The Falklands

[jeff544]

I guess were were kind of waiting for this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518982.stm
In the late 1980's I happened to be in the offices of a large oil company, and I saw loads of maps of the Falklands. In my naivety (sp?) then, I wondered why they were so interested in Pengiuns & Sheep. The answer was "why do you really think our forces travelled thousands of miles to "liberate" them".

I never forgot that.

 

[rynner2]

In the late 1980's I happened to be in the offices of a large oil company, and I saw loads of maps of the Falklands. In my naivety (sp?) then, I wondered why they were so interested in Pengiuns & Sheep. The answer was "why do you really think our forces travelled thousands of miles to "liberate" them".

Oil may have been in the back of some people's minds, but it can'have been a high priority at the time - why wait 28 years before starting even exploratory drilling?

I think the basic reason was that an English-speaking British colony had been invaded by a dictatorial Spanish-speaking regime. The Falklanders didn't like it, and it offended the sense of fair play of Britain and her supporters.

IIRC, all the political parties here supported the sending of the Task Force, although one or two mavericks may have argued against it. It would have been political suicide to oppose it, given the mood of the country at the time.

And not many Brits thought Argentina (led by a dictator or not) had a valid claim to the Falklands anyway, which have been British since 1833. (The early history of the islands with regard to European settlement is quite complex, however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History )

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Oil may have been in the back of some people's minds, but it can'have been a high priority at the time - why wait 28 years before starting even exploratory drilling?

...

I. The Oil price had to rise to a point where the South Atlantic became profitable.

II. At the time, the Antarctic had special protection, a moratorium. But, that doesn't last forever.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html

 

[Quake42]

I think the basic reason was that an English-speaking British colony had been invaded by a dictatorial Spanish-speaking regime.

Yeah. It was a bit of a no-brainer really. It's unfortunate that the war led to a Thatcher victory in the 1983 election, but the actions of the Argentinian government left the UK with no other option but to eject them with military force.

 

[wembley9]

I think the basic reason was that an English-speaking British colony had been invaded by a dictatorial Spanish-speaking regime.

Yeah. It was a bit of a no-brainer really. It's unfortunate that the war led to a Thatcher victory in the 1983 election, but the actions of the Argentinian government left the UK with no other option but to eject them with military force.

THe government had plenty of other options - but none of them would have quite the popularity-boosting benefits of a 'victory'.
Whether you view the sinking of the Belgrano as a deliberate act to ensure that the conflict continued is another matter, but the simple fact is that politicians on both sides wanted war for very similar purposes. Unfortunately they weren't the ones dying as a result.

The situation was rather different in Hong Kong in 1997 when we were happy to hand over a large number of British citizens to a totalitarian regime.

 

[rynner2]

The situation was rather different in Hong Kong in 1997 when we were happy to hand over a large number of British citizens to a totalitarian regime.

That was quite different. There were long-standing treaties in place, and everyone knew years in advance when the hand-over would be, and could choose to stay or make other arrangements.

The only military invasion involved was the original British one in 1841!

 

[wembley9]

The situation was rather different in Hong Kong in 1997 when we were happy to hand over a large number of British citizens to a totalitarian regime.

That was quite different. There were long-standing treaties in place, and everyone knew years in advance when the hand-over would be, and could choose to stay or make other arrangements.

I'm not sure about that last bit - I didn't think Hong Kong citizens were permitted to move to the UK, and as of 1962 were stuck there.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_a ... _Hong_Kong)

The principle - handing people over to a totalitarian regime - was the same. And the legality was open to question: the agreement was made with the original Chinese government (arguably the one which then moved to Taiwan), not the revolutionary one which overthrew it half a century later.

 

[rynner2]

So you're saying that Britain leaving Hong Hong, at the end of the 99 year lease of the New Territories (which comprised the bulk of Hong Kong), would have been just the same as leaving the Falklanders to the mercies of the invading Argentinian dictatorship?

Can't see it, myself, especially as most residents of Hong Kong were ethnic Chinese anyway.

Or if you argue that these Chinese were better off under British rule, then surely the same would have applied to the Falklanders?


Let's bring the whole world under British rule!

Sadly, the days of Pax Britannica are long gone...

 

[Cavynaut]

From what I remember, the Thatcher government had previously announced that the British naval presence in the South Atlantic (one ship, I think), was going to be scaled back, and I'm sure that some restrictions were about to be placed on the rights of the Falkland Islanders to settle in the UK. Whatever the details were, this was interpreted by Galtieri as a diminishing British interest in the place.

He was about as popular in Argentina as Thatcher was in Britain (ie, not very), and, as leaders understand that a short war is a good way of improving their popularity, he decided to invade. Thatcher saw the opportunity to improve her own prospects of re-election and grasped it with both hands.

