Brian Wilson: Time to rethink Falklands attitude
David Cameron: "We are a major investor in Argentina." Picture: Getty
DEFENDING the islanders was right in 1982, but Argentina is different now and new policies should prevail
In THE moral maze of just wars and legitimate military interventions, there is one absolute endorsed by history: Aggressive dictators should be confronted. That, at least, is what I was brought up to believe by a preceding political generation which had good reason to regard appeasement as a strategy doomed to failure.
Accordingly, I never needed persuading that it was entirely right for Britain to defend the Falkland Islands when the need arose, in stark and urgent form, in these dark days of 1982. The invading Argentina was run by military gangsters of the lowest order. The alternative to defending the Falklands was to hand victory to the fascist regime of General Leopoldo Galtieri. There was no middle way.
On Saturday, 3 April, 1982 the House of Commons was recalled by Margaret Thatcher to be told of the Falklands invasion. But it was the inveterate peacemonger and Labour leader, Michael Foot, who spoke for Britain that day when he directly linked the plight of the Falklanders to the evils of the Buenos Aires regime.
Foot summed up the case thus: “They are faced with an act of naked, unqualified aggression, carried out in the most shameful and disreputable circumstances. Any guarantee from this invading force is utterly worthless – as worthless as the guarantees given by the same Argentine junta to its own people.”
He continued: “We can hardly forget that thousands of innocent people fighting for their political rights in Argentina are in prison and have been tortured and abused. We cannot forget that fact when our friends and fellow citizens in the Falkland Islands are suffering at this moment.”
Precious little thanks Michael Foot ever got for his eloquence or principle. In the crude caricatures that pass for historical art, the Falklands War is portrayed as an example of Thatcherite bellicosity from which she benefited mightily. But this should never overshadow the certainty that it was a just war which also bequeathed a great deal of good, particularly as the democratic tipping point for Latin America.
Even by the standards of that continent, the Galtieri regime was ruthless in its brutality. Its favoured form of torture was to electrocute and part-suffocate political opponents before dumping their still-living bodies from aircraft into the ocean where they remained “the disappeared”; mourned for decades by the women of the Plaza de Mayo, demanding retribution against the perpetrators of these crimes. The mourners only stopped when they knew their country had changed and the oppressors had truly been evicted from power.
As a direct result of defeat in the Falklands, the Galtieri regime fell; to be replaced by a democracy that now seems secure. The waves of resistance to military repression soon spread to other countries of South America. One by one, the tyrannies were replaced by functioning democracies. Thanks to Galtieri, Pinochet and their ilk, the familiar figure in Latin American history of the Washington-sponsored strongman had become too much of an embarrassment for easy reinstatement.
So that is part one of the story. Events in Latin America have moved on at a pace and in a direction that could not have been predicted by even the most hardened optimist 30 years ago. But now, in the run-up to the anniversary of the Falklands War, the verbal sabres are being sharpened. The volume of the rhetoric is being raised. Nobody is yet talking about military action, and probably won’t, but we do still have six weeks to go.
Last week, the Argentinian foreign minister, Hector Timerman, addressed the United Nations and won overwhelming support for the terms of UN Resolutions, calling for negotiation between the UK and Argentinian governments on the future of the Falklands/Malvinas. Already, Latin American countries are endorsing a string of measures aimed at isolating the Falklands and, by association, the UK. Is this really where we want to be?
Hector Timerman was not in Buenos Aires at the time of the Falklands War. His father, a human rights activist, had been a victim of Galtieri’s torture squads and after he was kidnapped the family fled to the United States where Timerman helped to found Americas Watch, an organisation which monitored human rights abuses in Latin America. Now he is the foreign minister of the democratic Argentine state.
A lot has changed in 30 years, and for the good. But one thing that has not changed is the British position. In that Commons debate of 1982, Margaret Thatcher summed it up thus: “We have absolutely no doubt about our sovereignty which has been continuous since 1833. Nor have we any doubt about the unequivocal wishes of Falkland Islanders, who are British in stock and tradition, and they wish to remain British in allegiance.”
