MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
![“It is not that [Gallo's] mission has been aborted. We have given him a hard blow thanks to the State security agencies,” Cabello underlined](/data/cache/noticias/102697/130x80/diosdado.jpg)
Argentina celebrates 30 years of democracy and free elections in 1983, 16 months after defeat in Malvinas
Argentina is recalling with different acts and commemoration ceremonies the thirty years since the return of democracy when Raul Alfonsin was elected president of Argentina. On October 30 1983, and after a long recount of votes, Alfonsín's Radical Civic Union (UCR) secured a landmark victory over the Peronist Justicialist Party. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules30 years of being a back water, broke and corrupt banana republic, yay! crack open the Champagne. They still don't thank us for bringing them democracy, ungrateful sods!
Oct 31st, 2013 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AS an Irishman I will say thank you U.K. for saving Argentina from the bloodbath of the dictators,can you imagine your fate if they had won in the Falklands/Malvinas?
Oct 31st, 2013 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 030 years of democracy eh?are you finally learning?
Malvinas, where are they?
Oct 31st, 2013 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As a Briton, we don't contemplate failure in war, you don't go into battle to lose.
I like the second picture.
Oct 31st, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lets nuke Argentina to fully democratise it.
Oct 31st, 2013 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is this a tacit admission that the events of 1982 led to democracy in Argentina?
Nov 01st, 2013 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Personally, I do not think the butchers price was worth the result!!!!
Im surprised Argies dont deny there was ever a war.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Or reinvent history claiming they won it.
In all honesty the defeat in 1982 signaled the end of the military regime; after Galtieri was removed Bignone was placed in charge for a year longer to administer the exit plan.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Galtieri had won the war he would have clearly lasted longer, but in the run up to 1982 the Junta was in retreat and politicians were calling for elections. The initial coup was not meant to linger on forever in power but handle the clean u and the reality is that many Argentines approved of in its early days. Nobody will say so nowadays because it’s not politically correct.
The real test for Argentine democracy begun in 2007 onwards.
Stupid people!
Nov 01st, 2013 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Given the chance.
9) Ohh dont worry we will get rid of the rubbish next election comes, the real problem here is the tolerance we have with superpowerful presidents
Nov 01st, 2013 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was a bloody silly war that should never have happened!
Nov 01st, 2013 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree but in reality the coup in 1976 should have never happened in the first place, and the context and the events leading to the coup in 1976 should not have happened neither. It all comes down to a lack of democracy
Nov 01st, 2013 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0From my point of view , and unfortunately , the end of military Government in Argentina was marked well before the attack on the islands. as a result of large political, diplomatic and economic mistakes. In fact, these mistakes desperately pushed them to an adventure of dubious and questionable planning and purpose.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The end of the Argentine military government marked the end of an era in the whole Latin America Continent where all authoritarian military governments were replaced by democratically elected governments.
Augusto Pinochet , as bloodthirsty as Videla or Galtieri, was also replaced but without having economically failed or without having lost a war. So.....To whom have to thank the Chilean brothers for the return to democracy ?
Also, I find it sad that very few British, or Americans , accept and regret the mistake of having aided and made political alliances with dictators in Latin America. The war was the result of the same type of policy held in places like Iraq or Panama where dictators , initially supported by Western countries, transform themselves into unpredictable monsters out of control.
Unfortunately , the UK and Margaret Thatcher refused to establish diplomatic relations with Raul Alfonsin. She also refused to start dialogues with him. Most probably she was jealous, and distrustful, of his international prestige.
3 Britworker
Nov 01st, 2013 - 03:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0“As a Briton, we don't contemplate failure in war, you don't go into battle to lose”
Iraq a good example.
13 pgerman
Nov 01st, 2013 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Augusto Pinochet , as bloodthirsty as Videla or Galtieri, was also replaced but without having economically failed or without having lost a war. So.....To whom have to thank the Chilean brothers for the return to democracy ?
The domino effect surely? defeat in the Malvinas/Falklands signaled the end for all South American Juntas,their staggering incompetence exposed,beaten by a democracy 8000 miles away.
@14
Nov 01st, 2013 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Saddam Hussein regime was defeated was it not?
With respect to the Falklands, you cannot take anything from the UK, it was an outstanding victory and very sad that British lives were lost in the process.
