Malvinas and Benin: A Cultural Chronicle and a Diplomatic Protest

Two materials of different nature approach the Malvinas from complementary angles. On the one hand, a cultural article published in La Nación that, starting from Lionel Messi’s football farewell, draws a parallel between the Malvinas Islands and the name of the Republic of Benin. On the other, an official statement from Argentina’s Foreign Ministry reporting a diplomatic protest to the United Kingdom over the actions of a military vessel in waters Argentina considers under its jurisdiction. Neither source automatically confirms the other: they are different records, with dissimilar purposes and scopes.

What the La Nación article says about Benin and the Malvinas

The La Nación text begins with a recent scene: the farewell of the «greatest global football idol.» There, according to the piece, the flag asserting that «the Malvinas are Argentine» was seen again. From that episode, the author asks about the meaning of the name of the country invited to that last game: the Republic of Benin.

The article reviews several historical layers associated with the word Benin: an ancient kingdom, an Atlantic bay, a concrete arch known as the «door of no return,» and a monument to millions of African slaves. It notes that the Republic of Benin has existed since 1975 and that, before its independence, it was called the Republic of Dahomey.

It then focuses on the so-called «Benin Bronzes.» It locates that kingdom east of present-day Benin, in what is now Nigeria, with its capital in Benin City. It mentions that 15th-century historians described its urban planning and that UNESCO protects the site. It maintains that between the 13th and 19th centuries, an art of ivory and metal carvings, reliefs, and bronze sculptural plaques was produced there.

The article states that in 1897 the royal palace of Benin City was looted by British forces. It compares that event to the theft of the Parthenon marbles and to the occupation of the Malvinas, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands, which it attributes to a usurpation by force in 1833. It adds that Nigeria continues to demand the return of the bronzes from the United Kingdom and that in 2025 the Netherlands signed an unconditional restitution, followed by Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium. It states that England invokes its own law that considers returning stolen goods a crime.

What the Foreign Ministry statement establishes

Argentina’s Foreign Ministry reports that, on the instructions of Foreign Minister Quirno, a formal note of protest was submitted on July 13 to the Embassy of the United Kingdom. The reason: the movements of the vessel HMS Medway, which Argentina considers «illegally deployed in the Malvinas Islands.» According to the statement, those movements were not notified in accordance with the bilateral agreements in force and involved transit through Argentina’s Territorial Sea.

The official text maintains that the unilateral action violates the Joint Declaration of September 25, 1991, which replaces Annexes I, II, III, and IV of the Joint Declaration of Madrid of February 15, 1990, in its section I.2 on confidence-building measures, point «b,» according to the text of the Joint Declaration of Buenos Aires and London of July 12, 1993.

The Foreign Ministry rejects «this British military incursion into spaces under Argentine jurisdiction» and frames it within a sustained policy of unilateral acts incompatible with United Nations resolutions. It specifically mentions Resolution 31/49 of the General Assembly, which urges both parties to refrain from adopting decisions that introduce unilateral modifications in the situation of the Malvinas Islands while the sovereignty dispute is pending. It reaffirms sovereignty rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces.

Contrasts and limits between the sources

Both sources address the Malvinas, but from different registers. La Nación is a cultural article that uses the mention of the Malvinas as part of a reflection on Benin and the plundering of the bronzes. The Foreign Ministry is an official primary source documenting a specific diplomatic protest. The article does not mention HMS Medway or the July 13 protest. The statement does not mention Benin, the bronzes, or the football farewell.

Both coincide in asserting the Argentine position on the Malvinas, but with different scopes: the article does so as cultural commentary; the Foreign Ministry, as a government act with reference to bilateral instruments and UN resolutions. Neither source alone allows confirming all the facts the other recounts.

What each document establishes and what remains open

The fact or decision worth following

The Foreign Ministry statement is the primary source that allows following a verifiable event: the formal protest of July 13 over the movements of HMS Medway. It remains to be seen whether the United Kingdom responds to that note, whether new bilateral rounds are convened, and whether Argentina presents the issue in multilateral forums. In parallel, the La Nación article leaves open the question of the status of Nigeria’s claims and the European restitutions of the Benin bronzes, a matter that exceeds the diplomatic protest but that the text explicitly links to the Malvinas.