Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 348–365 | Cite as

A view from the South: the Falklands/Malvinas and Latin America

  • Stella KreppEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the traces the development of the conflict, which ultimately culminated in the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982, in Latin America. Utilising sources from the Organization of American States and recently declassified Brazilian documents from the National Archive and the Foreign Ministry, the paper relates the specific Latin American perspective on the conflict and highlights what role the South Atlantic occupied in the regional and national imaginaries of Latin Americans.

Keywords

Falklands/Malvinas Latin America South Atlantic Organization of American States Brazil 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    In this chapter, the terms Falklands and Malvinas are used interchangeably.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    There is a flood of works related to the Malvinas/Falklands conflict, which can only be dealt with superficially here. Scholarship generally can be divided into three strands: Works of historians and political scientists analysing the political establishment of either Britain or Argentina; legal studies, elaborating on the underlying legal norms; or international relations studies employing the dispute as case study. Legal studies: Fritz Hoffman, Hoffman, and Olga Mingo, Sovereignty in Dispute: The Falklands/Malvinas, 1493-1982 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984)Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    Rudolf Dolzer, The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas): Past and Present (New York: Oceana, 1993)Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    Peter Beck, The Falkland Islands as an International Problem (London: Routledge, 1988)Google Scholar
  5. 2c.
    Lowell S. Gustafson, Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). Historical worksGoogle Scholar
  6. 2d.
    Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign (London: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar
  7. 2e.
    Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, The Battle for the Falklands (London: M. Joseph, 1983)Google Scholar
  8. 2f.
    Armando Alonso Piñeiro, Historia de la Guerra de Malvinas (Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1992)Google Scholar
  9. 2g.
    O. Cardoso and R. Kirschbaum, Malvinas: La Trama Secreta (Buenos Aires: Sudamericana, 1984).Google Scholar
  10. 3.
    See this debate in: Martín Abel González, The Genesis of the Falklands(Malvinas Conflict) (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 1–20. The exception to this would beGoogle Scholar
  11. 3a.
    Freedman Lawrence and Gamba-Stonehouse Virginia, Signals of War: The Falklands Conflict of 1982 (London: Faber and Faber, 1991).Google Scholar
  12. 4.
    Reisman Michael, ‘The Struggle for the Falklands’, The Yale Law Journal 93, no. 2 (December 1983): 287–317, 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 5.
    Weber Hermann, ‘Falkland Islands’ oder ‘Malvinas’? Der Status der Falklandsinseln im Streit zwischen Grossbritannien und Argentinien: eine völkerrechtliche Fallstudie (Frankfurt am Main: Metzner, 1977).Google Scholar
  14. 6.
    Beck, The Falkland Islands as an International Problem, 31.Google Scholar
  15. 7.
    This principle of uti possidetis juris stipulates that, when colonies become states, territory and boundaries transfer from the coloniser to the former colony. This norm of international law was coined and shaped in Latin American international law.Google Scholar
  16. 8.
    Michael, ‘The Struggle for the Falklands’, 300. Interestingly, the Falklands are the first and last case where the Monroe Doctrine was not applied. In 1833, Washington chose not react to the British occupation of the islands, nor did it come to the aid of Argentina in 1982.Google Scholar
  17. 9.
    Resolution 2065 adopted by the General Assembly during its Twentieth Session, 1965, Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).Google Scholar
  18. 10.
    Laucirica Jorge, ‘Lessons from Failure: The Falklands/Malvinas Conflict’, Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations (Summer/Fall 2000): 79–95, 82.Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    Report of the CONADEP ‘Nunca más’.Google Scholar
  20. 12.
    Piñeiro, Historia de la Guerra de Malvinas, 11 and 16, and Cardoso and Kirschbaum, Malvinas: La Trama Secreta, 46.Google Scholar
  21. 13.
    As quoted in: Cardoso and Kirschbaum, Malvinas: La Trama Secreta, 55.Google Scholar
  22. 14.
    The UN Security Council Resolution 502, on April 3, 1982, marked a major accomplishment of the British Foreign Office, as it gave Britain the right to act in self-defence and to claim self-determination for the Falklanders. Laucirica, ‘Lessons from Failure: The Falklands/Malvinas Conflict’, 89.Google Scholar
  23. 15.
    The sanctions were decided against reservations of Italy and Ireland.Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    General Galtieri told the Buenos Aires newspaper Clarín in 1983: ‘If I had known the Americans would take the position they finally adopted, we would never have invaded’. As quoted in: Laucirica, ‘Lessons from Failure: The Falklands/Malvinas Conflict’, 87. Foreign Minister Costa Méndez in retrospect asserted that the junta expected ‘that the US Government would act as a real go- between, a real neutral friend of both parties, interested in the full implementation of the UN Charter’. As quoted in: TV. Paul, Asymmetric Conflicts. War Initiation by Weaker Powers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 17.
