The recent statement by US ambassador-in-waiting to Argentina, Peter Lamelas, that his country "does not recognize the sovereignty of Argentina or the United Kingdom" over the Malvina Islands is entirely untrue. Not only does it merit deep skepticism, but when compared to Washington's diplomatic and military record, it reveals itself to be a statement bordering on fallacious.

The most compelling point to refute the alleged US neutrality lies in its behavior during and after the 1982 conflict.

It is a documented fact that, throughout the war, the United States not only failed to maintain a neutral stance, but actually provided crucial logistical, intelligence, and military support to the United Kingdom . This included: Satellite Intelligence: The provision of vital information from the US satellite system to British forces. War Materiel: The supply of weapons and missiles, elements that were decisive in the development of the conflict. Diplomatic Support: Although Washington initially attempted a mediating role, its bias towards London became evident and was consolidated as the war progressed.

Then, in the post-war period, far from adopting an equidistant stance, the United States has continued its close military collaboration with the United Kingdom in the South Atlantic . The holding of joint military exercises in the waters surrounding the Malvinas and in the South Atlantic, which have included the participation of nuclear-powered submarines, is irrefutable proof that Washington's strategic relationship in the region has always been with London, not Buenos Aires, regarding the sovereignty of the islands. These exercises send an unequivocal political and military signal of support for the British presence.

And while the United States may not issue an explicit declaration of "recognition" of British sovereignty at every opportunity, its lack of support for UN resolutions calling for dialogue on sovereignty and its abstention on key votes or even its tacit alignment with the British position is a form of non-neutrality.

There has never been a strong diplomatic initiative from the US to actively pressure the United Kingdom to negotiate with Argentina under UN terms. Its "silence" or "abstention" should be interpreted as a way of validating the status quo , which favors the United Kingdom.

Who can doubt that the US position is part of a historic and strategic alliance with the United Kingdom? London is a key NATO ally, shares global security interests, and is a fundamental part of US foreign policy. In this context, support for the United Kingdom on an issue as sensitive as the sovereignty of the Malvinas is consistent with its long-term geopolitical interests, even if it creates friction with Argentina . The declared "neutrality," in this sense, should be interpreted as an attempt to avoid further diplomatic strain on Argentina, without altering the fundamental support for its main ally.

Thus, the US ambassadorial candidate's assertion of a supposed "non-recognition" of Argentina's and the United Kingdom's sovereignty over the Malvinas falls apart when compared with Washington's record. The facts demonstrate a sustained pattern of support for the United Kingdom , both militarily and diplomatically, which contradicts any claim of neutrality.

The role of journalism here is key. It must expose the truth behind diplomatic statements, contrasting them with evidence and history. "Neutrality," in this case, is more a verbal construct than a factual reality .