3.8 Article

Diplomatic Memories: Remembering the Falklands/Malvinas War Through the Diplomatic Practices of Argentina and the Falkland Islands

Journal

JOURNAL OF WAR & CULTURE STUDIES
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 284-308

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17526272.2022.2078539

Keywords

Diplomacy; memory; Argentina; Falkland Islands; Falklands/Malvinas War

Funding

  1. Leverhulme Trust [ECF-2012-329]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines how the memory of the Falklands/Malvinas War is invoked on the international diplomatic stage, focusing on specific diplomatic materials and performances produced by the Falkland Islands and Argentina governments. The analysis reveals that these diplomatic performances and materials are indicative of the (re)production of geopolitical relations and strategies, as well as the conscious foregrounding/backgrounding of past memories to achieve strategic and diplomatic objectives.
Studies of memory in relation to the Falklands/Malvinas War have typically focused on interrogating narratives, practices and performances associated with its memory within different national contexts (predominantly Argentina, the Falkland Islands and the UK). Far less attention, however, has been placed on how memory of the war is summoned on the international stage, in diplomatic settings like the United Nations (UN). This paper analyses specific diplomatic materials and performances produced by the governments of the Falkland Islands and Argentina on and after the 30th anniversary of the war (2012-15), paying particular attention to how they reference the 1982 war. The paper argues that these performances and materials of diplomacy are revealing of the (re)production of geopolitical relations and strategies, as well as how memories of the past can be consciously foregrounded/backgrounded in an attempt to achieve strategic and diplomatic objectives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available