    Ariel Armony, Argentina, the United States, and the Anti-Communist Crusade in Central America, 1977-1984 (Athens, OH: Ohio University Centre of International Studies, 1997).Google Scholar
  26. 18.
    General Galtieri admitted that the junta had anticipated a very different British reaction, expecting it to offer negotiations. ‘Personally, I judged any response from the English scarcely possible, indeed absolutely improbable’. As quoted in: David Rock, Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), 377.Google Scholar
  27. 19.
    The Washington Post, ‘London Plans Total Blockade of Falkland’s Ships, Planes’, April 29, 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 20.
    Laucirica, ‘Lessons from Failure: The Falklands/Malvinas Conflict’, 84.Google Scholar
  29. 21.
    Andrew Hurrell, ‘The Politics of South Atlantic Security. A Survey of Proposals for a South Atlantic Treaty Organization’, International Affairs 59, no. 2 (Spring 1983): 179–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 22.
    Escolar Marcelo et al., ‘Geography, Identity and Patriotism in Argentina’, in Geography and National Identity, ed. David Hooson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 362.Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    Child Jack, Geopolitics and Conflict in South America. Quarrels among Neighbors (New York: Praeger, 1985), 41–2.Google Scholar
  32. 24.
    La Prensa, April 2, 1982.Google Scholar
  33. 25.
    Michael, ‘The Struggle for the Falklands’, 311.Google Scholar
  34. 26.
    Statement by the Argentine Delegate, Rául Quijano, Acta de la primera sesión de la comi-sión general, April 26, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.20/82.Google Scholar
  35. 27.
    The Act of Havana Concerning the Provisional Administration of European Colonies and Possessions in the Americas, Second Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 1940.Google Scholar
  36. 28.
    The Rio Treaty is hemispheric security alliance that defines any attack on a member-state as an ‘an attack against all the American States’.Google Scholar
  37. 29.
    The Treaty of Tlatelolco is the conventional name given to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, which prohibits any ‘testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear weapons’ and the ‘receipt, storage, installation, deployment and any form of possession of any nuclear weapons’. It also applies to the territorial waters surrounding the signatories, and binds the United Kingdom to the treaty, which has signed the Protocol I. For further reading: Davis R. Robinson, ‘The Treaty of Tlatelolco and the United States: A Latin American Nuclear Free Zone’. The American Journal of International Law 64, no. 2 (April 1970): 282–309.Google Scholar
  38. 30.
    Durán Esperanza, ‘Mexico and the South Atlantic Conflict: Solidarity or Ambiguity?’, International Affairs 60, no. 2 (Spring 1984): 221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 31.
    Yankelevich Pablo, ‘La Guerra de Malvinas: Solidaridad desde México’, Journal of Iberian and Latin American Research 20, no. 2 (2014): 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 32.
    Brazilian National Archives (herewith BNA), Ministerio do Exército. Sumário Diário do Informações No. 5-E.1.2., April 12, 1982.Google Scholar
  41. 33.
    BNA, Centro de Informações do Exterior (CIEX). Peru. Conflito anglo-argentino. CIEX no. 116/82. BR_AN_BSB_IE_020_007, July 7, 1982.Google Scholar
  42. 34.
    See: Lawrence, Official History, 390-9. Brazilian sources also corroborate Chilean support of British war efforts.Google Scholar
  43. 35.
    Andrés Villar Gertner, Autonomy and Negotiation in Foreign Policy: The Beagle Channel Crisis (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), chapter 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 36.
    The New York Times, ‘The Rio Pact Indeed’, April 22, 1982.Google Scholar
  45. 37.
    National Security Archive, Secretary of State. Telegramme to All American Diplomatic Posts. Latin American Reaction to South Atlantic Crisis, May 7, 1982.Google Scholar
  46. 38.
    El Clarín, Apoyo de los No Alienados’, April 23, 1982.Google Scholar
  47. 39.
    For this, see: Stella Krepp, ‘Between the Cold War and the Global South: Argentina and Third World Solidarity in the Falklands/Malvinas Crisis’, forthcoming in: Estudos Histór-icos 60 (January-April 2017) - Special Issue ‘Perspectivas globais e transnacionais’.Google Scholar
  48. 40.
    The New York Times, ‘In the O.A.S., Cultural Rift’, April 16, 1982.Google Scholar
  49. 41.
