ENTRY FOR 11 MAY 1982
This time I'll try a slightly different format, giving comments in Times Roman after each diary paragraph in courier, indicated by {curly brackets}. Again I skip the facsimile manuscript.
May 11
Starting to feel that "I've been against it all along." Have I? Not sure now.
Still fascinated by news of military action. News jags. If it's just a shift in the negotiations it seems a bit flat. I Read all the detailed military accounts of exocets, sea wolves {1}
[Comment {1}: Sea Wolf was the anti-missile system supposed to make the fleet invulnerable to missile attack. It might well have worked sometimes but was very far from 100% effective, and Sheffield had shown that a single Exocet could sink a ship. It is slightly embarrassing to see my younger self beguiled by "Boy's Own" geekery and fascination with the minutiae of weapons systems. I cannot remember it recurring in any subsequent conflict involving the UK: Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, but it's obviously there just below the surface!.]
Talked to Tom H about it all {2}. He reckons at most 3-400 real Falklanders on the islands. The rest short-stay people running the services. Most Falklanders seem to live in Hampshire. T. is convinced they could all have been persuaded to leave, given a suitable golden handshake {3}.
[Comments
{2} This refers to Tom Hopkinson, an well-read older friend, a specialist in historical maps with a keen appreciation of the political sensitivities entailed in making maps and conflicting territorial claims.
{3} At last here is a real number, admittedly based on Tom's general knowledge. This gives a better perspective on the wider political and ethical questions. We are talking about only a few hundred people. Now if they are all native residents with deep roots going back many generations, that might count for something. But if they actually have roots in the south of England, and by implication 'second homes' (or even 'first homes') there, it is very hard to make the case that 'the people must decide their political preferences'. This is definitely the tail wagging the dog, and suggesting of course that 'the rights of the islanders' is just political cover for other purposes to the exercise.
Been trying to ascertain the actual history of the islands, to see what merit there is in the rival claims to sovereignty. Hard to work out really. Obviously the Argentines have some case, perhaps as strong as China's claim to Taiwan or Tibet.{4} Other cases? Goa? (5}. I read out some passages to Gill {6} who was firmly convinced of the rightness of Britain's claim. Seems that Britain discovered them, but did not name or claim them. Then the French visited them and named them. Then the British claimed them and set up a colony. Then the Spanish took over and Britain protested but acquiesced. [The]Islands passed to the proto-Argentinian state after the war of independence. Britain re-asserted sovereignty by force in 1830 or thereabouts, & [re?]established a colony. The ur-Argentine protested but was unable to repudiate [Britain's]claim effectively.(7} Argentina has maintained its claim ever since. This seems reasonable. It seems [however?] that popular beliefs about the islands in Argentina are distorted to give the claim overwhelming apparent legitimacy. They must feel they are fighting for a noble and entirely just cause. Britain must come over as extremely belligerent. {8}
[Comments
{4} Taiwan and Tibet are slightly different cases. Although there are non-Han ethnic Taiwanese, nobody ever seems to feel they have any say in the matter at all as they have always been dominated by a large Han majority. Perhaps it is somewhat similar to situation of the Ainu in Hokkaido, who gave in without much fuss to an overwhelmingly powerful and sophisticated invading culture. Leaving the Taiwanese themselves on one side, until recently all Chinese believed Taiwan and the mainlands to be one country; the only question was who should run it, the Communist Party or the Kuomindang. When the permanent UN seat was transferred to the People's Republic and the US recognised the PRC, then the Taiwanese government changed tack, for obvious reasons. Is there a right answer here? There are certain parallels with cold war East and West Germany, North and South Vietnam, and with North and South Korea, perhaps even northern and southern Ireland. One has the feeling these situations are intrinsically unstable and bound to snap back to a 'natural' ethno-lingusitic boundary eventually. Having said this, Taiwan is a perfectly functional state, much as Hong Kong was, and it is only some kind of Chinese amour propre that causes them to make such a fuss. But in the Falklands context, Britain too made a tremendous fuss about far less. I sometimes think about Northern Ireland in this respect. Wouldn't we mainland British just love to hand it over the the Republic and have done with the whole issue? I'm sure most of us would, but because there's a majority in Ulster against it, we have to go along with the status quo. Same argument applies in Gibraltar, but...the Falklands? Then there was Hong Kong always in the background, due in 1997.
Re Tibet, any non-Chinese who has argued with an ethnic Chinese of any generation or political leaning will have experienced an inexplicable torrent of utter certainty regarding China's claim to Tibet. To outsiders this is genuinely baffling, because until 1950 Tibet was in some sense a functioning state, and although China has occupied bits of it, and made claims from time to time, on the same basis France could claim Canada, Britain France, Poland parts of Belarus, Germany parts of Poland, Hungary much of Rumania, Serbia Kosovo etc etc. But since that time China has created 'facts on he ground' like the Russian population in the Baltic states, or Israeli settlements on the West bank or Poles in Western Poland, Albanians in Kosovo. Eventually we are supposed to accept that the situation has changed and not hark back to some imaginary dreamland of the past. Are the Serbs crazy to still hanker after Kosovo? Are Gazans crazy to still keep the keys of their old houses in Haifa and demand the right of return? Are the Argentines crazy to still claim the Falklands after 150 years of their occupation by a friendly foreign power? The manufacture of ethnic identities and their maintenance over centuries is a remarkable phenomenon; as is the manufactured connection between ethnicity and bits of territory.
