Argentine Defence Minister Arturo Puricelli.
“War has no chance in the Malvinas,” said Defence Minister Arturo Puricelli right at the outset of a Tuesday afternoon interview with the Herald, just before President Cristina Kirchner delivered her Malvinas speech in Government House. “A war scenario is out of the question,” he added. Puricelli was referring to the militarization of the South Atlantic and the “British threat” in the light of reports of nuclear submarines possibly appearing in South Atlantic waters, thus admitting what London has yet to confirm.
A native of Santa Cruz (the Patagonian province once ruled for three terms by the late Néstor Kirchner) and the first governor elected on the return to democracy in 1983, Puricelli spent his Malvinas war year in 1982 in the Civil Defence forces of Río Gallegos.
“The 30th anniversary brings back many memories,” he begins, adding: “Faced with the intensity of the claims presented by Argentina and their support by other countries in the world and especially the region, (the British) seek to respond by militarizing the conflict.
“There is absolutely no need to send a Type 45 destroyer (as the HMS Dauntless) to the Malvinas or to militarize the area when neighbouring countries have defined it as a zone of peace,” he points out.
What worries you about the “militarization” of the South Atlantic?
We don’t know if the British submarines are (just) nuclear-powered or carry nuclear warheads and that is what bothers us. We have it quite clear in our heads that we have no interest in militarizing the region, never mind nuclear weaponry. We are thus evaluating whether this British threat is bringing nuclear arms to South America.
And what does “evaluating” mean?
Simply that we are evaluating within the Ministry. We are also evaluating because this conspires against the Unasur Defence Council’s objective of not using nuclear weapons. It’s a risk. Any accident affecting a nuclear submarine is the occasion of major pollution which could affect the world’s richest biodiversity, namely the Antarctic, where the world is taking the greatest of precautions.
Why such a big reaction to the dispatch of HMS Dauntless, when this class of destroyer has already participated in Pacific manoeuvres with the navies of Chile and Peru?
It was a case of flaunting force quite gratuitously. Type 45 destroyers have a massive defensive and even offensive capacity because of the power, range and accuracy of their smart missiles and their electronics. It can provide a defensive or offensive umbrella according to the mission with which it has been entrusted. If HMS Dauntless is coming to guarantee the safety of Prince William and his retinue, let them (the British) rest assured that within the framework of the international treaties making us responsible for emergency assistance in the South Atlantic, we would have rushed up our naval units to answer any mayday from the prince. They would have saved thousands of pounds sterling and generated less tension in the region.
What other risks do you visualize?
Oil exploration in Malvinas waters. Over and above economic greed, oil must be approached responsibly. There are social responsibilities and we do not see the United Kingdom as equipped to deal with a a possible oil spill in the Malvinas area. And the Falklands/Malvinas governor, an expert in biodiversity, knows that as well as anybody.
And how’s Argentina’s project for a nuclear-power submarine coming along (Ed. In mid-2011 Puricelli announced the revival of this project via the pages of the Herald)?
That is an alternative which we are studying and which will be defined by the President. We cannot rule anything out or say what we are going to do tomorrow. But at this point in time, I insist, we are thinking of boosting our capacity for peaceful purposes ahead of any war aims. We are more inclined to build a Polar vessel and to complete the repair work on the icebreaker Irízar, than to this type of military equipment.
You were born and bred a Patagonian, what’s your take on the 1982 conflict?
Patagonia marks the vindication of Malvinas sovereignty every year but so does the rest of the country. In this 30th anniversary we can only honour the heroism of the men and women who took part in combat. We cannot celebrate an invasion defined by military junta with more clumsiness than skill and with massive political and military blunders. The April 2 decision of the military junta is nothing to celebrate. It was a stunt by a desperate dictatorship determined to maintain power at any price and who took up a cause based on national feeling and which was supported ex post facto by the Argentine people in its entirety, which, however, would never had approved the attack or the invasion if it had been up to them.
And Margaret Thatcher?
The Malvinas also helped Prime Minister Thatcher consolidate her political leadership on her home front when she was embattled by the coal-miners’ strike. She ordered the genocide implied by the sinking of the Belgrano, which had sailed out of the exclusion zone — an irresponsible decision showing her lack of humanity and leading to hundreds of deaths. Today she is just an old lady but she still has on her conscience the Belgrano, motivated by the same interests and feelings which led the military junta to invade the Malvinas.
No comments:
Post a Comment