“Thank you Britain, thank you Falklands, for the return of our democracy.” Just a few words we are unlikely to hear, ungrateful turds.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@8 Sorry for you, but I haven't seen any sign of democracy in argieland in 31 years. I had to watch the Falklands War on television. Shame. I would much rather have been bombing argieland. Bit “unreconstructed” me. I would have seen British submarines following the argie “fleet” and sinking every one of them. And I would have bombed BA!
Nov 01st, 2013 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 018) Thanks for making things so easy for us always.....
Nov 01st, 2013 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14 Marcos Alejandro.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos, yet another disastrous example. US, UK and others legally fought with Iraq, removing an awful regime. On going troubles are sectarian, perpetrated on the people primarily by their countrymen, not US or UK forces.
Britain successfully dealt with a shit Argentine regime and this brought about its removal because had Argentina won (surely an oxymoron) the Junta would still be in power, the population of the falklanders would have been uprooted and disappeared and the argentine population would continue to disappear on long helicopter trips whilst the military would have stolen the babies of political prisons. Loosing that war was the best outcome for argentina. Such a pity you're politicians have been shagged it up again... but I'm pleased to say that Britain Keeps Calm and Carries On.
So Argentina lost the Falklands War and a war in the mythical Malvinas!
Nov 01st, 2013 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fancy losing 2 wars like that.
@13 pgerman
The world knew who Margaret Thatcher was. The woman who, not only led the country that defeated Argentina in a war that every military expert in the world said was impossible for Britain to win, but she is also the leader who is credited with ending the cold war.
Why should Margaret Thatcher re-establish diplomatic relations with a country that would quite happily have cheered on as the military Junta murdered the civilian population of the Falklands? Why should she have re-established diplomatic relations with a country, that despite being defeated, would've re-invaded the Falklands in a heartbeat, if they thought they had a chance.
Face it. Margaret Thatcher will be remembered as one of the greatest leaders in the world, instrumental in ending the cold war.
This Alfonsin bloke did what exactly? And why would she have been jealous of him? What international prestige?
I can guarantee that there are very few people around the world that have heard of Raul Alfonsin, but billions of people know who Margaret Thatcher was.
“”“”“”Unfortunately , the UK and Margaret Thatcher refused to establish diplomatic relations with Raul Alfonsin. She also refused to start dialogues with him. Most probably she was jealous, and distrustful, of his international prestige.“”“”“”“”
Nov 01st, 2013 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol
normally you are pretty rational pgerman, but that comment is hilarious...and utter bollocks. I doubt you can find many people outside of Argentina who have even heard of the guy, but most people know about the Iron lady. :-)
“”“”Iraq a good example.“”“”
a very good example - the war was won very, very quickly.
the peace, on the other hand, was won only by religious nutters of one stripe or another.
they are welcome to it.
@21
Nov 01st, 2013 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The world knows who Thatcher was. The world knows who Hitler, Mussolini, Bush, Gadafi, etc, were..So what?
In addtion, very few pleople around the World have heard about Alfonsin, not to mention Illia...but billions of people know who Diego Maradona is. So what? What would bring popularity?
“every military expert in the world said was impossible for Britain to win”.......these must be the same experts that assisted Galtieri.
I was quite young at that time and I remember that reasonable people in Argentina (and some relatives of mine that lived in Europe) believed that Argentina had no chances in that war.
The RN was the third fleet in importance in the World at that time, had the help of USA (weapons, satellites, etc.) and the NATO, the Defense Budget was the most important of Europe...
Why should Margaret Thatcher re-establish diplomatic relations with Argentina?
This is not the question....the question is Why had Thatcher (and USA, and Europe) establish economic, militar and diplomatic relations and alliances with a Government responsible or terrible crimes?
I don't have to face anything about Thatcher. You must face the fact that she (I must admit that she was not only one for sure) accepted the Argentine Government as an ally and she sold them plenty of weapons and gave them plenty of political and economic support. You must face that Thatcher and Galtieri were politically friends and ally. And she had Pinochet as friend and ally....as we say in Argentina “it seems to be a very tough bone to chew” for you.
As a iconic sociologist once said: “countries have more difficulty digesting victories than digesting defeats”. It’s quite a truth.
