delay their fall. We decide when to remember, we have that right. Good luck
Maribe,
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3hmmmm, so a 'feeling' can outweigh facts to the Argentine people, is that what you are saying?
No wonder you spend so much on indoctrinating your children with the myth, you have to keep the faith going eh.
Sorry but 'feelings' do not overrule facts, the sooner you accept the facts, the quicker you can all move on with your lives, other wise you will live your lives in dissapoinment.
What facts are you talking about...?
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you talking about claiming an Island that already had a settlement on it...?
Or are you talking about claiming something because you think you the were the first people to visit it...?
By rights, I reckon the Yanks should claim the Moon...
Do you have a flag...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
Buenos Aires were warned to stay off in 1829 & 1832 Voice. They decided not to listen. Probably believed that the British wouldn't follow through - much as they believed it in 1982. They aint learners.
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Vernet's settlement had the tacit approval of the British. The 1829 Decree went further in proclaiming Argentine pretensions. It was obvious that Britain would react - obvious to everyone but Buenos Aires.
The words of the 1829 British protest are important :
“... The undersigned has received the orders of his Court to represent to H.E. General Guido that in issuing this decree, an authority has been assumed incompatible with His Britannic Majesty’s rights of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. These rights, founded upon the original discovery and subsequent occupation of the said islands, acquired an additional sanction from the restoration, by His Catholic Majesty, of the British settlement, in the year 1771, which, in the preceding year, had been attacked and occupied by a Spanish force, and which act of violence had led to much angry discussion between the Governments of the two countries.
The withdrawal of His Majesty’s forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty’s just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty’s Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season. ...”
That's how Britain saw it. It was a warning. BA should not have ignored it.
Fact
The Facts are the British had no place to warn anyone off East Falkland ever...
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2They had never occupied it...ever ...not in 1593 nor 1765...
They come along almost 60 years after abandoning the area with no more legal right than it was possibly spotted by an Englishman a couple of hundred years earlier...
These are the facts, there was no recognition of British rights by Spain at all... merely a reinstatement of a status quo that existed before the Spanish evicted the British...
These are pertinent facts that will not go away and be buried no matter how much you try...
Spain did not recognise our rights any more than we recognised hers. In 1765, Spain protested at the rumours of a British expedition to survey the islands. Spain was asked to prove her claim of first discovery but did not respond with any evidence whatsoever. Ambassador Masserano was pointed in the direction of the British evidence in the British Museum (founded 1753 in case you were wondering).
Apr 02nd, 2018 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +2That was the context at the time.
And we did not abandon the islands for 60 years, that is just an Argie myth. British business, as British business is inclined to do, exploited those islands throughout that period. So profitable was it, that the industry features regularly in the Board of Trade minutes. A committee as powerful as the Cabinet is today. Their consideration of the Spanish claim in 1789 is revealing. The context had not changed.
Seeing the potential for profit the French wanted a piece (Bougainville had recommended going back in 1801) and so demanded an establishment in the Falklands during the Amiens Treaty negotiations of 1801/02/ In a very public display of sovereignty, Britain refused.
We had RN vessels there in 1813 - one visited the Soledad garrison site.
We did not leave.
Spain's recognition was not necessary. Indeed, so unsure were they that they had to remind us that the question remained unanswered.
It was answered in 1833.
I don't need to try. I have Facts
I've read all your “facts”
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse -3The British never claimed any more than Port Egmont...
Discovery is meaningless without settlement and control. Britain never controlled East Falkland...
“British business is inclined to do, exploited those islands throughout that period” Exploited which islands...certainly not East Falkland...
No occupation or control for 60 years...
There is no convincing proof of first discovery either...not that it would change anything...
One can't claim discovery then wait a couple of hundred years to settle it...
The force is weak in you Roger...
Come to the darker side...
@ maribe
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse +2“We decide when to remember”
So you remember your fallen, when only a few had been killed by the Royal Marines during your invasion.
So by remembering your fallen on 2nd April, this surely means you don't remember your troops that died after 2nd April 1982 ?
Don't you care about those who died after 2nd April?
A question for you maribe. How many civilian settlers were ordered to leave Port Louis by the British in January 1833?
And why was the Sarandi, mostly crewed with British sailors? Are you surprised they did not fight for Pinedo?
Why do you not regard Antonio Rivero as a traitor for staying in 1833 because he was paid in silver by the British?
@Voice
“The Facts are the British had no place to warn anyone off East Falkland ever.”
Great Britain did because Spain were not occupying East Falkland in 1833 and Britain considered it their territory.
Argentina usurped the territory of the Amerindians in the 1880s.
When Great Britain signed a peace agreement in 1825 with the United Provinces of the River Plate, they requested a map to show the United Provinces territory.
The map did not include the Falkland Islands.
Vernet's settlement was commercial, as much as Honda's plant at Swindon is. Japan does not own the UK.