Essentially, that is exactly the same case being enunciated by David Cameron today. It was unquestionably good enough in the face of invasion by a fascist dictatorship. But is it really good enough – a clincher of an argument which precludes the right of any other to be countenanced – when the challenge is not military but diplomatic and the challenger is not fascist but democratic?
It seems to me intensely disappointing that so little has been done in the past 30 years to address that question, suggesting a certain lack of respect towards the political evolution of Argentina. Reading these words of Prime Minister Thatcher, I am struck by the similarity of language that used to be deployed in defence of Northern Irish intransigence. An artificial statelet having been created, the rights of the majority within it were then declared absolute.
Eventually, the artificiality of that construct had to be admitted to and change accommodated. Other people had rights too. There are surely parallels with the Falkland Islands. The fact that they have been a British colony for 180 years undoubtedly conveys rights on the people who live there. However, it does not seem satisfactory simply to assert that this should permanently deny rights to those whose geographic proximity is somewhat greater than our own.
And then there is the question of oil. When Margaret Thatcher and Michael Foot stood shoulder to shoulder in defence of the Falkland Islanders’ right to be defended, only a fool would have claimed (as a few did) that they were motivated by the anticipated presence of oil beneath the waters of the region. Thirty years on, with exploration pressing ahead under British auspices, it is a lot less easy to make that unequivocal case. And the moment oil is a factor, 3,000 miles away, then the charge of economic colonialism becomes viable – a reality well understood throughout Latin America.
Instead of sending princes and submarines, the British government might do well to spend the next few weeks reappraising both the principles and perceptions which attach to its Falklands policy. Respecting the wishes of the Falkland Islanders should not translate simply into a power of veto over any reasonable accommodation. Defending the islands should not be synonymous with gratuitously insulting a continent that has made the hard journey from dictatorship to democracy.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Scottish independence: ‘People here are best qualified to run Scotland’
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 32 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
Paulista
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:30 PMWhat does this have to do with Scotland? Thank God when we get independence, this will no longer be our problem. BTW the so-called "Scottish" and "Welsh" inhabitants of Patagonia we keep hearing about are actually Argentineans of Scottish and Welsh descent and share the Argentinean desire - or obsession, call it what you want to "regain" or "obtain" the MalvinasFalklands. I don´t suppose many people have noticed that the Argentinean secretary of state for energy is called Daniel Cameron.
mbrmark
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:50 PMHe really does not like people having self-determination. Thank God he is not important.
Celts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:44 PMHold on, are you suggesting that 30 years ago, when the Falkland islanders had very little but their homes, in which they were happy, we were right to go their defence, but now when they have something of material value and their still happy we should negotiate their rights away without a thought for those people. Have you received a blow to your head man.
The West Awake
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:24 PM"An artificial statelet having been created, the rights of the majority within it were then declared absolute." If you take this out of this article and asked this forum what was being meant (apart from the reference to a "statelet" rather than a state) most would imagine it was a Scottish independence supporters view of the union. Wilson cannot see the irony in his passion for Irish nationalism existing side by side with his bitter opposition to Scottish independence. What is the differentiating factor, Brian?
The West Awake
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:15 PMPending Moderation
Jolly
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:10 PMWho is Brian Wilson??
Jolly
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:08 PMIf the UK was right in 1982, then why should these English speaking people join a state of questionable democratic principles and a totally different culture today???????