If it has to be said anything about Alfonsin is that he was a true democrat, his biggest legacy was upholding the government in place while the economy plummeted down (which he had inherited) and political and social crisis developed, he also decided to have the Junta leaders trialed which no other Latam democracy did nor dare to do so with its own former dictators at the time.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He kept control in the face of military uprisings and safeguarded the institutions and instruments of republicanism. He was condemned at the time for not being tough enough, but I don’t think he could have done much better given the context. I think his can be classified as a political and social restoration administration...
@Dear Ambar, I'm sorry if I offended you. It's was not my intention.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Living in First World countries it is ussually very difficult to see the fact that leaders of Leading Countries tend to have, and develop, relations whit dictators whit a “short term” vision. They provide dictators with funds, weapons, political recognition, technical and militar assistance but usually, dictators change their mind and get confused attacking hteir allies.
Galtieri, Noriega, Gadafi, Hussein...it's a long list....
I have never heard (in this site) that someone said “let's face it, we helped Galtieri when we had thought he would fight against Chile but he, finally, attaked us”
@8 CD, thank you for saying this as an Argentine. I don't even think Simon affirms it.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've addressed the broader implications of the Argentine flag flying over the Falklands as an indefinite renewal of the Junta in 82. The celebration of the invasion in April 82 was a defacto “reelection” of the Junta. And people even today still fall for it, celebrating the Junta and a sick Harry Turtledove alternative history with more Junta, a longer Junta, a more entrenched Junta with popular support -- with a modern minted coin. We never saw post WW2 German coins celebrating the return of the Sudetenland or the conquest of Poland (and as revolting a thought it is, the German Sudetnland may have had a more valid case than mythology of “The Malvinas”). But with Argentina...
Is there ANY self-reflection of how BAD that looks to those of us outside of the British-Argentine (Norte-Latino) conflict?
It seems to me this Alfonsin bloke couldn't even thank Margaret for getting rid of the Junta for him to get elected.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Typical ungrateful Argentine if you ask me.
Why on Earth should Margaret have even asked this turd to kiss her lovely bum after that?
Losers, all of them, always have been and by the looks of it always will be. Just when are the real people going to rid themselves of these crooks? Answer: never because to some extent they are ALL crooks.
My Argentine next door neighbour explained it as “what you have to do or you sink out of sight” and this is what they are brought to by their “government”.
@26
Nov 01st, 2013 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have always saw this mint as a way of expressing gratitude to those who, on the Argentine front lines, fought and suffered that war. Mainyl when we were confortable at home.
I travelled all around the world and visited several former british colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. and I saw plenty of monuments in honor of the british soldiers who fought several wars.
But I must admit that your comment ”We never saw post WW2 German coins celebrating the return of the Sudetenland or the conquest of Poland” is quite a comnet.
You left me thinking about it. I have never saw this coin from this point of view...thank you for your comment. I'll have to process it.
@23 pgerman
Nov 01st, 2013 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you bi-polar?
Reread your own post at 13. That is what my comments @21 refer to.
The in your post @23 you seem to refute your own arguments.
Oh it's too funny for words.
As for your comments about the British fleet, you seem to forget that Argentina had similar ships, more advance aircraft, superiority in numbers and a shorter logistic chain. Added to this is the fact that Argentina was dug in on the Islands and the British had to fight without a land base.
That is why every military expert in the world thought it was impossible for the UK to win.
It's obvious that you know nothing about strategy, weaponry or reality.
Instead of trumpeting the 'party' line, you could try doing some independent research into the matter.
Also, Argentina CELEBRATES the start of the war. The only country, in my experience, that actually does this.
Most countries COMMEMORATE those who died in conflict. They don't celebrate the conflict itself.
You need to grow up and take a good long look at Argentina, and it's belligerent aggressive manner.
@28 “I have always saw this mint as a way of expressing gratitude to those who, on the Argentine front lines, fought and suffered that war. Mainyl when we were confortable at home”
Nov 01st, 2013 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People suffering for you too have more disappearance, more torture, and the rest while terrorizing unarmed civilians who were being offered NEW disappearances, NEW torture and their whole way of life being destroyed to meet your fascist colonialist whims while comfortable people at home were gladly cheered for more disappearance, more torture, and the rest while terrorizing unarmed civilians who were being offered NEW disappearances, NEW torture to meet your fascist colonialist whims under the regime that you (or your parents) suddenly thought was peachy keen -- until they failed you in your need to stand on someone else's neck.
You certainly have a HELUVALOT to process! And it's 30-some years too late for you to suddenly get a grip on it. The Germans got a their heads around it very quickly after the Third Reich was defeated. And you?
