Uruguay Defense Minister says some interesting things...

[Force Lord]

...regarding the Falklands, NATO, and even Germany of all things.

Falklands ‘a NATO base’ and the referendum ‘unacceptable and ridiculous’, says Uruguay

Two of Uruguay’s President Jose Mujica closest ministers, Defence and Foreign Affairs said that the ‘British occupation’ of the Falkland Islands is ‘unacceptable’, represents a NATO base in the South Atlantic and described the recent referendum in the Islands as ‘absurd and ridiculous’.

“The colonial enclave in the Malvinas is unacceptable and must end soon through diplomatic means”, said Foreign minister Luis Almagro interviewed by Venezuela’s Telesur channel.

Almagro currently on a tour of Central American and Caribbean countries said that Uruguay is asking both sides in the sovereignty dispute “to sit round a table and begin dialogue”.

“We insist that UN General Assembly resolutions must be complied which means beginning to dialogue and we shall defend the positions that have emanated from the different multilateral organizations and which have been very clear”, added Almagro.

Defence minister Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro said that the British occupation of the Malvinas has turned the Islands into a military base of NATO.

“Now Germany has borders with Argentina, because as we all know in Europe the orders are given by Germany. We also have France in the Guyana which is considered part of metropolitan France; Curacao is Dutch, in other words a NATO base”, said Fernandez Huidobro who is a founding member with Mujica of the urban guerrilla movement that took off in Uruguay in the early sixties.

“The next world war, if there is one will be for natural resources and we have abundant resources in South America. We have to prepare to defend ourselves, but together because no one country can face such a challenge, not even Brazil”, said the Uruguayan Defence minister who then praised the creation of the Union of South American Nations, Unasur and its defence policies.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War “we have a multi-blocks world which helped create Unasur, to which Uruguay belongs and helps coordinate the region’s defence policies with a geopolitical coincidence on global affairs”.

“This vision of a collective defence of South American countries is a major historical change, which the left has not yet taken account of, because the left normally is not interested in military issues or geopolitics”, underlined Fernandez Huidobro who is also a member of the Argentine sponsored ‘Malvinas forum” Uruguay chapter.

Almagro who this week is scheduled to accompany Argentine foreign minister Hector Timerman when he meets UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to request the re-launching of Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty talks with the UK, described the recent Falklands referendum “as absurd and ridiculous”.

“It is something which lacks all logical reasoning, it is an absurd and ridiculous effort by the Foreign Office not to comply with UN resolutions calling for bilateral dialogue”, said Almagro.

Fernandez Huidobro added that the referendum was a ‘farce’ and was not worth talking about it since it’s part of NATO’s strategy to keep bases in the region.

The Defence minister has been particularly critical to the two Uruguayan lawmakers that were part of a major team of observers at the Falklands March 10/11 referendum in which Islanders overwhelmingly voted to remain a British Overseas Territory.

When it was announced that opposition lawmakers Jaime Trobo and Jose Cardoso would be travelling to the Falklands, Fernandez Huidobro said their action was “shameful” just short of an act of treason against to South America and Argentina’s claims. .

As if bringing both NATO and the EU into this dispute would make Argentina's case any better...

[madd0ct0r]

no, but he makes argentina look sane by comparison.

[Patroklos]

If its such a dangerous NATO base, by wasn't NATO called in when the place was actually invaded Mr. Defense Minister?

I wonder if he actually knows the answer to that.

[Irbis]

So, people from countries that were for three centuries ruthlessly exploited by European powers and USA don't look kindly at these states continuing legacy of colonialism? Inconceivable

If its such a dangerous NATO base, by wasn't NATO called in when the place was actually invaded Mr. Defense Minister?

Actually, NATO both provided virtually all reconnaissance for UK (US satellites), embargoed Argentina's war effort (such as stopping missile supply mid-delivery to the entire South America), while offering speedy war material lending to UK (including promising borrowing of carrier in case UK one was lost [1]). Oh, and NATO temporarily allowed Thatcher to pull all pledged ships and troops from Europe, providing extra manpower and equipment covering for UK absence. There would never be any Falkland War if UK had to keep its share of "commie containers" on station. So, saying NATO took no part in Falklands is false. The only thing NATO could do to escalate level of support it gave to UK would be B-2 directly bombing Buenos Aires.

[Siege]

I kind of see his point about encroachment; Uruguay wouldn't be the first nation to be rightly concerned about encirclement by western military bases. I'm not convinced Mr. Almagro has anything to fear, but then his screed obviously isn't intended to convince Westerners to admit any wrongdoing: it's to shore up diplomatic relations between various left-wing governments in South America. Something which stating that 'we have a common opponent' has historically been a good way of doing, especially when said opponent can be reliably expected to react with fury and outrage at any such statement.

