MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, April 24th 2019 - 20:06 UTC

UN human rights experts condemn pardon of ex president Alberto Fujimori

Friday, December 29th 2017 - 10:14 UTC
Full article 51 comments

Condemning the pardoning of former President of Peru, Alberto Fujimori, a group of United Nations independent human rights experts have said that the move undermines the work of the judiciary and the international community to achieve justice. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Patrick Edgar

    Should the UN be in the business of judging and condemning individuals for past historical events regarding countries internal human rights issues? Or should it not primarily be focused instead in getting people out of abusive human right's deprived situations today?

    Dec 29th, 2017 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • RICO

    Failure to follow through on sentences does not act as much of a deterrent to future crimes. Why is this one person being let out, why not let everyone out. Perhaps we should only let out the wealthy, those with powerful friends or those from good, God fearing families.

    It should be a matter for the people. If the government wanted to do something that controversial they should have included it in their election platform.

    Dec 29th, 2017 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Patrick Edgar

    Punishment is a theory. Mankind just doesn't know how to judge it's own societies ailments. We've had a few thousand years to get to know ourselves! ... but still it tragically looks like we enjoy the game of bad guys and good guys more than have any pasionate interest in bettering our social realities. Sorry, didn't mean to start on a different subject area. Still, sanctions have never proven to be a deterrent. All they've succeeded at is breaking partially the will of countries through starvation and asphyxiation. They are more akin to torture “for not doing things our way” than anything else. But narrowing the issue down. One of the our UN principals is to not violate a country's sovereignty, thus maintaining the integrity above all things of each of the countries which make up its world forum of nations. It should have never gotten into the business of sanctions, nor creating “privileged leadership groups”. Sending “peace troops” maybe.... if truly done properly. “Human Rights experts!?” LOL whatever ! Merco Press is so full of shit! First it says United Nations Human Rights experts. Then, as it usually does, tries to include a straight less corrupt and propagandist title corrected statement in the article, and says here “Independent Human Rights Experts”, which means not employees of the United Nations. The article is misleading. It makes it sound like the UN is condemning Peru. Even if people at the United Nations were, it should not be their business to meddle in Peruvian law. Specially when it comes to a country's President's decision regarding an ex President. It's entirely an internal matter. The only appropriate place for the United Nations in such cases, would be if the government was stepping outrageously out of the country's laws, violating the limitations put on it by their own constitution, and the people became locked down oppressed scared for their lives and asked for help.
    Is the English speaking world forgetting how to respect nations?

    Dec 29th, 2017 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    Patrick my boy, write us another two thousand characters. We find your posts so enlightening...

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Enrique Massot

    Patrick really needed to write an essay on punishment in order to finally say everybody should shut up and let the Peruvian president pardon crimes against humanity committed by Alberto Fujimori.

    He needed to develop the idea that criticizing this decision would be “interfering” in Peru's internal matters.

    Patrick conveniently omits to mention that many Peruvians have demonstrated their outrage at the decision too.

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Patrick Edgar

    @Chicurreo, just more self important avoidance on your part. Am I still the focus of your responses?
    @Massot, I made points. I don't expand as much as I do on my points for no reason. Again Enrique, it seems you don't really seek to comprehend well what is being said, not the points the writer is seeking to make. I'll synthesize. Presidents have “pardon powers” for a reason. All countries do. It would behoove us to focus on the substance of this story, and discuss why today's presidency in Peru felt it was appropriate to pardon Fujimori and if there were other more corrupt reasons, to bring those on the table. And we could also discuss how pertinent should this event in Peru be to the United Nations, since the publicist believes it necessary to link it by journalistic force to the United Nations.
    I don't think it very mature at all to be talking about things that happen in other countries as if we should just reach over and rearrange their stuff. You are simply suffering from an ailment that has been sweeping our Anglo English speaking cultures. I'm not going to try and give a huge lecture on it at this point. Perhaps I should prepare something for TED instead. Let's just call it. Sensationalized Superiorist Banality and The Loss of Respect for Foreign People and their Countries.

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    “It would behoove us to focus on the substance of this story, and discuss why today's presidency in Peru felt it was appropriate to pardon Fujimori and if there were other more corrupt reasons, to bring those on the table. ”

    Okay, let's do that. On Thursday last week, Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski escaped impeachment over allegations of taking bribes from Obebrecht, thanks to 10 members of Popular Force - Fujimori's old party - abstaining. Popular Force lawmaker Cecilia Chacon told reporters that the government had promised a faction of her party that Fujimori would be pardoned if it backed him.

    On Sunday, the President announced the pardon of Fujimori, supposedly on medical grounds - ones that had already been rejected as inadequate by the court.

    “Merco Press is so full of shit! First it says United Nations Human Rights experts. Then, as it usually does, tries to include a straight less corrupt and propagandist title corrected statement in the article, and says here “Independent Human Rights Experts”, which means not employees of the United Nations.”

    You should have read more than the first paragraph, Patrick:

    “The experts voicing their concern include Agnès Callamard, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Pablo de Greiff, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.”

    This is indeed their jobs. And when countries break international human rights laws, that is the concern of the UN. As they said:

    “International human rights law restricts the granting of amnesties, pardons or other exclusions of responsibility in cases of serious human rights violations including extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances,”

    Rico is right. Part of preventing such things from happening again is making sure the perpetrators don't get away with their crimes.

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Patrick Edgar

    Look, I'm not defending either Fujimori or Kuczynski . I deplore corruption . I'm just not so convinced by how we have been going about these things. Interesting the “peripheral job titles” you reference as U.N. employees. Special Reporters? It just seems to reinforce what my point is. There are other forms of corruption.

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    You said that Mercopress was 'full of shit' for calling them UN human rights experts. Here's what the UN says:

    “A Special Rapporteur is an independent expert appointed by the Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. This position is honorary and the expert is not United Nations staff nor paid for his/her work. The Special Rapporteurs are part of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.”

    So they are not UN employees, but they are appointed by the UN to report to the Human Rights Council. I think the article was perfectly fair.

    You do realise that your dream of unifying South American countries would require them giving up sovereignty, right? Vastly more so than being a member of the UN and obeying international laws that they have signed up to.

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Patrick Edgar

    @DemonT. I wrote this for you as a reply to another article thread. It's too long for the space we have here, so I'll put it in parts as they fit. I think two should be enough.
    1/of 2 or 3:
    t's such an interesting article actually. 
    The publisher or journalist, rather than report the story and just title is with something like “Fresh water unavailability strikes families ... or children in Argentina” It takes the stand of a moral condemnation instead, something completely unethical in objective unbiased news reporting. 
    Clearly Merco Press is out to get Argentina. I actually have a collection of screen shots where I have systematically been isolating their selection of words, and if you look across the board at all of their stories and every time they qualify their titles with the selection of adjectives, like a faulted typewriter, you can see how they always seek an “effect” when it comes to their British tied interest for the islands political context with South America and their situation with Argentina. For example the story about Macri looking to beef up Argentina's cruise ship marketing business. They chose the wordage “aggressively promoting” giving as always the inference of a hostile country. I'm not saying that there is a system or propagandist methodology behind it, but clearly after following Merco Press for a while, you can distinctly see that somebody in there “chooses” to go after Argentina with a negative perspective. It could be as simple as old school prejudiced cultural racism in their whole journalistic environment, because you also see it in how they write certain stories about other countries or world issues as well. ... continues...

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Carry on, although I will probably just paste my reply from the other article.

    Personally I didn't see anything odd or hostile about using the word aggressively. I agree the headline about the little girl was biased though.

    Dec 30th, 2017 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Patrick Edgar

    2/ of 2
    On a side note; no doubt setting up the appearance to be endorsed by Uruguay and cleverly installing their hidden agenda in a Montevideo office allows for the seeming endorsement of their vocabulary choices by a people who don't actually understand that level of semantics, as the publication is not originally written in their mother tongue official language, Spanish. Another obvious one is “The US withdraws -support- for the search of the ARA San Juan”. This title suggests that the US no longer justifies the worthiness of helping Argentina. You can actually debunk this “maligning half lie” in the article itself, when they quote what was actually said by U.S. officials. MercoPress either uses its printing presses for political hostility, which would not surprise me coming from British society's political views on other world nations, or is simply stupidly immature and poorly run as news agency. I tend to think the accurate truth about what is going on at Merco Press is close to the first of the two. Either way they should not continue unnoticed by the international fair and ethical news reporting community and associations.

    Dec 31st, 2017 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • bushpilot

    Maybe MP is a response to the pile of propaganda and lies the Argentine government heaps on its populace in their attempt to steal another people's land, the Falkland Islands. Maybe not.

    Dec 31st, 2017 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    Voice claims this website is sponsored by the Falkland Island Association charity. I don't know if that is or was true, but it definitely is hosted in Montevideo and run by a Uruguayan journalist.

    Most of the headlines are fine, but look at the below which I picked out of the archives:

    “Acute intoxication with cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in Montevideo beaches”

    “Morales insists in involving the Pope in the ongoing sea outlet dispute between Bolivia and Chile”

    “Mt Hope is the tallest mountain in the British Antarctic Territory with 3.239 meters”

    ““Ground break” in tackling protein defect that causes Huntington's disease”

    These all read oddly to an English speaker, and the first three are exactly the sort of mistakes a native Spanish speaker would make. (And I'm curious, since you speak both languages and were educated in the US, whether you can spot what is wrong with them.)

    As I said on the other thread:

    I believe you are overthinking this. The headlines are obviously not written by a native English speaker, so it's silly to look for nuance in the choice of words.

    From my experience, the stories about Macri and his government are generally favourable, and those about CFK very critical. Also there seems to be some kind of exchange of stories with Clarin, which holds similar views. You may well suspect this bias in MP is because Macri has a more favourable attitude towards Britain, and a less hostile one to the Falklands, and you may well be right. It's not simply opposed to Argentina though.

    There is also a Spanish language version of this site. Do the headlines there strike you as similarly biased?

