MALVINAS. UNA BANDERA AL VIENTO

 

Marzo de 2006


El informe que transcribimos no resalta lo esencial. Últimamente hay nerviosismo en torno a Malvinas.  Del lado argentino por la visita del Endurance que terminó recalando en Ushuaia con el timón averiado.  Pero del lado kelper hay dos problemas subyacentes que no destaca este informe : la transmisión de las emisiones de la BBC a las islas serian cortadas por Londres para generar un ahorro de dos millones de libras al año. Es poco creíble. Segundo punto. Los isleños temen que Gran Bretaña les otorgue un puesto permanente en el seno de la Unión Europea lo cual endurece a sectores nacionalistas británicos.El nacionalismo kelper no quiere ser un estado asociado a Londres.Quiere pertenecer a Gran Bretaña y por lo tanto materia no negociable en cuestiones de soberanía Y ese es el verdadero epicentro de la cuestión. En cuanto al potencial militar argentino la nota de Clarín que recogía imprevista información británica se refería básicamente a capacidad aérea.. Materia bastante discutible si tenemos en cuenta el creciente reforzamiento del potencial aeronaval y misilistico chileno sobre el cual informamos separadamente. Lo cierto es que las islas son una buena bandera al viento en años electorales.

 

LOS HECHOS

Last weekend two British papers, The Sunday Express and Scotland on Sunday published long articles saying that the UK Government is concerned about Argentina’s Military capabilities and claiming that the security of the Falklands is at risk. I (DP) spoke to the BBC’s correspondent in Buenos Aires, Daniel Schweinler (DS) and asked him if the Argentine press have commented on these reports.

DS: The issue of the Falklands, although it’s not high on the agenda here and hasn’t been for some time, is never far below the surface in people’s consciousness. I think there’s always interest when the subject is mentioned in the British Parliament or in the British media, it’s always reported in the Argentine press. So, the newspaper, Clarin carried a substantial story, as it did when the JOHN CHEEK fishing boat was detained a few days ago.

DP: So, what sort of attitude were they taking on the British press stories?
 

DS: I think, in general, it was a straight report. If anything, I noted a tone of incredulity in the article. That’s because they pointed out that most of the incidents highlighted in the British press reports were simply not true. They talked about the relationship between Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Nestor Kershner of Argentina being especially strong. I think they made the point that relations were good as they hoped all relations between Governments in Latin America should be but perhaps no stronger than with any other Government in the region. There is also the point about Argentina perhaps having the biggest Military forces in Latin America are simply not true. Brazil obviously has a bigger force and Colombia, no doubt, has a bigger force.


DP: so in Clarin, the story is more why the British press are reporting things in this way.

DS: I would say that’s certainly the case. I think they see that as their duty. They checked all the facts with phone calls to the relevant Defence Ministers in Britain and in Argentina. But I think, if anything, there is a note of incredulity, certainly in the Clarin article about those reports being carried on the British press and really showing some surprise at the very fact that the British media would have covered those stories.


 


 

Portada