UN: Timerman lodges protest over Malvinas

After Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman lodged Argentine protests over British military deployment in the South Atlantic to the United Nations Security Council, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Argentina and Britain to “avoid an escalation” in the dispute over the Malvinas islands after expressing “concern” over the “increasingly fierce verbal crossfire” between both countries on this issue. Nothing new — indeed it almost seems redundant to point out that the most “global” international organization of them all is exhorting moderation and consistency in this rhetorical war between Buenos Aires and London. (Nor was there much novelty in the British intelligence material “revealed” by Timerman in his Power Point presentation — for example, the Echelon communication system dates back four decades).

But the consistency, balance and harmony invoked by Ban for the relationship between the governments of David Cameron and Cristina Kirchner are not necessarily to be found in some of the reactions of the presumed “club of friends” of Argentina.

Two Caribbean countries, included in Argentina’s list of those adhering unconditionally to its Malvinas stance, cleared a few points up yesterday.

Dominica, together with Antigua and Barbuda, denied an Argentine Foreign Ministry communiqué entitled “Five new countries decide to block vessels with the Malvinas colonial flag”, datelined Caracas, February 4 (as an upshot of ALBA American Bolivarian Alliance summit, attended by Timerman). In their own websites, the governments of Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda explained that they urged Britain and Argentina “to comply with UN General Assembly Resolution 31/49, abstaining from adopting decisions which imply the introduction of unilateral modifications to the situation while the islands are undergoing the process recommended by the General Assembly” without subscribing to the port ban for vessels with the Malvinas/Falklands flag “or the flag of any other country of the region.”

But that is not all. To this we should add that on Thursday Uruguayan President José Mujica said that even if Argentina had its “historic rights” in the zone and even if he disapproved of “British interference in our continent”, he did not like “isolating people commercially” because “this did not achieve anything and was in no way warranted.” This was Mujica’s way of underwriting the “commercial freedom” of a Uruguayan business mission which is in the process of sewing up new deals in Puerto Argentino/Stanley. No doubts, the Uruguayan leader’s words do not clash with the authority of last December’s Mercosur declaration (which he signed) to prevent the entry of vessels with the Malvinas flag. But the rough must be taken with the smooth — Uruguay, in Mujica’s words, will not cleave to a major commercial blockade of the islands.

In the face of these changes in the “unconditional” support for Argentina’s cause in the Malvinas, it is worth asking whether the verbal and diplomatic escalation with the dossiers of denunciation and media presentations are part of a long-term, national consensus “policy of state,” or if, as usual in local politics, this is just more government rhetoric. The danger is not only the escalation of a conflict which, until now, has been purely verbal and media-driven with denunciations of Britain and the islanders (with their heated rejoinders as a consequence), but whether this escalation spiralling out of control could end up isolating Argentina.

Uruguay and the two Caribbean countries have partially shifted their stance on Argentina’s anti-Malvinas measures. It remains to be asked if it was a shift or, as tends to happen every day in Argentine politics, the Casa Rosada lined up everybody — whether for or against — on the same deck without giving dissent or differences of opinion a chance. Meanwhile Chile expectantly awaits the next steps of the Argentine government as to what new historical light the Rattenbach Report could shed on the war year of 1982, as well as over the suspension of LAN flights to the islands. Brazil, which also has its South Atlantic rights, is staying mum for now. Perhaps it would be a good idea to reflect on the signals already sent by Uruguay, Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda. If we are all agreed on sailing on the same boat, it would be nice to know its course beforehand. If there is one.