    Dec 31st, 2017 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Patrick Edgar

    @bushpilot. You bring up 2 points.
    Conveniently, as does Britain, you choose to ignore the first half of the island's history, and speak as if illogically out of no-where Argentina decides it wants to take land and invade it ignoring there happens to be people living on it. You like the sound of that don't you? Why do you and Britain choose to focus on the conflict this way, instead of talking about its problematic? Well the response is obvious. Your country is uncomfortable with the whole story, and would rather try and look forward and away as it erases the past as quickly as it can. Britain rather dispute the conflict rather than face it. Yet it is real and it is not going anywhere. To ignore and stamp out the Argentine argument, will simply leave on the islands a festering lie which will be for ever the reason why the islanders will want to avoid talking about the beginning of their settlement on the islands, will teach their kids a half truth in school etc.
    Argentina has no coveted “propaganda”, the way the islanders do for example try to promote a tailored version that victimizes them pretending to make Britain completely unrelated to why actually, the conflict exists. They are blocked from calling for British accountability. It's easier to blame Argentina. While Argentina uses the only tools that it has available to overcome the overwhelming influence and power of the British campaign to take the islands from justice and exposed truth. It educates its children to remember what happened in 1833. There is nothing wrong with that, it's our history. There is no propaganda going on as Argentina openly states to the world it simply wants Britain to face it in earnest without hiding behind the artifices of international courtrooms itself created and customized to aid in its favor. Britain is obvious in its con-artistry, like when it unexp sprang the islander delegation on Timmerman, and then tired to use that to say Argentina does not want to recognize the islander

    Dec 31st, 2017 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “Argentina has no coveted “propaganda””

    I thought you'd been there? There are signs up all over the place, they teach children about it in school, make biased kids cartoons to be shown on TV, and insist that all maps should show the Falklands as part of Argentina, in defiance of reality. They keep passing laws about it, too, for some reason.

    Plus CFK was always bringing it up at the UN, asking neighbouring countries to support Argentina, and complaining to the UK about 'colonialism'. You don't think Argentina spins the facts in the way that looks best for them? Of course they do.

    Dec 31st, 2017 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Patrick Edgar

    Yes, and like just said. There is nothing wrong with teaching our children what British power pressure and influence succeeds in making our country have to go-on without settling the matter.
    Argentina shows the islands because it's point is that as long as it does not concede in civil diplomatic negotiations to settle the matter with Britain, it continues to claim, sovereign right to them. Mind you, it's not just Argentina that shows the islands. In all normality and proper fair status of the situation, they are shown nearly everywhere with the name Islas Malvinas in parenthesis.
    Of course they keep passing laws about how to proceed with the claim. Kirchner did all that she could do, and some through the proper means and venues. ... You don't seem to get that this is a territorial denouncement of the illegal usurpation of Argentina's sovereign establishment on the islands during the 19th century. Are you familiar with what happened ?

    Dec 31st, 2017 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • bushpilot

    Chile shouldn't steal other people's land and ruin that people's economic development.

    But, Argentina should.

    Dec 31st, 2017 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Patrick Edgar

    Look. If it hadn't been for the stupid Junta's invasion, they'd still be shearing sheep on the Falklands and nothing else. Britain put a damn fishing road in their hand and an oil well in their back yard and told them to go look busy for them. Now they are all acting like they built up the islands out of their own initiative. Besides, I'm one of those Argentine who believe the islands should be politically independent, and separate from G.Britain. Argentina should then drop their sovereignty claim, include them in a protectorate territory and support them as much as they need with the aim shoring them up while they build their own independent nation with triple citizenship, allowing Argentine to come and go as they please, and recognizing them as one of their original settlers. The FIG is making a mockery of democracy and simply standing as a constant insult to South American post colonial era history. I never said Argentina should have the islands fuck the islanders! Quite the opposite. I always said the islanders have earned their home. My point is that G.Britain needs to start respecting the world's nations as equal and stop acting like everyone must do what it wants. That's Britain's only problem in my view. It needs to quit the insolence, let go of the islands and show some respect to Argentina, which it never has. It hypocritically manipulates pressures and presumes. It needs to just simply drop its agenda and self serving policies about the other countries. End of story. Then the world might start respecting and admiring it again the way we once did. But as of right now, it's just acting like a hysterical woman who doesn't know how to put the gun down

    Jan 01st, 2018 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    You know that Argentina has a lot of propaganda, you just think it's justified because you agree with their cause. Don't you realise that Britain, and the Islanders, think they are in the right too?

    And every country has a self serving agenda, or rather their governments have an agenda to serve their own country. That's kinda their job. I think they should also have an agenda not to screw anyone else in the process, but I absolutely do expect my elected government to put Britain's interests first. This is why, for example, Argentina and Brazil are pushing for a bigger beef quota in the Mercosur-EU trade bill, and France and Ireland are pushing for a smaller one.

    Argentina under CFK tried to screw the Islanders in an attempt to push its agenda, and that is not necessarily wise. If you ever want something like your plan to happen, you would need their cooperation.

    You never replied to my post above. What do you think of these headlines:

    “Acute intoxication with cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in Montevideo beaches”

    “Morales insists in involving the Pope in the ongoing sea outlet dispute between Bolivia and Chile”

    “Mt Hope is the tallest mountain in the British Antarctic Territory with 3.239 meters”

    ““Ground break” in tackling protein defect that causes Huntington's disease”

    They are not what a native English speaker would write.

    Jan 01st, 2018 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    Patrick “...allowing Argentine to come and go as they please...” Seems to be the current reality with regular service via LAN.

