Malvinas Islands: Facts and Fictions

Let´s set the record straight


November 2015

Fact 10: Despite UK claims, Argentina’s sovereignty exercise over Malvinas was public. The Times of London confirmed this on 3 August 1821

British pamphlets and recent Op-Ed’s published in dubious news sources show that UK propaganda campaign has reached alarming levels: UK now distorts historical facts and documents already acquiesced by the British government.

After the 1810 May Revolution, the United Provinces of the River Plate carried out acts demonstrating the effective exercise of sovereignty over the Malvinas. As an example, there is correspondence of José de San Martín, who in 1816 requested prisoners in Patagones and Malvinas to be sent to the capital of the United Provinces.

The act of possession of the islands exercised in 1820 by Colonel David Jewett on behalf of Argentina, then United Provinces of the River Plate, is another example of paramount significance.  So much so that it became another target of British propaganda in its attempt to distort reality and historical truth.

Early in 1820, Colonel David Jewett, Naval officer officially appointed by the Government of the United Provinces of the River Plate was sent to take possession of the Malvinas. Whalers and fishermen from different countries participated at the event.

This fact was widely reflected in international newspapers of that time in a “Circular” that informed the world of this official taking of possession of the islands “in the name of the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of South America”.

Not only “The Times” of London published this Circular on 3 August 1821 but also “El Redactor” of Cádiz, Spain,and the Salem Gazzette. UK remained silent and never protested this sovereign act.


The Argentine government took several actions in support of its sovereignty over the islands, including the appointment of governors, the enactment of legislation on fisheries and granting international concessions. These facts seem to go unseen for British propaganda.

As well as the fact that in 1825, Great Britain recognized Argentina as a sovereign state and made no reservation regarding Argentina’s exercise of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, which was then not only peaceful but public.

It is only now that British propaganda seeks to deny the very existence of the “Circular” published in The Times and accuses Argentina of a stunt. Any sensible interested human being can confirm the authenticity of this fact by consulting the archives of The Times of 3 August 1821 to find the Circular that was published and never protested by the UK.

The “Circular” appears in the right lower corner of the paper broad sheet (The Times, London, Friday, August 3, 1821). If the “Circular” was later reproduced out of its original format does not diminish the vital importance of this fact nor its authenticity. Any claim to the contrary is simply untrue.



Fact 9: UK distorts history in an attempt to disregard past actions of its own

The Duke of Wellington was not the only British High-Level Official who had doubts over British titles over Malvinas. There are tons of documents in which different officials express their concern on their alleged “rights”.

On the contrary, Argentine government officials had never had any doubt that the Malvinas belong to Argentina and that fact is reflected in myriads of documents including maps.

British propagandists now accuse Argentina of not reflecting its sovereignty over the islands in official maps published in the XIX century. There is specially one map in question over which UK propaganda seeks to distort history and reality: the 1882 Latzina map. More than 130 years later British propaganda now argues that the color in which the islands are depicted is similar to the ones used for Chile and Uruguay.

This map depicts the islands as “Islas Malvinas” and hence part of Argentina.

The 1882 Latzina map was adopted at the request of the National Government and portrays different farming opportunities for immigrants. It depicts the regions apt for farming throughout Argentina’s whole territory and regions are sketched with different shades of color. The Malvinas are colored in the same pale beige used for the city Buenos Aires as both territories offered the same scarce farming opportunities. One can easily see that the color used for Argentina’s mainland territory also varies depending on the region farming opportunities.

Besides, if Malvinas were not depicted as part of Argentina’s territory, why does the map include details of all geographical features and accidents as it does with the rest of Argentina’s national territory? And why does the map do not include the geographical accidents and features of Uruguay and Chile?

These geographical accidents are not detailed in the case of Chile and Uruguay, though they are the same color as the one used for Malvinas and the city of Buenos Aires. Why not? Because these are neighboring countries.

The fact is that British propaganda is seeking to distort historical documents and facts with blatant lies in a desperate attempt to fool public opinion. The distortion about the 1882 Map is part of that propaganda campaign.

Argentina always included Malvinas in its official cartography as “Malvinas” and hence part of its national territory. To name but a few, in 1886, Argentina’s Geographical Institute published a map depicting Tierra del Fuego Governance which included Malvinas. In 1918, the islands are presented as “Islas Malvinas” and hence part of Argentina on a map issued by the Agricultural Ministry that depicted the whole Argentine territory in different shades and colors according to degree of agricultural development and availability of railroad networks.


Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