[Tanasinn]

So, people from countries that were for three centuries ruthlessly exploited by European powers and USA don't look kindly at these states continuing legacy of colonialism? Inconceivable

Because occupying an island literally no one wanted is part of the 'legacy of colonialism.'

[Irbis]

Because occupying an island literally no one wanted is part of the 'legacy of colonialism.'

If no one wanted it, why was Argentinian population kicked out before UK settlers could be installed? England did that dozens of times all over the world; by your standard, city of Calais, in France, should belong to UK as the French population was driven out or massacred and replaced by English settlers, too, as it was to be forevermore bastion of English kings on the continent. Sadly, France, unlike Argentina, was able to "undemocratically" kick out UK settlers (who would no doubt vote to remain in UK) and return stolen territory to France. The same can't be said about Cyprus, where part of the island is still occupied by UK as remnant of colonial times, or in a lot of places where vestiges of British Empire continue to persist on force of arms.

Funny no one bothered to ask Hong Kongers if they want to be still part of UK; maybe this time saber rattling wasn't enough to keep the other side bullied and the population only three orders of magnitude larger than Falkland one was handed over without a single protest to a dictature?

Oh, and Mr. Huidobro has a certain point about bases - Ascension Island Base, then USAF base, was manned by UK and used in bombing campaign against Argentina in 1982. While his comments against Germany are a bit stupid, they are something expected from someone watching EU's politics from other continent, as most things he was wrong about are finer details that often escape Europeans, much less South Americans.

[Thanas]

Meh. This is just more anti-colonialism cheap rhetoric.

[K. A. Pital]

I kind of see his point about encroachment; Uruguay wouldn't be the first nation to be rightly concerned about encirclement by western military bases. I'm not convinced Mr. Almagro has anything to fear, but then his screed obviously isn't intended to convince Westerners to admit any wrongdoing: it's to shore up diplomatic relations between various left-wing governments in South America. Something which stating that 'we have a common opponent' has historically been a good way of doing, especially when said opponent can be reliably expected to react with fury and outrage at any such statement.

Not to mention Uruguay is in a strong position: the current government performed robustly for quite a while, even during the recession, and the nation is often called the safest of all LA. All that with a strong economy which is not closed and autarkian, but interconnected with their LA neighbors.

A friendly anti-colonial speech won't hurt their ties with other around them, while Europe and the US hardly helped Uruguay much to achieve what they did in the last decade.

[Crown]

I'm sorry, I'm all for rar-rar-anti-colonism-rar-rar as the next guy, but isn't Uruguay nearly the most homogeneous nation in Latin America that identifies it's ancestry as whooping 95% European (or 'white')?

Why, yes, yes it is.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The Falklands should be treated with the political equivalent of a spam filter for Viagra ads. It's an old story that won't change, especially after that referendum. But I guess South America has a hard on for pointing to it on slow news days, much like immigration for the US or Europe.

[Omega18]

If no one wanted it, why was Argentinian population kicked out before UK settlers could be installed?

The fact of the matter is that flat out did not happen. There is a false myth to the contrary on this point originating in Argentina. What happened is the UK kicked out the ten man garrison on the Falklands and required the Argentine governor to leave, and that was it with the rest of the population allowed to stay. (You can read primary sources effectively confirming this such as Charles Darwin's mention of the situation during this period while on this voyage aboard the Beagle and it was a situation where he lacked an actual motivation to bother lying about something like that given the views of the time.)

[Veramocor]

I'm surprise Uruguay isn't pissed off at Argentina still for trying to shut down a billion dollar investment in Uruguay a few years back (Botnia pulp mill). http://www.economist.com/node/13257998

[Patroklos]

Actually, NATO both provided virtually all reconnaissance for UK (US satellites), embargoed Argentina's war effort (such as stopping missile supply mid-delivery to the entire South America), while offering speedy war material lending to UK (including promising borrowing of carrier in case UK one was lost [1]). Oh, and NATO temporarily allowed Thatcher to pull all pledged ships and troops from Europe, providing extra manpower and equipment covering for UK absence. There would never be any Falkland War if UK had to keep its share of "commie containers" on station. So, saying NATO took no part in Falklands is false. The only thing NATO could do to escalate level of support it gave to UK would be B-2 directly bombing Buenos Aires.

This isn't NATO, this is the individual nations that happen to be in NATO. NATO is a specific organization with a specific chain of command and they did nothing. Obviously members of NATO have forces duel hatted to serve their own national interests and the collective interests of NATO simultaneously, the actions in support of one does not automatically constitute actions of the other. And nations pull forces out of NATO assignments all the time, it does not constitute whatever those forces then do at the behest of their national tasking is somehow now NATO. Using your logic anything the US military (or any memebr state military) does anywhere would be NATO.

The NATO treaty was not triggered by the Falklands War.