    Maybe you should inquire about the treatment the islanders endured PRIOR to the Argentine invasion to understand why the Falklanders prefer to remain British.


    Jan 01st, 2018 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Patrick Edgar

    I didn't say it right @Chicureo. I meant that what'd be normal in my view, not forged the way British do in these forums carry on when they justify themselves with bullshit about Argentina being a threat to the islands, is for the Islanders to be politically independent, entirely. No British ties of any kind so that the conflict can end. Argentine and British then should simply both have citizenship to the islands, and reciprocally as well. That would settle sufficiently the Argentine claim, who as “islanders” could do what they please socially commercially, and culturally, as much as the British. Then the islands can become demilitarized under their own single flag. Perhaps they could even choose a new name for themselves. That's what countries do, when they really mean peace, and want to do what is optimally highest for the people living on a such a disputed territory. As the islands are right now, they are merely a land interest by Great Britain in a “we take” mode, supported by the lie that Argentina is a threat. This is why 'some' believe the war of 82 was set up by a conspiracy of “agencies” in the U.S and Britain. You can modify that any way you want, but the concept would be always something along those lines. The more you look at the post war history and social rapport ... media communications and so forth, the more that appears to be the case. A lot of unprovoked bogus justifications of hostility at different levels. Could it be all just something done at the “people” level in general, socially and culturally? Let's face it, English speaking cultures are belligerent and daring. You yourself Chicureo said something that I really appreciated, which supports what I have always said. We are NON warring societies needing to relate to countries with an expansionist agenda to exploit foreign resources. And it was when in an other thread you said that South American countries lost land not because they are colonialists, but because they are lousy administrators

    Jan 01st, 2018 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “This is why 'some' believe the war of 82 was set up by a conspiracy of “agencies” in the U.S and Britain.”

    The reason some people believe that is because they want to see themselves as a peaceful, non-warring society who would never attempt to impose their will through force. Isn't it nicer to think it's only those *other* (English speaking) cultures who are belligerent bullies and Latin America is one big, peaceful happy family?

    I think the Islanders would be happy to become independent at some point in the future, although I expect Argentina to do all it can to prevent this. The sticking point would be letting anyone who wanted move there. I am British and have no more right to live in the Falklands, or get a job there without a visa than you do. You used to live in Hawaii, are you familiar with how it went from independent country to US state?

    Jan 01st, 2018 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Patrick Edgar

    People who have proposed that hypothesis @DemonT are people who have a knowledgeable historical picture of how wars actually develop behind the scenes. It's not a personable and banal psychological interpretation, or whimsical opinion. You would have to study well the expanded history of Argentina's relationship to the US and Britain without any self interest, plus would have to consciously disarm your own thoughts from the way you have learned things so far to be able to successfully explore this possibility truly objectively, as if you outright came from another country outside the west.
    Governements lie DemonT. Yes, that's right. They LIE to all people about information, and have secret agreements with other countries. Even with the country they have signed “peace treaties” in order to seize being enemies with. Argentina had to agree with Britain after the 1990 accord to inform it of each and any military activity it carries out anywhere in the country. It's sick. And we all know people are violent and want to control others stemming from deeply psychologically seeded reasons to do with fear and insecurity. The treaty of Versailles after WW2 essentially is what gave rise to Hitler in Germany. Your country is probably one of the countries that more problems has caused the world in its entire history if you look at the evolving scheme of things.
    My solution of a shared citizenship and an island country that would stay independent inside an Argentine protectorate, or shared British Argentine protectorate would work effortlessly, if Britain and Argentina respect the natural proportionate course of development that an archipelago of that population would have. And you know why? ... Because of its geographical topographical and weather reality. Left to their own “desire” the islands would probably never have more than 5 or 6 thousand people, if that. And would thus only expect for themselves the size industrial commercial infrastructure that population would want

    Jan 01st, 2018 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I wasn't born yesterday, Patrick. I know governments lie. But I don't believe the UK government would have chosen to provoke a war they couldn't be sure of winning, and they were not at all sure of winning this one. And what benefit did the war give the US? It was rather a disadvantage to them as it meant supporting one ally over another, and they ended up pissing off a lot of Latin American countries.

    I think this must be the 1990 agreement you are talking about:

    III. - Información Recíproca sobre Movimientos Militares

    1. - .Las partes diplomática y información por se proporcionarán recíprocamente, por la vía con una anticipación mínima de 25 días, escrito acerca de:

    A.- Movimientos de fuerzas navales compuestas por cuatro o más buques;
    B.- Movimientos de fuerzas aéreas compuestas por cuatro o más aviones;
    C.- Ejercicios en que participen más de 1.000 hombres o en que se efectúen más de 20 salidas de aeronaves;
    D.- Ejercicios anfibios o aerotransportados en que participen más de 500 hombres o se efectúen más de 20 salidas de aeronaves.

    Las áreas de aplicación de esta medida son:

    Para las Fuerzas Argentinas: dentro del área limitada por las líneas que unen las siguientes coordenadas geográficas en el orden especificado: 46° S 63° W, 50° S 63° W, 50° S 64° W, 53° S 64° W, 53° S 63° W, 60° S 63° W, 60° S 20° W, 46° S 20° W, 46° S 63° W.