    In the early 1980s, the Adams Doctrine, names after the Prime Minister of Barbados Tom Adams, advocated a more security-oriented and anti-communist line. The notable exception to this was Grenada under Maurice Bishop and his New Jewel Movement.Google Scholar
  50. 42.
    National Security Archive, Memorandum from the President to the Secretary of State, April 9, 1982.Google Scholar
  51. 43.
    OEA/Ser.G CP/ACTA 490/82, April 13, 1982.Google Scholar
  52. 44.
    Statement of the Delegate of Venezuela, OEA/Ser.G CP/ACTA 490/82, April 13, 1982.Google Scholar
  53. 45.
    The New York Times, ‘In the O.A.S., Cultural Rift’, April 16, 1982.Google Scholar
  54. 46.
    Statement by the Delegate of Grenada, OEA/Ser.G CP/ACTA 490/82, April 13, 1982.Google Scholar
  55. 47.
    Serious Situation in the South Atlantic - Resolution adopted on April 28,1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.28/82 rev.3.Google Scholar
  56. 48.
    Not only is self-determination only vaguely defined, but its application is restricted to people, as stated in UN Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2. Yet it is far from clear, if the inhabitants of the Falklands constituted a people, as it could be argued that the population is too small to ensure effective occupation. For an overview of the problematic legal aspects of self-determination in the Falklands, see: Schwed Alejandro, ‘Territorial Claims as a Limitation to the Right of Self-Determination in the Context of the Falkland Islands Dispute’, Fordham International Law Journal 6, no. 3 (1982): 443–71. For the question, if the Falk-landers constitute a peopleGoogle Scholar
  57. 48a.
    Dunnett Denzil, ‘Self-Determination and the Falklands’, International Affairs 59, no. 3 (Summer 1983): 415–28 (especially 417-19). For a general discussion on the right to self-determinationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 48b.
    Cass Deborah Z, ‘Re- Thinking Self-Determination: A Critical Analysis of Current International Law Theories’, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 1, no. 3 (1992): 21–40.Google Scholar
  59. 49.
    Statement by the Delegate of Venezuela, Zambrano, April 26, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.20/82.Google Scholar
  60. 50.
    Statement by the Delegate of Panama, April 26, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.20/82.Google Scholar
  61. 51.
    Interview with Jorge Castañeda, Mexican Foreign Minister, Uno más Uno, April 23, 1982.Google Scholar
  62. 52.
    Statement by Colombian Delegate, April 26, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.20/82.Google Scholar
  63. 53.
    Statement by the Argentine Delegate, April 26, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.20/82.Google Scholar
  64. 54.
    In a private talk on April 10 with Margaret Thatcher and Foreign Secretary Pym, Secretary of State Alexander Haig assured Thatcher of US support. National Security Archive, Report on the Meeting between Thatcher and Haig, April 10, 1982.Google Scholar
  65. 55.
    Arquilla John and Rasmussen María, ‘The Origins of the South Atlantic War’, Journal of Latin American Studies 33, no. 4 (November 2007): 739–75, 753.Google Scholar
  66. 56.
    In her seminal essay ‘Dictatorships and double standards’, from which the Kirkpatrick doctrine evolved, she distinguished between authoritarian right-wing dictatorships and totalitarian ‘communist’ dictatorships. Whereas the latter would remain totalitarian, so the rationale, authoritarian regimes could eventually transition into democracies. Jeane Kirkpatrick, ‘Dictatorships and Double Standards’, Commentary (November 1979): 34–45.Google Scholar
  67. 57.
    Statement by US Delegate, Middendorf, April 26, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.20/82.Google Scholar
  68. 58.
    Freedman/Gamba-Stonehouse, Signals of War: The Falklands Conflict of 1982, 52.Google Scholar
  69. 59.
    The European Common market nations agreed to extend the ban. However, Ireland and Italy opted out of it, and the French and German government directed substantial criticism of the Thatcher government and its violent military actions in the South Atlantic. The German chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned in an interview in the weekly magazine Der Spiegel that support for Great Britain did not mean a ‘carte blanche’ for the British government. Der Spiegel, ‘Kein Blankoscheck für London’, May 3, 1982.Google Scholar
  70. 60.
    América Latina Informe Político London, ‘La Crisis de las Malvinas pone a Estados Unidoes en conflicto con Latinoamérica’, April 30, 1982.Google Scholar
  71. 61.
    Statement of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Relations of Nicaragua, Victor Tinoco, May 27, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.67/82.Google Scholar
  72. 62.
    América Latina Informe Político, ‘La crisis de las Malvinas pone a Estados Unidos en conflicto con Latinoamérica’, April 30, 1982.Google Scholar
  73. 63.