Frankly, being in my early twenties at the time, I was disgusted by the jingoism on show in this country. The maddest thing was that many of those driving cars around with "I'm British, and so are the Falklands" stickers in their car windows thought that the Falklands were somewhere of the coast of Scotland.

 

[feen5]

Sadly, the days of Pax Britannica are long gone...

I hope you have your tongue firmly in your cheek when you say that? If not i don't think i need to remind you of the consequences of the Pax Britannica.

If your a little unsure ask people from the countries that Britain occupied and surpressed. You should not have any trouble finding someone from Ireland, India, or large parts of Africa that Britain occupied that would not share your fond regard for Pax Britannica.

 

[GNC]

Frankly, being in my early twenties at the time, I was disgusted by the jingoism on show in this country. The maddest thing was that many of those driving cars around with "I'm British, and so are the Falklands" stickers in their car windows thought that the Falklands were somewhere of the coast of Scotland.

"Kill an Argy, win a Metro" as Private Eye famously had it.

 

[misterwibble]

Dearie me feen, what sort of gratitude is that after all we did to, I mean for the Irish?

 

[Yithian]

You should not have any trouble finding someone from Ireland, India, or large parts of Africa that Britain occupied...

You've started by listing a benefit reaped from the Empire yourself!

 

[rynner2]

Alternative History:
how might things have been if Britain did not fight to reclaim the Falklands? With the British Lion exposed as a mangy, toothless old beast, would we have then more easily have avoided involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would we have been sucked even deeper into the EU and the Euro?

Discuss! 8)

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Alternative History:
how might things have been if Britain did not fight to reclaim the Falklands? With the British Lion exposed as a mangy, toothless old beast, would we have then more easily have avoided involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would we have been sucked even deeper into the EU and the Euro?

Discuss! 8)

Or: What if Thatcher and her Government had taken quicker notice of Argentina's moves towards the Falklands, immediately sent in the fleet and had not sent out ambiguous signals on the official British position, until it was too late and the Argentinians had already invaded?

So many questions so many alternative possibilities. So many young men dead.

Some actual background history:
'The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war' by Lawrence Freedman

 

[Spookdaddy]

Alternative History:
how might things have been if Britain did not fight to reclaim the Falklands?...

Amongst all the (often justifiable) cynicism on the one hand and the inane sabre-rattling on the other I think there's another major factor which it has always amazed me is rarely mentioned.

At the time Argentina had (and still has, for that matter) border disputes with Chile, Paraguay and even Uruguay (which is often considered a solid ally of Argentina). The Chilean dispute was, IIRC, the one most likely to escalate into armed conflict.

I think there is a very great possibility that if the UK had simply rolled over on the Falklands the boost to the Junta's political and military confidence (helped by the US's silence on the issue - which might be taken as tacit approval of an allies actions) and the inevitable increase in domestic popularity amongst those not directly opposed to the regime might have resulted a wider and far more costly conflict in the region.

It's interesting to think - and it's only just struck me - that, given the politics of the region, the US administration of the time would probably have been far more openly condemning of any attempt by Argentina use military means to force a territorial claim with Chile than it was in the case of the Falklands.

Edit: Of course, I'm not saying that it was in the minds of the UK government or the British public that military conflict might bring down an aggressive military dictatorship and actually, in the long term, stabilise the region - I just think that there's a possibility, looking at the wider picture, that the long term result might have been more positive than the original intent.

 

[wembley9]

So you're saying that Britain leaving Hong Hong, at the end of the 99 year lease of the New Territories (which comprised the bulk of Hong Kong), would have been just the same as leaving the Falklanders to the mercies of the invading Argentinian dictatorship?

Can't see it, myself, especially as most residents of Hong Kong were ethnic Chinese anyway.

Or if you argue that these Chinese were better off under British rule, then surely the same would have applied to the Falklanders?

No, I'm saying that both Falkland Islanders and Hong Kong residents should have an equal right to say who they are governed by. In the Falklands, the British government was prepared to use armed force; in Hong Kong there was not even much of a legal/diplomatic struggle.

I don't see what being "ethnic Chinese" has to do with it. Nobody has a right to govern you on the grounds of your race or where your family came from a hundred years ago.

It would have been a lot more decent if Hong Kong residents had been given the option of moving to Britain before the handover, but that was blocked. As a colleague of mine put it at the time "it's too crowded here anyway." (Of course Hong Kong is not crowded in the least...)

 

[wembley9]

[I think there is a very great possibility that if the UK had simply rolled over on the Falklands the boost to the Junta's political and military confidence (helped by the US's silence on the issue - which might be taken as tacit approval of an allies actions) and the inevitable increase in domestic popularity amongst those not directly opposed to the regime might have resulted a wider and far more costly conflict in the region.