    Para las Fuerzas Británicas: la zona ubicada al sur del paralelo 40° S, al oeste del meridiano 20° W y al norte del paralelo 60° S.

    Cada Parte aceptará la presencia de un buque observador de la otra Parte en la proximidad de fuerzas navales compuestas por cuatro o más buques que realicen maniobras dentro del área de aplicación pertinente.

    You can read it better than me, but it's not any military activity, it's limited to a certain area (which I haven't mapped but I presume is around the Falklands and other islands), and Britain made a reciprocal commitment. I assume the purpose was to avoid accidentally starting another war.

    Jan 02nd, 2018 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Patrick Edgar

    What? Of course they would have been sure of winning ! That war, as all wars are DemonT, was looked at in long terms. Experienced warring countries look past the possibility of winning. Specially countries with the armament and technologies capacities of NATO. Their main interest is in the post war course and what they want to obtain for the effort and cost of the engagement, meaning making it profitable beyond worth it. In this sense; consider that their geopolitical power and military position in the world is what most matters to the big players of the planet, so the US was very interested in that war happening and how they handled it. Of course needless to say, that is not what we could show diplomatically. Our problem was we could not let Latin America see just how willing we were to quickly chuck out the window our OAS sentiments. Nor have Latinamerica be suspicious of just how much we want to control what happens in the area. Bad enough we barely were forgiven for all our puppet dictator fiascoes of the late 60's and 70's. Do you think Britain would have moved ahead against the Argentine freely without seeing if the US was OK with the effects a war would have between the US, NATO, Europe and Argentina and Latin America? of course not. The war was more than OKayd by the US. They thing is we hid all that, obviously.
    In that “peace agreement” DemonT, There are also secret clauses, that are not made public, many to do with economic agreements. Which existence in themselves, is so revealing of why Britain does everything, isn't it?
    We must bring on a new era of equal nations and end the “power and dominion classes” of nations in the world. If all men are created equal, then all nations must be also.

    Jan 02nd, 2018 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “Of course they would have been sure of winning !”

    No, the war was by no means a walkover for Britain, because of the distance and isolation. This meant logistical problems including no resupply, the only aircraft which could be sent were harriers and helicopters due to the small aircraft carriers, and it allowed plenty of time for Argentine troops to dig in before the task force arrived.

    If our government had planned it, I would expect them to be a LOT better prepared and equipped in general.

    “consider that their geopolitical power and military position in the world is what most matters to the big players of the planet”

    IMO opinion this was a big consideration for Britain in deciding to fight, and a big consideration for the US in supporting their NATO ally over their TIAR ally during the cold war. The British government did not want to look weak in front of cold war allies and enemies, and the US didn't want one of their big NATO allies to look weak. That's besides the more personal motive of Thatcher: capitulating to Argentina would have nosedived her already low popularity while winning the war gave it a massive boost.

    But that's supposing they were faced with this decision by the actions of Argentina. You still haven't said what the US gained from the war, and we know they lost trust of some Latin American nations. Yes, the US gave Britain some support, but they would have preferred the war not happen at all.

    And if you are going to bring in secret clauses, how do you claim to know what they say? Maybe they secretly agreed to sell cocaine to America or launch space weapons or breed killer armadillos. Kinda pointless to speculate if there's no evidence. Secret clauses aren't revealing of anything unless they actually exist.

    Jan 02nd, 2018 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Patrick Edgar

    DemonT. There was never any question it was a win my friend. Are you kidding me!? It was a Latin American army. Non of the Latin American countries had, and still have not engaged in any serious real international wars in modern times! We don't know how to fight wars ! It's all hypothetical ! The reason Britain downplayed it was because IT WAS ARGENTINA. An unofficial Allie, a Western country, a Cultural and Social part of our family of nations ! This was the first war within the western family of nations that had occurred since WW2. It was rediculous, but people had no time to react because the Junta kept it secret and sprang the invasion on everyone including the Argentine people. Britain could not look trigger happy DemonT. It would have turned international sentiments against Britain. Britain had to look Beleaguered ! Astonished and Shocked ! ... and then make it look like they had to mount a painstaking effort, do something they really didn't want to do... in a call of duty for the islanders. The truth is that the Junta's invasion was god sent for Britian in its long term goal to dominate the South Atlantic. Britain always wanted the South Atlantic to be its resource rich back yard. That's how they've always seen it. Never as a place where there were other nations they needed to respect

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Patrick my friend, write us another two thousand characters. We find your posts entertaining.

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    If it had been a fight on equal terms then I would agree with you. Britain had and has stronger and much more experienced armed forces. But the circumstances strongly favoured Argentina. Their air force managed to do considerable damage and I have heard the regular army units fought well, unlike the conscripts. Britain suffered a lot of deaths and injuries, and also lost many ships and aircraft. Do you know what those things cost? No government would be willing to pay that price simply for verisimilitude.

    Moreover, you are suggesting that Britain intentionally made itself look weaker, which is unlikely to say the least. Using a proportional amount of force and trying to minimise casualties is what would keep international sentiments in Britain's favour, not suffering real losses to a third world dictatorship.

