Malvinas Veterans Refuse to March with Torturers in Army Parade

[Judi Lynn]

Malvinas Veterans Refuse to March with Torturers in Army Parade
Published 10 July 2016

. . .

A group of former Argentine soldiers who fought in the Malvinas War refused to join a march of veterans led by the Armed Forces Sunday to mark 200 years of the South American country’s independence, arguing that it would be an insult to victims of historical injustices to parade alongside torturers and human rights abusers.

“Today they’ve called us to march all together, together with those who tortured,” the Association of Malvinas Combatants for Human Rights wrote in a statement. “With those who humiliated soldiers in the war for being Jewish, for being Indigenous, or simply for the color of their skin, together with those responsible for famine, and those who fled from combat.”

The association also called for Argentina to investigate the “terrible human rights violations committed in the Malvinas against soldiers,” saying they remember the abuses and still have hope for justice.

Some 1,000 members of the Armed Forces marched in Buenos Aires on Sunday as part of bicentennial celebrations marking two centuries since Argentina declared its independence in 1816. The parade also included military delegations from 11 countries, including the U.S., which backed Argentina’s dictatorship-era “dirty war” against leftists as part of the regional Operation Condor.

More:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Malvinas-Veterans-Refuse-to-March-with-Torturers-in-Army-Parade-20160710-0014.html

LBN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141514990

[PJMcK]

1. Two thoughts for you, Judi Lynn

But first, thanks for your constant postings of interesting and important news from all over the world and the universe! Your post in the Science Forum about the Hubble photos of the Crab Nebula was fantastic!

Thought No. 1: The war between Great Britain and Argentina over the Southern Atlantic islands (known as The Malvinas by the Argentinians or as the Falkland Islands by the British) was ended when the Argentinian military surrendered to the British on June 14, 1982. In 1994, Argentina's added a claim of sovereignty over these islands to its Constitution. Do you think there will be another conflict over these islands because of their access to natural resources?

Thought No. 2: You've posted nearly 106,000 times!!!!!!!!!! How do you do it and thank you.

[Judi Lynn]

2. PJMcK, you probably noticed growing up, if you found something fantastic while reading a book,

you didn't feel complete unless you could leave your room, find a sibling or parent, and read it all to her, or him, or whomever, if you felt close to that person. If it was just amazing, or hilarious, it felt as if you'd explode if you didn't share it with someone!

When you realize how damned LITTLE our own corporate "news" media has allowed to come through the propaganda filter to the US public, you go wild when you realize you might be reading you KNOW is being suppressed here for political reasons, etc. That's when you feel obligated to get it out there, hoping someone will see it, think about it, and start his/her own search to find out more, and break through that wall of silence that has always surrounded so much of US actual activities in the countries of very poor people with a few wealthy traitors at the top who leap to do the bidding of US military/corporate/political interests.

This shouldn't become known to us 20, 30 years later, when someone finally pries it loose with a request through the Freedom of Information Act!

I still don't know the real power in Argentina, as I started my journey trying to locate missing information only as far back as around 2000, when I started with Elian Gonzalez, and his state as a tiny hostage in the Cuban "exile" community in Miami. The message board where I was lurking was CNN's US/Cuban Relations, and there I was able to read feverishly comments from progressives, fascists, from many Latin American countries as well as the US, and I was able to start sorting things out. I read conversations between people living in Argentina and Chile with good friends they developed here in the US who had also been there, sometimes during the Dirty War in Argentina, and the Pinochet evil dictatorship in Chile.

It was fascinating.

That was the first time I read from a Colombian in the US who had left to escape the death squads which worked in tandem with the Colombian US-supported military for years. He was the first one who started talking about the fact the AUC used chain saws terrorizing the villagers, farmers, etc. to paralyze them with fear and immobilize those who realized what would happen to them if they resisted.

Regarding Argentina, the fascist element which directed the Dirty War has slithered its way back into the Presidency with a man who openly acknowledges he supports the old military dictatorship, whose father made a fortune working with those people, and I have heard Malvinas mentioned in news accounts about his administration. I have no reason to imagine they're going to drop the subject during the next few years since they've already been concentrating on it during the first 7 months of his disastrous time at the wheel so far.

