Latin America
Related: About this forumBritain Used Spy Team to Shape Latin American Public Opinion on Falklands
Britain Used Spy Team to Shape Latin American Public Opinion on Falklands
By Andrew Fishman and Glenn Greenwald @AndrewDFish@ggreenwald Today at 11:51 AM
Faced with mounting international pressure over the Falkland Islands territorial dispute, the British government enlisted its spy service, including a highly secretive unit known for using dirty tricks, to covertly launch offensive cyberoperations to prevent Argentina from taking the islands.
A shadowy unit of the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had been preparing a bold, covert plan called Operation QUITO since at least 2009. Documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, published in partnership with Argentine news site Todo Notícias, refer to the mission as a long-running, large scale, pioneering effects operation.
At the heart of this operation was the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group, known by the acronym JTRIG, a secretive unit that has been involved in spreading misinformation.
The British government, which has continuously administered the Falkland Islands also known as the Malvinas since 1833, has rejected Argentine and international calls to open negotiations on territorial sovereignty. Worried that Argentina, emboldened by international opinion, may attempt to retake the islands diplomatically or militarily, JTRIG and other GCHQ divisions were tasked to support FCOs [Foreign and Commonwealth Offices] goals relating to Argentina and the Falkland Islands. A subsequent document suggests the main FCO goal was to [prevent] Argentina from taking over the Falkland Islands and that new offensive cyberoperations were underway in 2011 to further that end.
More:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
Good reads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016119008
forest444
(5,902 posts)Cameron's pretty much given up provoking Argentina. But in 2011 and 2012, when these British saber-rattling antics were at fever pitch, the comment boards on news sites were full of right-wing British trolls.
Most were your garden variety louts and hooligans of course; but there was one in particular who seemed far too fanatical, organized, and obsessive to merely be venting. He shall go unnamed; but after kibbutzing and sparring a little - and after I confronted him with my suspicion he was a Cameron troll - I must have somehow reached him because he confessed that he had been molested by his Irish priest and had consequently developed an abiding hatred for all things Catholic.
He was quite surprised to learn that the Catholic Church in Argentina - above all the far-right Opus Dei - considers the Kirchners and their supporters their sworn enemies, and that he was inadvertently carrying water for his very tormentors.
Never heard from him again.
Judi Lynn
(160,515 posts)Who could ever forget the fact the Argentinian church actually positioned priests to help apply pressure to political prisoners while they were being tortured and before they were herded onto airplanes and thrown out into the ocean, or into rivers.
Some kind of "church" with personnel who would ever CONSIDER behaving like that. My god.
The right-wing of Argentina has proven itself for years and years to be not worthy of leadership, and should be banned from politics forever based upon their own history.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Above all, I hope he got some help. Carrying that much hatred around can't possibly be healthy.
Again, I can't be sure he was one of these paid cybertrolls; but he was certainly as vicious as a hired troll. I did confront him with my suspicions a number of times during our fairly long repartée, and he never denied it. To be fair, he was probably unemployed and unemployable; at the end of the day, he just needed someone to understand him (don't we all).
hack89
(39,171 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)was Argentine democracy itself, since no elected Argentine government has or would put their men and women in uniform through something that harebrained and pointless.
This, of course, is more than we could say for certain other elected governments; indeed, it was a GOP-supported dictatorship that invaded the islands in 1982 (Reagan's National Security Adviser, Richard Allen, described Galtieri -who ordered the invasion- as "a magnificent general" .
Since they recovered their democratic institutions in 1983, Argentina's position on this dispute has been clear: the claim stands, but will be achieved by way of negotiations or not at all. Personally, I think Argentina will eventually recover the Falklands not as much by negotiations; but by policy changes in the U.K. itself, whose future Prime Ministers will be increasingly unwilling to squander £200 million ($300 million) a year in welfare for and "defense" of the Falklands when Britain herself has mounting social problems and other important underfunded issues at home.
Judi Lynn
(160,515 posts)Right-wing US Presidents were firm supporters of these fascist war criminals.