    Imagining that the UK government had planned the war, they indeed would not want to look too prepared. But on the other hand, they would want to make sure they did have the equipment available to do the job, which was very much not the case. Some of the ships sent were about to be sold off, some were undergoing maintenance, and one had been decommissioned. Lots of civilian ferries, tankers and ocean liners were requisitioned. Britain was only able to send 42 Harriers while Argentina had 122 jet fighters available, and it showed.

    By the way, are you claiming the generals ruling Argentina collaborated in starting and losing a war for Britain and America's benefit, knowing that it would result in their own fall from power?

    What do you think of his idea that you don't know how to fight wars? Do you reckon Chile would have won if Argentina had gone after those three islands in the Beagle channel instead of the Falklands?

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • darragh

    “Earth to Patrick Edgar, Earth to Patrick Edgar, have you stopped taking your meds again? Over”.

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • The Voice

    PE, we see what you are getting at. You want peace and friendship, very laudable.

    But what you seem to misunderstand is that no-one trusts Argentina. The peaceful islands were invaded by your country causing a war. Your troops treated the islanders like dogs invading their homes, holding pistols to their heads and imprisoning them in awful conditions. Until just recently your government was terming the Islanders as squatters, 7th generation islanders! M Argentina was and continues to make life difficult for the islanders by restricting trade and movement as well as issuing beligerant sounding statements like the one on Mercopress right now.
    Everyone in Britain and the Falklands does not trust Argentina. That is why the islanders held a referendum to confirm they wished the islands to remain a British Overseas Territory. The British military are on the Islands simply to keep the islanders safe from another invasion. No other reason.

    Argentinian claims to sovereignty are irrelavent. No-one trusts your country. I doubt whether that will ever change. You are wasting your breath and your time.

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo


    The military junta of Argentina actually made the right decision of not attacking Chile and instead the Falklands because it was a much better prize. (Well they thought at the time.)

    The Beagle Islands, all three of them together, were three small Islands, less than 400 square kilometers collectively, utterly uninhabited, of no intrinsic economic value in and of themselves (their significance was in things like Antarctic claims, fishing rights and other abstractions) in the Beagle channel at Tierra Del Fuego, dating back to 1904.

    And truthfully, the claim for the islands was pure typical bullshit, with most Argentineans being hard pressed even to locate them on a map.

    I suggest to read,
    which is fairly neutral reporting the conflict.

    An interesting quote: Argentine Falklands War veteran Martín Balza, Chief of Staff of the Argentine Army (1991–1999), caused a stir in 2003 when he declared his conviction that in 1978, Chile would have won the war had it broken out.

    Pinochet was quoted as planning a bloody and extended war...

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    I think I read about it on Wikipedia before, but I was wondering what you thought back when Argentina was close to invading?

    It's sort of weird to me that they developed this conflict since the two juntas seem to have been similar ideologically. But it would have been a lot bigger and bloodier than the Falklands war, so I guess you were lucky.

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Chicureo

    It would have been a disastrous war for both countries, with Chile having a far inferior military. In 1978 the government was prepare to close the mountain passes and fight a protracted bloody defense, knowing that Argentina would take parts of the south. Bolivia and Peru we now know we're not ready to join Argentina, but at the time we expected them to join Argentina.

    That is why today we have the second most powerful military in Latin America.

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Heh, don't you get on with any of your neighbours? It seems silly that either country was willing to fight a protracted, bloody war over those three little islands. But then, people said the same about the Falkland war.

    Would I be right in thinking Peru and Bolivia might join in to recover the land they lost to Chile in the War of the Pacific? Or at least, that is what you feared at the time? I guess with their help, it could have gone badly for Chile.

    Argentina isn't likely to do anything now, anyway. They accepted the arbitration decision and don't have much of an army left.

    Has Chile ever lost a war?

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Chicureo


    With the exception of wars with the Mapuche during the Spanish colonial period, we as a country has never lost a war. Argentina and Chile have always had near wars over territory, but we've always countered their military might, despite our smaller size.–Chilean_naval_arms_race

    Today, Argentina has a toothless defense force, who's aircraft and vessels are a threat to their own soldiers.

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    It shows how foolish the whole thing is. Chile and Argentina both borrowing money they can't afford, to buy ships that they only need because the other one has them, in order to fight a war that neither really wants. And when they finally agree to stop, Brazil goes and kicks it all off again. It's a bit like China getting nukes because the US and Russia had them, and India getting them because China had them, and then Pakistan getting them because India had them.

    At least you've never actually gone to war with Argentina, I think you've both fought all your other neighbours.

    Jan 03rd, 2018 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Don Alberto

    Patrick Edgar

    How did Spanish America become Spanish?

    How did Argentina become a sovereign state and no longer a Spanish colony?

    How did Argentina acquire the provinces Chaco, Formosa and Misiones?

    How did Argentina acquire Patagonia?

    Was it by using force?

    Jan 04th, 2018 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Enrique Massot

    I'd like to come back to the story topic above with the permission of respected commentators.

    “Fujimori was serving a 25-year jail term for serious human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and kidnapping,” notes the story.

    “His conviction had been hailed as a major achievement in the fight against impunity.”

    “The announcement of his pardon by President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, on December 24, has sparked protests in the capital, Lima, and elsewhere in the country.”

    Keeping Fujimori in prison where he belongs is necessary as a strong deterrent on crimes against humanity.

