S4 E21: War, Peace And The Elimination Of Charcoal-grilled Bondiola Sandwich Stalls

On the week of the 32nd anniversary of the beginning of the Malvinas War of 1982, we talk about facts and double standards of both sides. And chamuyamos about some changes in the city under the administration of mayor Mauricio Macri’s administration.

And in the Spanglish Playground: odd and ambiguous Argentine words

BA Cast #22 1/4/2014 :: Radio Led Podcasts


BA Cast #22 1/4/2014 :: Radio Led Podcasts


Related Posts:

3 thoughts on “S4 E21: War, Peace And The Elimination Of Charcoal-grilled Bondiola Sandwich Stalls

  1. It was really nice to hear a balanced and reasoned discussion about Las Malvinas and both Fer and Dan spoke a lot of sense.
    Before I make the following points I will say that I am not a patriot and I would never support my country just out of some sense of loyalty.
    Like most British people, I don’t really give a shit about keeping the Falklands for the sake of it and am often embarrassed that we are associated with that bunch of bellicose, inbred jingoists . It makes me sad and angry that this one non-issue ruins relations between two countries that could be great allies and friends. Regardless of the rights or wrongs, I think it would have been better if the UK hadn’t bothered to defend the islands in 1982.
    So with that caveat, I want to say your discussion about contradictions threw up the following points:

    1. I support Crimea’s right to self-determination and the UK has been hypocritical in this issue. However, the referendum was dodgy. It came from Russia, a foreign sovereign state, under heavy Russian military presence. Not similar to the Falklands referendum at all. Plus, Crimea is not an overseas territory.
    2. Hong Kong was under a fixed 99-year “lease” to the British since 1898. The lease was always going to expire at that time. Plus, Hong Kong had an indigenous resident population when it was colonised by the British. So again, not like the Falklands at all.
    3. It is true that Thatcher probably brought an end to the dictatorship. But Thatcher also befriended and supported Pinochet! Anything good she did (at home or abroad) was an accident.
    4. Argentina sees the Kelpers as British pirates. Argentina wants to talk with the British about Las Malvinas. The British say they will talk if the Kelpers can be involved. Argentina won’t agree to that because they refuse to involve a “third party”. Wait, are the Kelpers British or are they a third party? Make up your mind.
    5. The biggest hypocrisy of all – Argentina’s own history of colonisation, land grabbing and genocide of indigenous people. Cristina and her supporters act like everything bad in Argentina’s history belongs in the past. But they are happy to drag up what the British did in 1833 time and time again. But the Conquest Of The Desert was more recent than that.

    Keep up the good work, Dan and Fer.


    • Hey Señorita! How is it going? Fer here. Nice to hear from you again. Thanks very much for you message. I was wondering if you’d be OK if we copy this to our Facebook Wall so we bring more people to the discussion?

      Just like you, I’m not a fanatic in this matter at all. I disagree with the “Piratas” name-calling and all of the nationalist stuff applied to Malvinas and the vindication of the war. I consider the war veterans victims mainly of the most cruel, corrupt and coward government in our entire history. I honestly wish this dispute can be solved, with agreement of all involved parties, whatever the outcome BUT with agreement of all parts. And I believe Argentina’s strategy contradictions could and should be resolved: for example, the call for dialogue and at the same time the constant the reassertion that the only outcome is that “Malvinas son Argentinas”.

      My main point of disagreement with the British position is the reluctance to even engage in non-binding talks citing self-determination as the most sacred of principles, that overrules everything else, even UN resolutions.

      1. Crimea’s referendum was dodgy to say the least. One month everything is OK, and the next they are breaking away? Without consent of the central government at all? You can bet is not totally legitimate. The only case I’m seeing a autonomy/independence dispute being resolved in a civilized manner is with Scotland. Regarding the Malvinas comparison, how well represented was the “No” option? BBC reporters spoke about being heckled in the streets of Stanley for even saying “there’s another view of things” (which they are obliged to report as journalists). And the Argentine diplomatic strategy is to present that there’s no Argentine population there because that settlement is prevented by force, as the Brits created a fortified enclave within Argentine soil (Argentine diplomatic stance). Taking that view into account, the heavy military presence is there as well. A stronger comparison is that neither Crimea nor Malvinas votes were UN-sanctioned. But the most important thing of the comparison, in my view, is that it shows that self-determination is not the ultimate, most important thing for the Foreign Office in all cases.

      2. Same with Hong Kong. It was on a 99-year-lease, but it wasn’t for the entire territory, as I understand. The other parts of Hong Kong were leased on perpetuity, but it was “impractical to divide them “(Wikipedia says) so everything was transfered to Beijing. And the wishes of the Hong Kong residents that lived in the parts that were not under the 99-lease? Not taken into account. I’d like to add something: in Hong Kong’s case both parts signed something and the legitimacy of everything was sanctioned by both back in the 19th century. That’s totally absent in the case of the Islands, as Buenos Aires never gave up the sovereignty claim, and it’s AFTER the dispute began that the ancestors of the Islanders arrived. Trying to extract legitimacy from a situation that is the continuity of something contested from the very beginning (1833), and expect the outcome (the referendum’s results) is going to end the conflict and satisfy the other part is flawed logic.

      In addition, there are other cases of British Overseas Territories in which self-determination was not measured with the same ruler, Caicos and Diego García for example.
      3. Yes! And the Thatcher equivalent of that, would be the most anti-left, anti-communist government in History using anti-imperialist rhetoric, and receiving collaboration from Cuba and the Soviets “to fight against Imperialist Powers”…
      4. Personally, I think the Islanders should be included for the sake of making negotiations advance. However, if they say London does their Defense and Foreign Affairs, and Argentina is totally a foreign country to them why not let the Foreign Office deal with a foreign country? Apart from that, it’s the UN that recognized that there was a dispute, and that there were two parts in this dispute.
      5. Yes, that’s totally true for most countries in the Americas. It’s a shameful chapter in all our histories.

      As I said on the episode, this isn’t just a CFK’s thing, as the sovereignty claim goes across all administrations. I can assure you no President will come in the short term and drop it. They will surely change the tactics, and make it less aggressive (hopefully). But the overall issue will remain there, until it’s solved.

      But the key, to me, is that Islanders don’t want to change anything, no matter the argentine admnistration history, agreements, concessions, and whatever cagadas Argentina se mande…to them, there’s nothing to talk about. Even if Cristina goes away, if Argetnina were Swtizerland, if there were collaboration in fishing and oil…still they wouldn’t talk. Recently a Foreign Office envoy in Uruguay said: “it’d be easier to talk about the Falklands with a different Argentine administration”. He was lambasted in the Islands because of even saying there could be talks.

      The one question, to me, to ask to both parties is this: “what would you be willing to give up for coming to an understanding about this”. Argentina for example, should accept Islanders in the talks, should remove the sovereignty claim from the Constitution. As far as I know, I’m positive the Islanders would say: “nothing”.

      There should be talk that ares non-binding but without conditions and with no topics off the table.

      Thanks again for listening to us!

  2. Hi. Thanks for your full and interesting response. You clearly know a lot more about the Hong Kong situation than I do so I learned something!
    Also I think you are absolutely right about the islanders. I remember now that they shouted about democracy and self-determination but when THREE people didn’t vote the way they wanted them to, they basically told them to get off the islands. So much for democracy!
    The Chagos, Diego Garcia situation though – that is truly shameful. I will not defend my country one inch in that dispute.
    Of course you can post my comment to facebook. I tried to be balanced so I hope that comes across.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *