Falklands War 30th Anniversary: 5 British and Argentine papers react

April 2, 2012 marks the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War between Argentina and Britain. The war lasted less than three months, but it led to more than 900 causalities by the time Argentine forces surrendered.The islands, known as the “Malvinas” in Argentina, are still bitterly disputed, and tensions spiked recently, with the deployment of Prince William to the islands and the discovery of oil in surrounding waters.  Here are five reactions from Argentine and British newspapers on the anniversary of the Falkland Islands War:

It doesn’t matter who rules the Falklands

Enrique Marcarian/Reuters
Visitors read the names of the fallen Argentine soldiers during Falkland Islands War on a Malvinas Cenotaph in Ushuaia April 1, 2012. April 2 marks the 30th anniversary of the war over the island chain, known commonly in Argentina as 'Las Malvinas.'

The Independent, UK 
Thirty years on, the British still can't admit the truth about the Falklands
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto

Britain had virtually nothing of any material value at stake in the islands at the time of the invasion on 2 April 1982. But to allow the Junta to invade the Falklands with impunity was almost as unthinkable as allowing Hitler to seize Poland.... The war exacerbated feelings and made a negotiated outcome hard to imagine. Both sides worked themselves up into silly self-righteousness and unreasonable mutual condemnation.
...
Today the islands are grossly under-defended and, if Argentina were to invade, there would probably be little international support for Britain this time round. Big oil would shift allegiance to the victors. It won't happen – but only because Argentina is now indelibly democratic and her citizens will no more vote for war than hens will for Easter.

When the next opportunity for a settlement comes – probably sometime in the next 20 years, with renegotiation of international agreements on Antarctic exploitation – it may be possible to transfer sovereignty quietly, while divvying up amicably such resources as then remain. Maybe then we shall be able to admit the truth: it doesn't matter who rules the Falklands – or whether we call them the Malvinas."

1 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.