The chance to make up for lost time by acquiring quick access to material which would have taken many trips to the library, and so much time in the past is liberating for people who are trying to make up for lost time! I really hope our own right-wing power structure won't find a way to lock us out of the information we need, hope to find through the internet, and block our search for more.

Sorry to write so much. Wanted to cover the questions fully. Hope it worked! Thank you.

[PJMcK]

3. Thank you for taking so much time to share your thoughts

The government in Argentina has lurched back towards the military, as you point out. My question to you was partly based on that unfortunate development and partly based on the political instability that seems to be rocking Great Britain. It wouldn't surprise me if Argentina were to miscalculate (again) that England is weak and leadership-less and try to retake the islands.

Regarding the first part of your response, I've always shared the enthusiasm you described of discovering a fact or some other information and bursting with the desire to share it with someone! Too often, they don't share my excitement but at least I've gotten of my chest.

One of the great developments during my lifetime has been the internet's access to information. Every subject and interest is now available to anyone with a connection and a device. One of my pastimes as a kid was to pull out a random volume of our encyclopedia, open it and read whatever was on that page. It usually led to referencing something from that article which would lead me on a search through other volumes and subjects. I guess it was the analog precursor to today's internet surfing. I loved it then and still do!

Your critique of our contemporary news media is one that many of us share, especially here on DU. But I have a thought: when I was young, the news was available through printed newspapers, weekly news magazines, television and radio. There was, in fact, far less information available to the public than there is now, again thanks to the internet. What news was available was limited by the broadcast time available (30 dinnertime minutes on the networks) or the reach of the outlets (subscriptions or newspaper sales). While the news people of that time were more knowledgable, more inquiring and more independent of corporate influence than today's cookie-cutter Barbies and Kens, they all tended towards the same stories. So the evening news reported the same stories whether it was Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings or Huntley/Brinkley. There was still lots more information that wasn't disseminated widely.

Today, the news media suck mostly because the corporately owned networks don't want controversy, they want to garner ratings and advertising dollars. But We the People have an obligation to inform ourselves; democracy demands an informed voting public. The many links to the incredible variety of stories you link to demonstrates my point. Sadly, too many Americans never developed their curiosity about the vastly diverse world we live in. The dominance of television has turned our public into a mass of shallow celebrity-seeking automatons would can't be bothered to get real information from all that's available.

So, thanks again for your efforts to bring so many stories to our attention. This morning, I read the stories about the Conception Bank silver boa, the endangered New Zealand sea lions and the Amazon jaguars- all linked by you!

One last observation. From the time's indicated of your postings, I hope you're not in the eastern time zone because otherwise you're up way too late! Get some well-deserved sleep.

[forest444]

4. I wouldn't worry about it, PJ McK.

One tends to view other countries as a kind of continuum, especially remote countries.

But in Argentina's case we should keep in mind that the regime that invaded the Falklands back in '82 was an unelected dictatorship (U.S. backed, btw) very much unlike any of the elected administrations that followed or the ones that preceded it (even other dictatorships).

No elected Argentine government has, or would, approve such an action (none, in fact, has since the tripartite invasion of Paraguay in 1865). Since democracy returned for good in 1983, moreover, Argentina's military budgets have fallen by half in real terms (to 0.7% of GDP, or $4 billion, excluding border patrols and the coast guard).

Most of that goes toward salaries, benefits, and overhead for the numerous military bases that for the most part only stay open for political reasons. Their entire military procurement budget for this year is about $400 million - and that includes things like new buses for the border patrol. It goes without saying that it doesn't buy you very much these days in the world of military procurement.

As you keenly pointed out though, there is a new, right-wing administration in Argentina (neocon Mauricio Macri). When his populist predecessor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, was in office, domestic spending very much dominated federal budget priorities (subsidies, family assistance, public works, etc.). Conservatives, of course, have been lobbying Macri to raise defense spending, and he has - but only by 6% in real terms, which disappointed right-wingers enough to elicit critical op-eds in their pet newspaper, the crypto-fascist La Nación.

To the extent right-wingers anywhere are disappointed, it's always a good sign.