I have to disagree. The Junta was on its last legs in any case and the dirty war was beginning to unravel. Conflict with the neighbours would have been a very different matter to a war with a colonial power - the Beagle channel dispute with Chile was settled by Papal mediation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict -which was not going to happen with the UK.

btw the dispute with Uruguay has never looked liked geting to a war, but has been going strong over the last few years - they periodically close the bridges. However, as Uruguay seems to be largely a suburb of Bueneos Aires the Aregentines don't appear that bothered.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...I have to disagree. The Junta was on its last legs in any case and the dirty war was beginning to unravel. Conflict with the neighbours would have been a very different matter to a war with a colonial power - the Beagle channel dispute with Chile was settled by Papal mediation...

But as we know, and as Margaret Thatcher found out, military victory can be a great persuader.

I don't deny that the Junta was wobbly, but not on its last legs - it managed to muster effective invasion and occupation forces containing a large number of conscripts (always an iffy proposition if things are chronic back home) without domestic protest. And the ecstatic scenes in Argentina after news of the initial success of the invasion might illustrate how things could have gone for the Junta if that success had remained uncontested.

Similarly fragile governments wobble on for years. The danger for the people they govern, as well as their neighbours, are the lengths they go to to shore themselves up. And the fact that Argentina had previously settled disputes without recourse to military action doesn't automatically mean it wouldn't use that road in future: history is full of belligerents who have settled differences diplomatically, until they don't any more.

 

[wembley9]

I don't deny that the Junta was wobbly, but not on its last legs - it managed to muster effective invasion and occupation forces containing a large number of conscripts (always an iffy proposition if things are chronic back home) without domestic protest. And the exstatic scenes in Argentina after news of the initial success of the invasion might illustrate how things could have gone for the Junta if that success had remained uncontested.

I beg to differ, and I claim a little knowlege of Argentina (I've been there a few times and the dirty war is the interesting bit of history). The Malvinas adventure really was a last desperate throw of the dice.

Having said that, after checking it looks like the plans to have a war with Chile - insane as that would be - do seem to have been quite advanced. It's one thing to send a few thousand troops off somewhere to fight an enemy with an incredibly long supply chain, something else, but land war with the neighbours just looks daft. No wonder they gave up on it.

On a related topic: I had never even heard of the Falklands until the invasion. Who else had? (Oldsters only...)

 

[Spookdaddy]

I don't deny that the Junta was wobbly, but not on its last legs - it managed to muster effective invasion and occupation forces containing a large number of conscripts (always an iffy proposition if things are chronic back home) without domestic protest. And the exstatic scenes in Argentina after news of the initial success of the invasion might illustrate how things could have gone for the Junta if that success had remained uncontested.

I beg to differ, and I claim a little knowlege of Argentina (I've been there a few times and the dirty war is the interesting bit of history). The Malvinas adventure really was a last desperate throw of the dice...

You may well be right - but some specific responses to the points raised could be useful. The Argentines did deploy forces containing large numbers of conscripts, the initial success of the invasion was welcomed fervently in Argentina and governments throughout history, weak or otherwise, have profited from military adventures.

I have no idea if the Falklands really was the last desperate throw of the dice - you may well be right, but even so it really makes no difference to my original point which is that if the dice had come up sixes then the post-conflict situation in the region might have been very different. In that context your's seems to be a self defeating argument - I mean, if there wasn't the possibility of profit built into the endeavour then why throw the dice at all?

...but land war with the neighbours just looks daft. No wonder they gave up on it.

If it were only that simple then the history of world conflict would be largely unrecognisable from the one we've got.

 

[wembley9]

You may well be right - but some specific responses to the points raised could be useful. The Argentines did deploy forces containing large numbers of conscripts,

The actual invasion was carrried out by elite regular forces, the conscripts were moved in afterwards.
You have to remember that the conscipts had alerady been fighting a war (of sorts) for many years, and they were not being sent to a foreign country, just another province.

(I have an Argintinian road atlas, which includes the Malvinas - the inhabitants might be surprised to learn that the main town is Puerto Argentino...)

the initial success of the invasion was welcomed fervently in Argentina and governments throughout history, weak or otherwise, have profited from military adventures.

Sure. But it only goes so far. Conquering Europe can solve a lot of economic and social problems, But acquiring a small island only gets so so much support. In Thatcher's case it was enough - but she was not so unpopular to start off with.

I have no idea if the Falklands really was the last desperate throw of the dice - you may well be right, but even so it really makes no difference to my original point which is that if the dice had come up sixes then the post-conflict situation in the region might have been very different. In that context your's seems to be a self defeating argument - I mean, if there wasn't the possibility of profit built into the endeavour then why throw the dice at all?

Desperate people do desperate things and do not necessarily have a realistic view of the situation. There have been plenty of doomed governments doing desperate things, and we may see more of this in the near future

...but land war with the neighbours just looks daft. No wonder they gave up on it.