    A similar trend is beginning to emerge in Argentina, where convicted criminals who were part of the last civic-military dictatorship have been awarded house arrest or even allowed to go on “holidays” to the beach side.

    Should presidents make use of pardon? Absolutely. There are many cases where justice miscarriages are pretty well established, and human compassion cases where pardon may make a big difference in society. Usually though, presidents do get detailed information on cases and can make thoughtful decisions.

    Kuczynski's pardon looks opportunistic and does not seem to fit into any of the cases I mentioned above.

    Jan 04th, 2018 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Don Alberto

    Patrick Edgar, HELLOOOOO! are you still alive?

    How did Spanish America become Spanish?

    How did Argentina become a sovereign state and no longer a Spanish colony?

    How did Argentina acquire the provinces Chaco, Formosa and Misiones?

    How did Argentina acquire Patagonia?

    Was it by using force?

    Jan 06th, 2018 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Now that his Facebook ban has ended and he's able to post his 'words of wisdom' elsewhere, he's lost interest.

    PS. It was by using force.

    I agree with you, even if our conspiracy theory-loving friend doesn't. It looks opportunistic as hell.

    Jan 06th, 2018 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Patrick Edgar

    @ Don Alberto, WHAT!
    ok... let's see...
    Argetina did not “become Spanish”. Spain invaded and colonized, gave us their language. Since the beginning of history, Britain included deery, human beings invade and conquer where there are others, it's unquestionably wrong (again, for Britain too deery) but sadly, Humanity is still unable too seize its own transgressions and abuses committed against itself or others of the same kind, and rather seeks to blame others under the authority of ... (?) , deery.
    2) Colonies seek to break off (also, since the begening of civilization, no matter what they are called) for reasons at a few different levels. One is sort “karmic”, they were started for usage and the offense eventually catches up, because it is people who end up embodying that “usage” and realize they have a right to make their own (sooner or later they do), then their is a geographic aspect as it relates to natural human habitation, which usually coincides with the fact that land was sought elsewhere to find “the usage needed”. There are cases of proximity, where the offense has more to do with depriving the right of self governance to a people who have a different or unique history, or different language and so forth. The only way for a colonizing country to stop the natural tendency of colony separation essentially is for it to surrender its authority to the authority of its off springs. The more they bow to its “children” the better they get along. Hence why there is such a good relationship between the US and Britain ;) . However, you can't fake it, and pretend that you are giving your children everything they want and not have them come out completely stupid and un-selfgoverning.
    3) No place in an integral country is “acquired or obtained” differently than how the rest of the county formed under a single established leadership of equals. Yours would be the kind of thinking, (by another country for example ;) that seeks to instigate insurrection or separatism

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    So you did come back...

    But you obviously don't know that there is a very blurred line between a colony and a region of a country. There were plenty of countries who built their empires by conquering their neighbours, and were at least nominally part of the same country. The Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Russian empire which still has most of the land it conquered, though not in Europe. And then many empires made their colonies into 'integral parts of the country', like France with Algeria - which rebelled (separatists?) - and French Guiana, which seems happy with the arrangement. Or Spain with the Canary Islands and Portugal with its former colonies and still with the Azores. Or Ireland which used to be an integral part of the UK, but in many ways was treated like a colony.

    So how do you decide who is 'allowed' to rebel or not? Algeria? Ireland? The Spanish Netherlands but not Catalonia or the Basque country? Ceuta and Melilla? The Canary islands?

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Patrick Edgar

    It's quite a pickle, isn't it little Demon? That's precisely why no one has the right to tell Argentina it is “deserving” or not of Patagonia. When the province of Buenos Aires, or the province of La Rioja came to being, it was because they overpowered whatever people where there before. The provinces of Patagonia were no different, except we moved a little forward in time and thus progress. But England came to being no more rightously than Buenos Aires, or Santa Cruz province did. And the country of France is one thing, while French Guiana is something different, in which case, and in this case it really is up to its people though to decide how they want to live, because there are no other claims to that territory (Not that I know of anyways) They game over my friend, the train has stopped and the station was reached the day all nations presented themselves as equals before one another in a single world administrative body. The United Nations. This is one of the most significant days in human civilization. Even if it started a little loft sided, and hasn't really embraced fully the meaning if its own preamble. In fact it veered off quite a bit. Still that day all countries, all cities, all peoples, all languages said; We are here now, and now we have a mark on which to plant our staring totem pole. Our unit of measure for all sovereignty discussions can now have a ground zero from which to base and initiate all matters pending. We now have a BUN (before UN), and an AUN (After UN)
    Facebook Group: United Peoples Organization ;)_

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Yes patronising Patrick, it's complicated. Argentina killed many of the original inhabitants of Patagonia, took it over and encouraged new people to settle there, ones who would agree to be Argentine. The US staged a coup in Hawaii and encouraged new people to settle there, people who eventually voted to make it a US state, despite it being thousands of miles away. And the UK encouraged people to settle in the Falklands who - surprise, surprise - now vote to be British. So what gives you the right to tell the last group they are wrong?

    And why is French Guiana different, in your opinion? It's officially part of France, it's in the EU, it uses the Euro. How about Corsica? An island that is part of France, but has its own language and a rather different culture, it historically belonged to Italy instead. Do they get to chose their own destiny?