@LEPRcom and @GFace, many thanks for your comments. They greatly enrich all of us. I will think, and process, what you wrote.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too bad, that Mr. Conqueror, haven't done another of his brilliant contribution which we are accustomed to. Three of the very same kind.
26)
Nov 01st, 2013 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand that British and outsiders don’t know about the Argentine context and see the events of 1982 as something out of the blue. You don’t have too be interested in Argentine history. But I believe these things never do happen on their own, its always one thing that leads to the other.
I did not know the war had a profound implication in modern day UK as well until I watched Max Hastings documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiTCUh7drU
It’s always more complicated than it seems. The Junta wasn’t as structural as people think, there were divisions and fights for power within it, not all the generals thought the same way. Galtieri was the golden boy of Washington who knew in late 1981 that he would remove Roberto Viola from power with the support of the Navy. He really felt secure that the Americans would force Britain out like it had done in the Suez Crisis. He made the wrong political calculation.
Divisions were such even during the war when the Air Force threatened to withdraw at one stage. I bet you did not know that one.
Argentina was a country that wasn’t at war with anyone since a century; social psyche behaves in a completely different manner as it would do in a folk whose country is used to wars
The 2 of April should of being presented as a Remembrance Day for Argentina of the fallen and those who fought the war rather than a ratification of the claim day. I think the ideal date for that would of being the 7th or 10th of January when the whenever the Argentine settlement was kicked out .
@32 CD
Nov 01st, 2013 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely you mean the 12 June as your Remembrance Day? That was the end of hostilities (on the Falklands at any rate). That is the usual day one chooses to commemorate the dead.
Nothing happened between Britain and Argentina at any point in January.
If you are referring to 1833, then I would dispute your term Argentine settlement for 2 reasons.
Firstly, it was an illegal military garrison that had set up in British territory - which they were warned about prior to setting sail from Uruguay.
Secondly, there was no such country as Argentina in 1833, and the illegal military garrison was from the United Provinces of the River Plate and took it's orders from Montevideo.
I hope that clarify's matters for you.
In reality,
Nov 01st, 2013 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is Argentina really a democracy?
The people still obey or else ,
If the government does not like it, it just changes the rules or moves the goal posts,
Argentina its self , still lives in the past, with big ambitions to be a colonial power,
By taking people against there will, [ if she could, the territories of the British m ]
She still harbour’s ideas of granular in the way it treats people, with the aloofness of arrogance unequalled in South America,
she still acts like a spoilt child, she still abuses threatens and intimidates the Falklanders,
They say [democracy]
We say dictorial leadership of a deluded government,
Just saying like..
.
33)
Nov 01st, 2013 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But does any of that really matter, if Argentina was not at the time formally the “Republic of Argentina” or if Remembrance Day should be held at the beginning of the war or at the end of it?? I’m not interested in the islands and the discussion that are always held here.
GFace raised a perfectly valid case when he made the analogy with Post war Germany. I believe that one thing should be a remembrance day and another thing a claim re-vindication for the Argentines, so I will admit the 2 of April does have these two sides to it.
Other than that it’s not really your business what day Argentina chooses to commemorate/remember
@ 35 CabezaDura
Nov 01st, 2013 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, I have not seen the “throwing the toys out of the pram” argument before from you.
Sad, very sad, I thought you were up to more than that.
36) Im afraid ,If we talk about we are obsessed and brainwashed with the Malvinas if we don’t we are “throwing the toys out of the pram”
Nov 01st, 2013 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know very well what I think of the matter, I dont think there is much more to say
This article is really about the 30 years of democracy in Argentina, not about the war nor the islands
Argentina has never been comfortable with democracy, because the majority of the people who colonised it were from fascist states, Spain & Italy. As they were formed in revolution, with almost constant civil wars, it was hard for Argentines to attain democracy. let alone respect the ideals of a democratic society - that the people have the right of self-determination.
Nov 01st, 2013 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was formed in a time when it was every man for himself, kill or be killed. They sought to expand the country by war, murder and genocide. They have no respect for other nations or their land. Like thieves, all they want is to seize what does not belong to them, by any means and keep it.
Even though there were wars between other South American nations, they established stable democracies in the end, because their populations sought peaceful development.