By keeping the US public dumb as carrots about US relations with other governments with the direct help from the corporate media it has been absolutely easy to operate with no resistance whatsoever in lending assistance, if not leadership to actual evil actions against masses of people imaginable. Some of the things the Argentinian government did during that time are not even within natural range of decent human beings, leaning right into scenes from hell.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the Brits will not leave and the Falklands will contribute to the treasury.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)the Brits could simply, and safely, withdraw the military reducing the one big expense Britain has in the Falklands. Fishing rights and oil production would then be a huge windfall to the UK.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Which is quite a problem for the U.K., since it now produces less oil than Argentina.
Why? Because BP, once privatized for peanuts in 1985, underexplored, overextracted, and exported all the North Sea oil they could when it was cheap - leaving the country dependent on imports once energy prices became astronomical. Production has already collapsed by 75% from its 1985 peak, with no sign of let-up.
Another Thatcher legacy - and to think she couldn't have done it without that boozer Galtieri. Birds of a feather, those two.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The companies said the discovery of 81 feet of net-oil bearing reservoir and 55 feet of net gas-bearing reservoir at the Zebedee well was better than expected.
Zebedee is the first of six wells that are part of a drilling campaign started in March by Rockhopper and Falkland Oil and involves Premier Oil and Noble Energy Inc (NYSE: NBL - news) .
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/falklands-oil-explorers-report-first-082925356.html
Lets see what happens with the other five wells first, shall we?
forest444
(5,902 posts)only to have the discovery flop afterwards. What's that Dubya would say? Fool me once...
And that does still leave the matter of the North Sea dearth. Cameron's been paying for winter gas shipments with I.O.U.s lately. Lets see what happens when they are no longer accepted, shall we?
hack89
(39,171 posts)ChangoLoa
(2,010 posts)I'm very curious about that information... may I ask your source?
TIA
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)The article doesn't contain anything really on the supposed intelligence operations that were undertaken. But if it prevents military aggression from Argentina then its a success.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Plenty to keep you busy there.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)its all a matter of principle.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Come back when you learn to debate like you're on DU, not rant like a troll.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)The Falklands cost Britain a lot according to you mostly due to military deployments. However, since Argentina would never invade the Falklands then that British expense is unnecessary. Argentina apparently is just trying to help. Since there is no threat from Arg then Britain can reduce its military and thus retaining the islands isn't as costly anymore.
Oil resources, according to you, are not viable for extraction. So why would Argentina care if British companies invest in exploration? However, lets just assume there are resources available, then revenue from oil drilling would mean that the Falklands would become even more profitable for Britain.
The population is British and has overwhelmingly expressed their desire to remain that way. So what are your arguments for incorporation into Argentina?
forest444
(5,902 posts)Was that so hard?
Now to answer your question, I never argued that they should be reincorporated into Argentina necessarily - only that some future U.K. administration will want to shed themselves of the burden. And they will want to do so for exactly the reasons you outlined above. Good call there.
The Labour Party's Ed Milliband - who may become Britain next Prime Minister in 5 weeks - and his brother David (who may be the next Foreign Minister) have both already hinted none-too-subtly that this is what they would like to see happen within the next few years.
In any case, the whole thing is a sideshow - again, for the very reasons you yourself pointed out - and a real tempest in a tea pot whenever it comes up in the discussion boards. And that's a shame because Britain and Argentina share a lot of history together, most of it very positive.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)The Falklanders would continue to benefit Britain through the oil company revenues and the Falklanders themselves could pay for security from Britain. Argentina would be enraged.
Ironing Man
(164 posts)''The Labour Party's Ed Milliband - who may become Britain next Prime Minister in 5 weeks - and his brother David (who may be the next Foreign Minister) have both already hinted none-too-subtly that this is what they would like to see happen within the next few years. ''
pure, and utter bollocks.
you have a source for this delusional drivel? if either of the Milibands have hinted, sutbly or not, that their position on the FI is in any way different to any current or previous UK government policy you won't have a problem showing several sources...
or is this your secret, special news, the news that only well informed people like yourself get, as opposed to the news that the sheeple get?