On the eve of the 43rd anniversary of the 1982 Malvinas War , a seemingly humane gesture has become the center of attention: the return of a helmet to an Argentine soldier by a British veteran .
But behind this action lies a complex web of manipulation and colonialism that invites reflection. The return of the helmet worn by former combatant Raúl Guerreiro is not a simple act of reconciliation, but part of a broader strategy seeking to soften the image of the United Kingdom , a country that has been at the center of plunder and colonialism in various parts of the world for more than 500 years.
The story begins when the helmet worn and in charge of Raúl Guerreiro was taken as spoils of war, after the surrender of June 14, 1982; and evidently it was stolen and had been in the possession of the Englishman Mark Davies for 43 years .
The connection between these war veterans was facilitated by the Argentine historian Agustín Vázquez , who learned where the helmet was from information given to him by Richard Lee, another British veteran .
To be clear, it's worth noting that this helmet and the thousands of other helmets used by Argentine troops were never the property of the soldiers. Neither were the rifles, the ammunition, the jacket, the backpack, the underwear, the socks, or the boots. Nothing, absolutely nothing our combatants carried or wore was theirs; because all of this was and is the property of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Therefore, of the Argentine National State.
While the recovery of such items may seem like an altruistic act, the narrative surrounding the return of the helmet borders on the absurd , considering that those behind this act are actors in a history fraught with violence and oppression.
Let's remember that the British Empire invaded the Malvina Islands in 1833, establishing a population there and, after the war, establishing NATO's largest military base in South America . There, even US nuclear submarines have carried out ongoing operations and war exercises on illegally seized Argentine territory.
Now, with the goal of reasserting its dominance in the South Atlantic, exercising a form of "soft power" that disguises geopolitical interests under a cloak of apparent humanism, the return of the helmet becomes a pantomime to confuse Argentines and public opinion .
A form of image-washing by Anglo-Saxon imperialism that attempts to erase the traces of years of colonialism in so many nations around the world, and in some cases, persists to this day.
The fact that the helmet will be unveiled to mark the 43rd anniversary of the war clearly demonstrates how we Argentines are once again falling into the trap of British seduction, ignoring the broader implications of these gestures, which are actually derived from a profound lack of memory and a shame for our history.
Vázquez , a flatterer of British disrepute , describes his trip to London to collect the helmet, praising the "integrity and honor of British veterans." But isn't this return part of a larger game to perpetuate a pro-British narrative?
It turns out that, in this way, due to the actions of some Argentines like Vázquez, the enemy apparently ceases to be the one who ordered the ARA General Belgrano to be sunk outside the combat zone, the one who killed the wounded and captured soldiers at Monte Longdon, the usurper, the colonialist, and the plunderer of his own country's natural resources; a matter that the historian forgets to weigh and highlight as a major fact of what happened during and after the war.
The act of returning a helmet in this context becomes a ridiculous symbolism that encapsulates the British desire to continue positioning themselves as saviors in a narrative that should be revisited from a critical perspective .
These gestures are, in reality, a way to continue controlling the perception of colonized peoples, to easily shift public opinion in favor of their colonizers, instead of considering the wounds these invaders have left in Argentine and Latin American history.
In conclusion, the return of Raúl Guerreiro's helmet should not be seen simply as an act of goodwill, but as a maneuver within a strategy of seduction that seeks to maintain the status quo of British influence in the South Atlantic, a colonial dominance that is established through force and transformed into the theft and plundering of the region's natural resources.
A reminder that reconciliation cannot emerge from one side alone and that historical memory must be preserved in all its complexity, not only in terms of symbolic gestures, but in recognition of the true roles each nation has played in it.
FOUNTAIN:
