The facts, unvarnished

Uncomfortable truths

We have nothing against the British people. But documented, verifiable history tells things that some would rather were not widely known.

Let it be clear from the first line: this is not against the British people. It is against an injustice. Millions of Argentines admire the culture, the music and the people of the United Kingdom. What we ask is simple: accept what geography, history and law already say, and resume the dialogue the UN has called for since 1965.

The Malvinas are —and will be— Argentine. And there are a number of facts, all sourced, that help explain why this cause is so solid… and why some find it so uncomfortable to see it known.

Latest

They asked FIFA to investigate a banner

After the Atlanta semifinal, the British government officially asked FIFA to investigate the players’ gesture with the "Las Malvinas son argentinas" banner.

Think about it: a piece of cloth with a peaceful phrase triggered an international diplomatic reaction. Why? Because one simple image, seen by hundreds of millions, achieved in 90 seconds what decades of diplomacy could not: it made the whole world ask what the Malvinas are.

It clearly suits no one to have this conversation grow. So let’s grow it — peacefully, informed and visible.

The human cost and decisions still debated

A war is judged not only by who won, but by how.

On 2 May 1982, Margaret Thatcher ordered the attack on the cruiser ARA General Belgrano. 323 people died. The ship was sailing outside the 200-mile exclusion zone the UK itself had declared and, according to many analyses, was moving away from the islands. Its sinking remains, four decades on, one of the most disputed acts of the war.

The Sun celebrated the death of those 323 young men with the headline "GOTCHA", which it had to withdraw amid widespread revulsion. A year later, British teacher Diana Gould cornered Thatcher live on TV, asking why she ordered the attack if the ship was sailing away. The scene went down in British television history.

🔗 Source: The Diana Gould–Thatcher exchange (Wikipedia) →

The war that saved Thatcher

Before the Malvinas she was the most unpopular PM in British history.

In April 1982, Margaret Thatcher’s image was on the floor. Victory in the South Atlantic changed everything: her popularity soared and in 1983 she won the election in a landslide. Historians call it "the Falklands factor".

It is worth asking how much that domestic political calculation weighed on military decisions. The Argentine cause, by contrast, depends on no election: it is a permanent matter of State, shared by all parties.

🔗 Source: The Malvinas, a turning point for Thatcher (MercoPress) →

The secret pact with Chile

The UK did not win alone. And today we know it in detail.

Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile gave the UK covert military support: a long-range radar at Punta Arenas that warned of incoming Argentine air attacks, intelligence, and bases. When that radar was switched off for 24 hours for maintenance, the Argentine air force managed to bomb British forces.

A former RAF intelligence chief put it bluntly: "Without Chile’s help, we would have lost the Falklands." In other words, the war’s outcome depended on a third country. The geography did not change: the islands are still 600 km from Argentina and 12,700 km from London.

🔗 Source: "Without Chile’s help, we would have lost" (MercoPress) →

The allies who tipped the balance

The United States and France, on the British side.

The United States, though declaring itself "neutral", gave the UK around 100 AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles —decisive in the air— plus intelligence, and cleared use of Ascension Island. France, maker of the Exocet missiles Argentina used, secretly shared information with the British to neutralise them.

It was not David against Goliath. It was a South American country against a nuclear power backed by half the developed world. That the cause still stands, and grows, after all that, says a great deal about its legitimacy.

🔗 Source: The US and the war (US State Department) →

A colonialism still alive

The Malvinas are not an isolated case: they are part of a pattern.

The UK still administers 14 overseas territories, many thousands of kilometres from its shores. The most telling case is the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean: between 1967 and 1973, London forcibly expelled some 1,500 people from their land to build, together with the US, the Diego Garcia military base.

In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled the British administration of Chagos a "wrongful act" and ordered decolonisation. The UN General Assembly backed it overwhelmingly. In 2024, the UK finally agreed to return sovereignty of Chagos to Mauritius. The same argument holds for the Malvinas: distant territories, transplanted populations, and a legitimate claim that time proves right.

🔗 Source: Chagos returns to Mauritius (UN News) →

And so, with our heads held high

We ask for no war and no revenge. We ask for memory, truth and dialogue. We ask that what the UN has called for over 60 years finally be met.

The Malvinas are Argentine by geography, by history and by law. And they will remain so, with patience and without a single drop of hatred, until both sides sit down to negotiate.

Add your signature for dialogue Back to home