    What about the Canary islands? An archipelago located only 100 kilometres from Morocco, they are an autonomous community of Spain. Should they get to choose? Should they be handed to Morocco because they are closer?

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Patrick Edgar

    Why are you calling me “patronizing”? I meant “little” affectionately. You do realize British society is being slowly brainwashed to see Argentina as an enemy, now that you bring my attention there. Just thought I'd point that out. Because if there is one constant uninterrupted characteristic I get always, absolutely always from the British, is suspicious defensiveness. And let me remind you, we are not a military power, and have not participated in any international threatening warring activities for nearly 200 years, and we have never threatened the British Isles, ever. Must be the reason why your country so desperately does not want to forget nor let go of the Junta's amorphous stupid gullible venture of 82, where it never really even attacked warring, but merely passively took back territory. Yet still, British loading for Argentine oozes all over the internet. There is only one possible psychological explanation for it . Guilt-Resentment pressure generated Propagandist Suggestion and Conditioning by various Authority venues. ... Right. now to your question.
    You're a little off about Hawaii Demon. The US did not “stage” a coup. Northern Europeans being now born in Hawaii insurrected against the bogus Monarchy, then more American's came, and yes ... the whole thing was one big bamboozle fest. Different to the Falklands where the British had left like 70 years earlier, conceding to Spanish expulsion and were no longer present on the islands nor effectively occupying them, then when they saw the situation had changed favorably to them, returned to kick of the defenseless Argentine, who they knew were going to be the only impediment to them having the choice of coming back whenever they wanted to take the islands if they so decided, as the Argentine now constituted the first real earnest permanent sovereign settlement and right to the islands. In other words the Falklands were about selfish greed. While Hawaii was true opportunism, based on weak sovereign desire.

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    I'm pretty damn sure it would be considered patronising in the US too. Maybe not in Argentina, they seem keen on these mildly offensive nicknames. If you ever come to Britain, be careful what you say to people in pubs.

    IMO the anti-Argentine stuff is a) a holdover from the war, and b) due to corresponding anti-British attitudes from Argentines which feed off each other. I watched some Youtube videos about it and the comments were very educational about Argentine insults.

    As for the Argentines' attitudes, that may also be a holdover from the war, probably increased by the previous government who loved to call us pirates and thieves.

    And I'm not seeing the big difference except that Argentina continues to exist as a country so it can still complain, whereas the native Hawaiians just have to make the best of it (being a US state is no terrible fate, but it's not so great for maintaining their culture and language.)

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Patrick Edgar

    I know Hawaii better than you do, a lot better than you do. I lived there and spent a few years on different islands starting a new with new people I met in each on of them. I know locals, what you call “natives”, which in reality there are virtually none left. Most locals are sons of immigrants, and the definition of local, basically is dark skinned people who got their melatonin from everywhere in the Pacific except Hawaii, within which you may meet those who say “I have real Hawaiian blood in me”. Hawaii lost any chance of ever being independent again unless they started from scratch for whatever reason, in few words because they never knew loudly enough compared to Europeans, what they wanted. And that tenuous voice has long since been silenced. What you have now are locals who like to act like they are native Hawaiians, make a lot of noise without knowing what to shout it at or where to go with it, but who in reality base their “rights” on good ol fashioned human prejudiced loathing of outsiders.
    As far as Britain and Argentina go, my whole qualm is about the nature of fighting and abusing in human psychology and war. Argentine and Britain ended up in a war. People as well as Humanity rather not have wars, obviously. So there are natural physiological mechanisms that when two people fight in a social context are apparent. Sometimes, not always, but normally countries eventually emulate them, and compensate for the belligerence, one way or another. For example feel bad about what just happened and try to encourage peace, and returning to their original relationship when in a state of peace. Usually the winner having the upper hand, yet still naturally springing back to a state of peace. What does Britain do instead? In light of Argentina being vanquished and decimating its military establishment, having a perfect record of non confrontation with Britain or the islands. It proceeds to install a fully decked out disproportionate military base aimed at Argentina

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Don Alberto

    I note that Patrick Edgar wastes a lot of words so as not to admit, that present day Argentina is based on the use of force against spain, neighboring countries and the indigenous people.

    Enter Patrick Edgar on my ignore list.

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    That's pretty sad if it's true. But of course they suffered the same as other native Americans from old world diseases, which made it much harder for them to compete with the already more-advanced Europeans who took over their islands. I don't think Hawaii is likely to be independent again, and I don't think the Falklands are likely to be Argentine now either.

    As for the military base, perhaps you would be less unhappy if you learned the true history and realised that Argentina was still a big military threat to the islands when Britain built the base. Only the military governor of the Falklands surrendered, and against orders. The Argentine junta never did. It was certainly a possibility that they would try to retake them.

    Now, 35 years later, it is true that Argentina's armed forces are weak and little threat. Perhaps the amount of military there is excessive now. But Britain is weaker also. Our government knows that if Argentina does take the islands again, there is nothing they could do, so from paranoia they try to make it impossible.

    The real problem is that the dispute is still unresolved, that is why the two countries have not returned to their original relationship and level of trust.

    Jan 07th, 2018 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!