Argentina on the other hand, has continued to brainwash their population with unrealistic national goals (as has Spain) which puts them at odds with their neighbours. As a consequence, they will never have peace until they accept that the Falklands are British, just as Spain has to accept that Gibraltar wants to remain British too.
@32 CabezaDura
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“date for that would of being the 7th or 10th of January when the whenever the Argentine settlement was kicked out .”
This is the problem Brits have with this.
The settlers from South America-the United Provinces of the River Plate if you like,were not kicked out. 4 chose to leave but they were given the option of staying. Vernet's settlement was regarded as commercial by the British and was approved as it was not regarded as a 'United Provinces settlement. In fact these were the origins of the Falkland Islanders today.
What the Argentines do not publicise is that 10 of the Argentine military that were ejected were later executed by firing squad by the United Provinces for the murder of their commander in front of his wife and children.
They were asked if they wanted to stay as their settlement was approved of by Great Britain. 11 of the 22 settlers and I believe 4 Uruguayan Indians wanted to stay including Antonio Rivero,( later to murder the settlement manager and also settlers who came from the United Provinces of the River Plate). The actual amount of British settlers present that day in 1833 were 2, though there had been more in the 1820s, and by then the British clerk Thomas Helsby and Matthew Brisbane had not arrived-from South America.
I cannot understand why the Argentines do not remember their dead on 14th June, as of 2nd April only a few had been killed by the defending Royal Marines????
I dont know, for me I can say that I dont see the difference is as long as the fallen are remembered.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact of the matter is that the Argentine state considers as it was expelled, and it would make more sense to me if this was remembered in January than in April. That is what I'm saying.
If you have evidence that suggest the settlement was not expelled in 1833 then fine, I’m sure the other posters will have a counterargument to that theory.
I don’t really care about the islands themselves nor writing encyclopedias on MP about a Status quo and a mute argument.
The solution to this is political
39
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hahaha...and ha...
“They were asked if they wanted to stay as their settlement was approved of by Great Britain.”
“Vernet's settlement was regarded as commercial by the British and was approved”
Britain was in no position to approve anything....Vernet's settlement was on East Falkland over which Britain had no claim and no jurisdiction....ever...
@40
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The United Provinces Garrison was not part of the settlement. When the British Ambassador heard that the Garrison was being sent to the Islands, he protested it most strongly. They did not arrive until 6 October 1832, whilst Vernet's settlers had been there since 1826.
What's more important though is that Vernet had permission from the British Ambassador to be on the Islands, but the Garrison did not. That's why it was expelled by Onslow.
Captain Pinedo reported to the United Provinces on his return that:
“…those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before…”
In a letter to Louis Vernet dictated at Port Louis by the head gaucho, the illiterate Jean Simon:
“Commander Pinedo told the people that anyone who wished to go to Buenos Aires, he would take him, and he took some gauchos”.
This was the four settlers who left (a Uruguayan & Brazilian husband & wife) who did so freely.
@41
You forget that the dispute between Britain and Spain had not been settled and both sides claimed sovereignty over all the Islands. Spain had abrogated their cession treaty with the French which stated that they were obliged to maintain a colony on the Falklands. When the Spanish left the Islands in 1811, they were still loyal to the Spanish Crown and they departed for Montevideo, not Buenos Aires.
The United Provinces (or Argentina) had never established sovereignty rights over the Island, either by cession, peaceful proscription or even conquest. The Garrison that arrived in 1832 did so without permission of the British (or Spanish) and was therefore rightfully evicted. Moreover, Argentina gave away any legal right to claim the Islands when they signed the Arana- Southern Treaty in 1850.
It should be noted that Spain did not relinquish their claim to the Islands until 1862, when they finally recognised that Britain had sole & complete sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
43
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain had lost it's colonies by 1833 and those like Argentina (1810), Paraguay (1811) and Uruguay (1815, but subsequently ruled by Brazil until 1828). José de San Martín campaigned for independence in Chile (1818) and in Peru (1820).
...and Spanish possessions had been claimed by the new countries...
In 1862 they had nothing to relinquish...so it is irrelevant what they did or did not recognise.
...and.....”The United Provinces (or Argentina) had never established sovereignty rights over the Island, either by cession, peaceful proscription ”
So what do you call Vernet's settlement?....and what was Vernet's title?
and the Arana- Southern Treaty in 1850....did it mention the Falklands?