    The Washington Post, ‘O.A.S. Demands End to Aid for Britain’, May 29, 1982.Google Scholar
  74. 64.
    Statement by the Delegate of Panama, May 27, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.67/82.Google Scholar
  75. 65.
    National Security Archive, Edward Streator, Chargé’ Affaires at US Embassy London. Telegramme, April 10, 1982.Google Scholar
  76. 66.
    The British National Archives, Brazil and the Falklands Crisis, FCO7/4124, July 1, 1982.Google Scholar
  77. 67.
    Resolución II Grave situación planteada en el Atlántico Sur, May 29, 1982, OEA/Ser.F/II.20 Doc.80/82 rev.2.Google Scholar
  78. 68.
    Brazilian officials baptised their policy ‘benevolent impartiality’. Archive of the Brazilian Foreign Ministry (herewith AMRE), Informação para o Presidente. Despacho No. 78, June 8, 1982.Google Scholar
  79. 69.
    Brazilian National Archive (herewith BNA), A Questão das Malvinas. Memo. BR_DFANBSB_N8_0_PSN_EST_0103. April 23, 1982.Google Scholar
  80. 70.
    Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro, Lembrancas de um empregado do Itamaraty (São Paulo: Sici-liano, 1992), 100.Google Scholar
  81. 71.
    The Margaret Thatcher Archive, FCO bl]Notes of April 6. Meeting of Chiefs of Staff Committee (refuelling facilities in Brazil, military appreciation, Soviet submarines, Tierra del Fuego, rules of engagement for submarines, Gibraltar).Google Scholar
  82. 72.
    The Margaret Thatcher Archive, Britnavat Brasilia to MODUK Navy (Brazilian position on Falklands Task Force).Google Scholar
  83. 73.
    BNA, Estado-Maior da Aeronáutica, Seção de Informações, Rélatorio’ Acompanhamento da Guerra das Malvinas’, May 1982, BR_DFANBSB_N8_0_PSN_EST_0043.Google Scholar
  84. 74.
    The Guardian, ‘Brazil rebuffs Britain’s Supply Port Soundings’, April 15, 1982.Google Scholar
  85. 75.
    Despite requests, the author was refused access to the military archives.Google Scholar
  86. 76.
    The British National Archives, FCO7/4540, Telegramme from Brasília, April 5, 1982.Google Scholar
  87. 77.
    Hurrell, ‘The Politics of South Atlantic Security’, 181.Google Scholar
  88. 78.
    BNA, Conselho de Segurança, Memo’ A Questão das Malvinas’, April 21, 1982, BR_DFANBSB_N8_0_PSN_EST_0103.Google Scholar
  89. 79.
    BNA, Memoria. Relatório Secreto. Malvinas, April 19, 1982.Google Scholar
  90. 80.
    Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, Argentina, Brasil y Estados Unidos de la Triple Alianza al Mercosur. Conflicto e Integración en América del Sur (Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Norma, 2004), 402.Google Scholar
  91. 81.
    BNA, Ministerio do Exército. Sumário Diario do Informações No. 40 E2.1. June 3, 1982.Google Scholar
  92. 82.
    BNA, Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Informação para o Presidente. Despacho No. 78. BR_DFANBSB_N8_0_PSN_EST_0043. June 8, 1982.Google Scholar
  93. 83.
    The British National Archives, FCO7/4541, Speaking Note, June 5, 1982.Google Scholar
  94. 84.
    The British National Archives, FCO7/4541, Speaking Note, June 5, 1982.Google Scholar
  95. 85.
    The Margaret Thatcher Archive, UKE Brasilia to FCO. ‘Vulcan Diversion’, June 4, 1982.Google Scholar
  96. 86.
    BNA, Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Information for President. Despacho No. 78. BR_DFANBSB_N8_0_PSN_EST_0043. June 8, 1982.Google Scholar
  97. 87.
    Overall, 255 British and 641 Argentine soldiers either died or were reported as missing. Informe Rattenbach: El drama de las Malvinas (Buenos Aires: Espartaco, 1988).Google Scholar
  98. 88.
    Bagley Bruce M, ed., Contadora and the Diplomacy of Peace in Central America. Vol I: The United States, Central America, and Contadora (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  99. 89.
    Only Chile, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Honduras had not resumed relations with Cuba.Google Scholar
  100. 90.
    In 2001, in the wake of 9/11, the US convoked the Rio Treaty for the last time.Google Scholar
  101. 91.
    The British National Archives, FCO7/4124, ‘Falklands and After: Latin American Attitudes’, May 25, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of HistoryBern UniversityBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations