Congress imposed a certification requirement on human rights and related matters in 1981 when it repealed the ban on security assistance and military exports to Argentina and Chile. If the political structure in Argentina stabilizes, the government’s recent promise of elections by March 1984 will help its case, although its use of US-furnished material in the Falklands will hurt.
Document 387
Why Argentine use of US-furnished material in the Falklands will hurt its case of purchasing US arms in Congress? I don’t get it. Please enlighten me.
Thank you.
“The government’s recent promise of elections by March 1984”?
How overdue is this homework assignment?
Let’s just assume this is what it looks like; the United States was trying to push Argentina and Chile in the direction of more human rights and democracy.
Thank you for your response, but it’s not homework. I just like to read declassified documents from the website of State Department to learn how some policy was done, which is one of my hobbies.
I know at the time the US was trying to push human rights in Argentina and Chile. But what’s that got to do with the use of US-furnished material in Falklands?
Thank you.
I’m speculating that the Argentinian use of American-made weapons in an attack against another American ally quieted the American legislators who might otherwise have defended Argentina over the human rights issue.
Thank you for your instant reply. Using US-made weapons during a war to attack enemy, for the Argentines, is violating human rights? What is the logic here?
No, I don’t feel there was any direct connection between human rights and the Falklands invasion. (There may have been an indirect connection. The Argentinian government might have decided to launch the invasion to rally public support for the government and divert attention away from their poor human rights record.)
The connection I’m seeing was that in normal times, there would have been people in the United States defending the Argentinian government on the human rights issue. They would have argued that the government was anti-communist (which was very important to a lot of people in the US) so we should be willing to tolerate human rights violations.
But the attack against Britain made it politically inexpedient for these people to defend Argentina. So the people in America who opposed human rights violations in Argentina were able to enact sanctions without the opposition that such sanctions would have normally faced.
The American political system is not a monolith. There were always people in the US who opposed these human rights violations just as there were always other people who were willing to overlook them.
When the US is training the South American military in torture techniques, abd providing military aid, knowing how it will be used, that’s not just “overlooking” them. When the US Secretary of State is actively encouraging it, that’s not just “overlooking” them.
Thank you for your response. So the people in the US who opposed human rights violations in Argentina during Operation Condor took advantage of the Falkland invasion to enact sanctions without the opposition that otherwise would have normally faced. Am I correct?
Thank you for your explanations. I think the US was trying to pursue national interests by backing Argentine Junta to contain the spread of communism. However, the way the Argenine contain or suppress communism was definitely violating human rights. That was one situation and this is another. Am I correct?
It’s a less attractive proposition to sell arms to a country that has recently used them in a war against one of your allies. Tensions still remained after the war (and do to this day), and the US would prefer to avoid more fighting between two nominal allies. As well, the UK would lobby against it, and the NATO alliance was important for opposing communism/the USSR.
You’re thinking of US policy as a monolith. The Reagan Administration was more than happy to overlook the Falklands War in able to sell weapons and secure an anti communist regime in Argentina. It was the Democratic Congress that was still smarting from the Junta’s bucking of Carter’s grain embargo that would use the war as an excuse to not do anything to support that regime.
The Reagan Administration was so afraid that Central America fell under Communist control, so some drastic measures had to be done, which was in America’s interests. How did the general public react to the backing of Argentine Junta’s human rights violation at the time?
The American public isn’t a monolith either. Liberals generally opposed support for the Junta and conservatives were happy to follow Reagan’s lead. The Democrats gained seats in Congress in 1982, so that might indicate a slight public rejection of Reagan’s appeasement of the Junta. On the other hand, Reagan won reelection in a landslide 2 years later. By the end of Reagan’s second term, public support for propping up anti-communist dictatorships and rebel groups in Latin America was significantly diminished, mostly because of attention drawn to right wing atrocities in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the Iran Contra affair.
I question that. The Reagan people had a close connection with the Thatcher people. So they took an attack on Britain personally in a way they would not have if it had involved some other country.