A LEGACY OF BRAVERY AND DIGNITY.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On october 30th of 1983 i was two years old, but i have always had a great respect for a excellent man like Raul Alfonsin. What i have always admired from him, is that despite the weakness of his government, he had enough bravery and politic will, in order to judge the members of the criminal junta which had ruled argentina since 1976 untill 1983.
Unfortunatelly he was forced to declare an anmesty for those who had been tortures, but unless he had the true conviction in relation to criminals had to be judged and sentenced, and he was consequent with that conviction.
Beside, during his administration were sanctioned excellent laws, which refered to civil freedoms, like divorce and shared patria potestad.
The main reason why he failed in controlling inflation and some other economic isssues, is because he's main concern was to set up once and for all the bases of a democratic country, that's why he didn't give enough relevancy to the serious economic problems that we had. Beside, it's necesary to say that actualy he was broken down by a financial coup d'etat, that's why he was forced to advance the transference of his government, anyway, he regret taking that decision some years later.
Despite he couldn't achieve some of his purposes in social terms, i will always remind him as the brave man he was, who did all he could in order to achieve argentina to be a democratic nation once and for all, that's the best legacy he could give to we all. In fact, he was one of the few presidents who had enough bravery in order to confront with economic power, as cristina does now, although some people don't like hearing this.
Whereever he is, he will always represent a legacy of bravery and dignity for all the argentines.
@43
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet's settlement did not belong to the United Provinces, it belonged to Vernet & was located on British territory, which is why he asked the British Consul for permission to be there.
Vernet was only given the title of Civil & Military commander, so that Buenos Aires could avoid having to send troops to the Islands & force Vernet to deal with the Americans on his own.
The United States response, the attack of the USS Lexington, caused both the United Provinces and the United Kingdom to send warships to the Islands for the same basic reason, but only Britain had already established sovereignty. The United Provinces was not prepared to go to war with Britain to assert any claim. If they had, the UP would have been defeated.
Argentina's cowardice in 1833 and 1982 proved that their claim was invalid.
First of all Vernet's settlement was on East Falkland and not on British Territory.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain had a claim for West Falkland only...
“Vernet was only given the title of Civil & Military commander, so that Buenos Aires could avoid having to send troops to the Islands & force Vernet to deal with the Americans on his own. ”
Civil & Military commander for whom?....Spit it out....I'll say it for you...Civil & Military commander for Argentina.
To sum up we have Vernet with the title of Civil & Military commander for Argentina ...has a settlement on East Falkland...that Britain has never had a claim to.....
That's clear...
@46
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina did not exist in 1829.
On 10 June 1829, the Buenos Aires Government issued a decree setting up the “Political and Military Command of the Malvinas” (“Comandancia Político y Militar de las Malvinas”), & the British government made an official diplomatic protest to Buenos Aires against the decree. The British viewpoint was that the islands belonged to Britain, and that Buenos Aires had no right to do anything there. That formed the basis for Britain’s diplomatic protest of 19 November 1829, which preserved Britain’s rights.
It should be remembered that no country in the world accepted that the islands belonged to Buenos Aires – Britain regarded them as British, the United States regarded them as open to anyone, Spain still claimed them, and France may perhaps have harboured designs on them, regarding them as rightfully French since they had been first settled by France.
Vernet regarded them as British too.
In April 1829, Vernet told the British Consul to Buenos Aires, Woodbine Parish, that he would be happy for his settlement in the Falklands to be under British sovereignty & two months later in June 1829, shortly before leaving Buenos Aires for the islands, Vernet even wrote two letters to Parish inviting him to invest in his colony!
Vernet made yet another plea for British sovereignty to William Langdon, a British naval lieutenant who visited Port Louis in late 1831 & arranged to purchase Vernet’s first land concession in the Falklands. Vernet knew this message would be passed on to the British Government & it was.
After the events in 1833, Vernet visited Britain in 1852 and signed documents stating that he still believed the Islands were British and had been all along.
Vernet feared that if the United Provinces ever attempted to assert any claim, then he (Vernet) would lose his settlement rights. The Garrison sent in 1832 was an indication that this would happen & Vernet did not want to lose his investment, so he welcomed the British back.
Vernet was asking for British Protection from the Yanks that's all. Also Britain never regarded them as British.....
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0‘I have perused the papers respecting the Falklands Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.”’ The Duke of Wellington 1829
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!