The West Awake
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:03 PMIf you take Wilsons comments apart you will find little but contradiction, hypocricy and duplicity. In other words, classic Wilson. Firstly, he is basically saying he is now for what he was formerly against, the Falklands are now up for grabs because the Argentinian Govt are now people he approves of, instead of those nasty right wingers. Indeed, he is now, bizarrely, comparing the Falkland islanders with the Ulster unionists and, presumably, the Argentinians with the Irish (betraying incidentally his true passion - Irish nationalism). In fact, nothing has changed in the essential dispute which caused the Falklands war, the British Govt went to war for one reason only, - to protect the sovereignty of the Falklanders, it was not, as Wilson (now) maintains, because of the nature of the Argentinian Govt, however nasty that was. Wilson is "doing an Iraq" , substituting a later justification (regime change) for an original (WMDS) one. Wilson is New Labour to the core, - it's all about how you tell it. A snake of a man, if ever there was one.
tartantt
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 07:52 PMWhat rubbish. Mr Wilson is in a privileged position to have his views published so. He is an enemy within. While he will probably be ignored by people who know their history, this garbage may influence some youngsters. Hitler just loved his type in the thirties.The Argentine is in meltdown just now, & their leader is on shaky ground. Even their football league is on the verge of meltdown. Our servicemen died for freedom, the Falklanders want to remain British, as they have been for over 150 years yet this plonker spouts this tripe. He is right about oil. It was known that the possibility of oil in the area was strong, & now we Britons can enjoy the benefits, & I hope that Mr Wilson & his family ensure that they advise the authoriyies that they do not wish to benefit therefrom.
Tartancult
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 06:38 PMI enjoyed Brian Wilson when he was with the Beach Boys but he gas gone downhill since they wandered off in the drugged stupors. Try as I might, I couldn't put Brian's piece above to music...
Abridged too Far
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 05:39 PMWhile I agree with the sentiment expressed in you're closing paragraph, Brian, I do think that those opportunities have passed the British Government by. The failures during the recent 2 decades to develop ties and tolerance with the emerging democracy in Argentina shows levels of ignorance and pomposity mirrored here by the flag-waving, out-dated little colonialists commenting on this article. The British Government may be able to use it's position on the security council to stifle UN resolution on the topic, but the Argentinians will win many hearts and minds across the globe. Meanwhile, the uninformed idealists who think the British Empire still exists will dream of armadas sailing south, full of glorious British Tommies with rifles in one hand and redundancy papers in the other
all politicians are the s*me
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:58 PM19, The Argentinian forces that were on the Islands were largely conscripts but to suggest they were 12 is just silly. They underestimated our resolve and once 3 Cdo Brigade and the Paras and Gurkhas were ashore it was game over.
Trump'ton
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:33 PMTo the author: Islanders' self-determination; Continued sovreignty for almost 180 years; Argentina largely uninterested until oil appeared, and the Naval cuts loom once more; Should all the nations that exist relinquish claim back to or beyond 180 years? Irelnad should become British once more; The British empire resurrected; and Argentina given back to the South Americans, and not led by people of Spanish descent. No, it's what's now that counts, and the people on the islands are and want to remain British. Have a little of Mr. Foot's principles, and recognise that.
matrix
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:25 PMI have an Argentinian friend who was 12 years old when the army came to his school gave all the males in his class 3 days weapopns training and sent them to the Falklands to fight the SAS. They cried like babies in the trenches under orders from their own officers that anyone refusing to fight would be shot. I am glad that the military Junta of Galtieri was taken down but I do not agree with shooting kids which the British army did. I have one question about the protection of British oilrich colonies. What would have happened if Hong Kong had oil ? Nothing because the UK cannot bully China. I am happy that when Trident gets kicked out of Scotland and they lose their seat on the UN security council this colonial attitude will finally be ground in the dust where it belongs.
samcoldstream
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:10 PMCurrently 7.2 percent of Argentina's working population is unemployed, and the country's inflation rate is 9.7 percent. The USA and Argentina have not always enjoyed good relations but since the return of a right-wing pro-capitalist democracy, in recent years, the alliance has become closer. Argentina, just like the UK, could not afford a conflict in the South Atlantic. However, the Falklands is a perfect distraction for both governments.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.