If it were only that simple then the history of world conflict would be largely unrecognisable from the one we've got.

[/quote]

True enough! But I don't think there were many (any?) wars in South America in the 20th century; after a messy 19th century things had been pretty much settled. The benefits did not match the risks.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...There have been plenty of doomed governments doing desperate things, and we may see more of this in the near future ...

Hmmm, Rockall's disputed territory is it not?

Sergeant! Issue the wellies.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...True enough! But I don't think there were many (any?) wars in South America in the 20th century; after a messy 19th century things had been pretty much settled. The benefits did not match the risks.

I'm not sure how much of that is lack of will though, or because many countries have simply been too preoccupied fighting themselves.

One of South America's great tragedies is that, in many areas, the population in general hasn't particularly benefitted from the lack of international conflict - in fact I'm not sure the non-combatant bodycount wouldn't actually drop if their armies actually started fighting each other rather than policing their own people. Columbia has the second largest population of Internally Displaced Persons in the world (only Sudan has more) and I'm not sure it's ever fought a war with an external belligerent.

 

[sijmaiden]

All interesting stuff, but let's go back to the original theory. Did we fight the Falklands war because of the oil that (possibly) is in the vacinity? The short answer is, NO. Thatchers Government were very unpopular. There is every possibilty that the Torys would have lost a general election. The Juntas actions were ideal. A rabble-rousing speach, wave the taskforce off, watch all the drama unfold on tv, then wave them home again. If the oil had been a major consideration, the prospecting decks would of been part of the taskforce! You only have to look as far as the obscence "rebuilding" contracts divvyed up after the Iraq invasion to see how this works. No Government, lurching from one crisis to another is going to give a monkeys about what happens in a generations time. The sad truth of the whole conflict was political grandstanding. No conspiracy .

 

[ramonmercado]

...There have been plenty of doomed governments doing desperate things, and we may see more of this in the near future ...

Hmmm, Rockall's disputed territory is it not?

Sergeant! Issue the wellies.

DISPUTED? Its Irish I tell ye!

 

[rynner2]

Hmmm, Rockall's disputed territory is it not?

DISPUTED? Its Irish I tell ye!

I expect Scotland's sending a task force to defend it as we speak...

 

[ramonmercado]

Hmmm, Rockall's disputed territory is it not?

DISPUTED? Its Irish I tell ye!

I expect Scotland's sending a task force to defend it as we speak...

We'll dekilt those haggishumpers!

 

[Spookdaddy]

Hmmm, Rockall's disputed territory is it not?

DISPUTED? Its Irish I tell ye!

I expect Scotland's sending a task force to defend it as we speak...

We'll dekilt those haggishumpers!

Takes all sorts!

But you'll need to be careful. While your ripping the skirts of Scotsmen those Danes'll could be creeping round the back entrance. And, lets' face it - Iceland could probably do with some serious distraction just now.

 

[rynner2]

Back to the southern hemisphere...

Argentinian hackers hoist flag on English language paper website as Falklands stand-off moves to cyberspace
By David Gardner
Last updated at 9:55 AM on 22nd February 2010

Argentinian hackers drew first blood in the latest Falklands stand-off tonight by plastering the country’s flag across the islands’ newspaper website.

The computer attack came as a British oil rig was set to begin searching for oil after arriving in the South Atlantic waters from Scotland.

The Argentine activists hacked into the English-language Penguin News to post a flag on the home page and an audio recording of the song ‘March of the Malvinas,’ Argentina’s name for the Falklands.

They also wrote ‘the islands are Argentine’ and claimed the move was a ‘tribute’ to the country’s soldiers who died during the Falklands War.

The material has now been removed.

The planned oil exploration has met with outrage from the Argentine government, which fears it is being cut out of a share of any potential revenues.

Buenos Aires has threatened to ban British companies with any links with the oil venture from the mainland and has insisted that all ships travelling between Argentina and the Falklands must seek permission.

Last week’s ultimatum re-opened the feud over the islands that has been simmering ever since Margaret Thatcher called the Argentinian bluff and sent a task force to reclaim the islands in 1982.

A British cruise ship carrying 2,600 guests on board is expected to arrive at Port Stanley tomorrow as the first real test of Argentina’s resolve.

The Star Princess set sail from Buenos Aires with no demand for a permit from the authorities and was not expecting any disruptions.

The mainly British passengers were due to visit the Falklands capital as one of the highlights of their South American cruise.

There are also thought to be a number of Argentinians on board.

With tourism now the islands’ main sources of income, it is thought unlikely that the Argentine government will want to risk alienating cruise operators and losing a lucrative slice of the profits.

Argentina’s deputy foreign minister Victorio Taccetti tried to play down the row at the weekend, claiming his government was merely seeking to re-open talks over the disputed sovereignty of the islands.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0gG6RujiH