Apart from Vernet in 1829 who was appointed as military and political commander, by a government declared illegal a few months later, there was no presence of United Provinces as a government.on the Falkland Islands until the arrival of Mestivier's militia in 1832.
And Mestivier was French.
If Britain's rights in the Falkland Islands were not recognised by Spain, why is it that a Spanish warship entered Stanley harbour in 1863 and saluted the Union Jack, instead of opening fire?
When the British surveyed West Falkland in 1790, why did the Spanish not blow the British ship out of the water?
Great Britain did because Spain were not occupying East Falkland in 1833 and Britain considered it their territory.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse -2Why would they when they never claimed it off the Spanish...
Argentina usurped the territory of the Amerindians in the 1880s.
Legally...
When Great Britain signed a peace agreement in 1825 with the United Provinces of the River Plate, they requested a map to show the United Provinces territory.
Perhaps a clue was it had already been mentioned in the London Times as claimed for UP....why didn't the Brits mention that?
The map did not include the Falkland Islands.
No British map ever included Soledad....
Vernet's settlement was commercial, as much as Honda's plant at Swindon is. Japan does not own the UK.
Bougainville's settlement was commercial...so what
The East India company was commercial too...
Apart from Vernet in 1829 who was appointed as military and political commander, by a government declared illegal a few months later, there was no presence of United Provinces as a government.on the Falkland Islands until the arrival of Mestivier's militia in 1832.
There was Never a presence of British Govt on East Falkland...
And Mestivier was French.
Vernet was German...so what
If Britain's rights in the Falkland Islands were not recognised by Spain, why is it that a Spanish warship entered Stanley harbour in 1863 and saluted the Union Jack, instead of opening fire?
Spain in 1863 were a powerless has been....
When the British surveyed West Falkland in 1790, why did the Spanish not blow the British ship out of the water?
Status Quo had been resumed...
Britain claimed the whole archipelago in 1594 and 1765 Voice.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse +2Spain failed to gain any effective control over the eastern islands, indeed there is no evidence that Spain ever raised its flag over Egmont or West Falkland after 1770. Why would that be?
In 1825 Parish requested information, I've not seen any letter specifically mentioning a map, but even so the information provided by the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry in Buenos Aires made no mention of the Falklands. He did not provide a map.
The British Government established sovereignty in the period 1765 to 1774 and did not consider that the permanent placement of a garrison was necessary to maintain its position. Not while Spain was ineffective at challenging the British position in the eastern Islands.
Spain did salute the British flag in 1863 - the first time that they acknowledged British sovereignty. For Spain the question had remained unanswered between 1771 and 1863.
Spain was still unsure of its position in 1790.
Span v. England.
Argentina was never in the game
Spain destroyed Egmont after the British left...
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse -2Why would Spain raise a flag over Egmont when North had promised that the British would abandon the settlement...
Especially when they did...that pretty much answered the question...
btw...Britain never claimed the whole archipelago in 1765...they didn't even have a map of it...
We have seen a map of what they claimed...Port Egmont and a few small islands around it...
I claim all these islands where ever they may be whether there are settlement on them or not...
You are having a laugh...
The British have no more claim than Port Egmont and that is fact...even by treaty...
Spain destroyed Fort George & Jasons Town 6 years after the Garrison withdrew - at a time of war - and didn't leave a flag behind.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse +1North made no such promise - as confirmed by De Guines in 1775
We withdrew a garrison for the costs and because it was no longer necessary
Yes, Britain claimed the whole in 1765 - without actually knowing what the whole was
You are referring to which map? The Carrington-Bowles map? No indication of any Spanish claim on that,
I am not having a laugh. The British actions of 1829, 1832 & 1833 prove it ;-)
We had as much of a claim to the Falklands in 1833 as China has to the South China Sea now.
That would be the claim the ICJ recently ruled against?
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse -1The ruling that China ignored? Yes.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse +1International Law is pretty useless. More what you'd call “guidelines” than actual rules ( to quote a movie). Needs to be remembered when any of us, me included, leap up and say - ah, but international law says.
;-)
Sounds like you think Argentina is right after all.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse -2Not at all. The dispute was between Spain and Britain. Argentina was never in the game.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1Voice is just a contrarian, and he likes the sound of his Voice
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse +2Contrarian? Been there. Maybe still am. It can be a lot of fun :-)
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse +2@golfcronie
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse -2So? It doesn't make him wrong.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -3All sovereignty claims over the Falkland Islands except for the Falkland Islander's claim are null and void after continuous legal occupation for 185 years. All other discussion is a waste of time. No court will ever rule in Argentina's favour.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@Demon Tree So? it doesn't make him right either
Apr 04th, 2018 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 05th, 2018 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1@GC
Apr 05th, 2018 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse -1So why say it then? If he's wrong you can explain how.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 06th, 2018 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse -1England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 09th, 2018 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!