{5} Goa was a small Portuguese enclave in Western India, with a distinctive local culture. It was peremptorily annexed by India in the 1960s, and this is a very close parallel to the Falklands situation, that is a foreign-controlled territory within or 'within the sphere of influence' of another country geographically distant from the controlling power. In this case India knew it could 'get away with it' politically and diplomatically because international sentiment was clearly against the 'Portuguese Empire', then controlled by a dictatorship; and militarily because Portugal could never muster the resources for an effective response. Had Goa been British the final result would probably have been the same but diplomatically messier. A forcible military takeover of Hong Kong by China is perhaps a close theoretical parallel to Goa, but obviously the Chinese knew they only had to wait. Gibraltar is another interesting case, but forcible military takeover is unthinkable. Note that Spain has similar territories on the Moroccan coast.
{6} Gill was one of the fellow occupants of a large Welsh farmhouse in which I lived at the time. I cannot now remember any of the views of my house-mates, but this remark suggests they might well have followed the UK government's line, as most people did.
{7} At one level, this just reflects the realities of physical power alluded to in Note {5}. But does a diplomatic protest make a difference? The UN is now the principal court of appeal in such cases, but did not exist in 1830. Can an ancient claim now be lodged with the UN for adjudication? Presumably.
{8} Evidently the Argentinian government thought the 'Goa precedent' would work, and did not expect such an apparently disproportionate response.
Thatcher, Pym and various Tory MPs have criticised the press and BBC for "too even-handed" coverage. This seems to me a remarkable compliment. It is not the job of the BBC, surely,to egg the government on in its ventures, no matter how popular they may be. Heard Hugh Green defending the BBC and having a traditional lunge at long-suffering Tony Benn. {9}
{9} Francis Pym was the new Foreign Secretary, replacing Lord Carrington. Hugh Green was the Director-General of the BBC. I cannot now remember Hugh Green's remarks, but it looks as if he was having a go at Tony Benn (a vociferous opponent of the war) just to show that the BBC was not partisan and was capable of criticising all sides of opinion. My use of the phrase 'long-suffering' suggests that Benn was widely castigated for his opposition to the war. One wonders what was the experience of the now-forgotten lone Tory opponent of the war, Sir Anthony Meyer.
I do believe the defence ministry reports. Am I right to do so? Could they be hiding serious military reverses? The Argentinian news services seem to be simply propaganda agencies. According to Guardian reporter in [Buenos Aires] people believe that Hermes is sunk, Invincible badly damaged, Woodward has committed suicide{10}, 13 Harriers have been shot down, and that Prince Andrew has been taken prisoner {11}. This is not the story we hear from the MoD. {12}.
{10} HMSS Hermes and Invincible were the two aircraft carriers at the core of the Task Force. Then -Rear Admiral 'Sandy' Woodward was in command of the Task Force.
{11} Prince Andrew (Duke of York and second son of the Queen) was a RN helicopter pilot based on Invincible. It is said that the government would have preferred him to stay in Britain, but the Queen and Prince Philip insisted on his active participation in military operations. All part of the theatre, and we still have royal helicopter pilots.
{12} The Argentinian 'reports' were clearly ridiculous, but who reported them? MoD reports presumably were doctored to some extent, but the whole operation was stuffed with British journalists and nothing could have been hidden for very long. So I took all official pronouncements as at least factually accurate.
Evidently the blockade is not totally effective. Planes do get through and drop stuff, or maybe even land on temporary runways.{13} Speculation abounds about an imminent landing. Half of me wants them to go in and get it over with: it would make a good war movie. At the same time UN negotiators seem to be making progress. Britain has relaxed its demands, and Argentina has to find a way of withdrawing without having sovereignty guaranteed in advance. {14}
{13} This is part of my (then) sense of the balance of forces. At the beginning I assumed that overwhelming sea and air power would isolate the occupying garrison and completely exclude dangerous attacks. Having established the conditions for an inevitable victory, Britain could negotiate from a position of strength, with no need for actual fighting. At this stage of the conflict, this seemed to me the most likely outcome.
{14} This is a reminder that of course, at this stage no landing had taken place. The Task Force was just sitting there, prepared for a landing but presumably believing it to be unlikely. At this stage surely a diplomatic solution could have been reached? On the other hand things had become so polarised it must have been very difficult to find a solution that could be presented as honourable on both sides. The next paragraphs sums up my thoughts.
Seems if Britain could give Argentina the wink that transfer of sovereignty would take place pretty soon, but keep quiet about it, they ought to accept because that's what they want. But they need it to be public for it to be acceptable domestically. But if it were public, could the British government avoid charges of a sell-out? Tricky one.{15}
What is the basic principle? Are we "deterring an aggressor"? Does it make any difference if it is clear that the "aggressor" believes it is acting, not only within its rights, but nobly against an unscrupulous and aggressive enemy? How does the world see it? What is the point of "deterring aggression" if nobody else sees it that way?
Sir Anthony Parsons seems to be doing a fine job.{16}
{15} It is worth recalling that under the previous (Labour) government, the FCO appeared to be slowly preparing for some kind of de facto transfer of sovereignty, largely on the grounds that the islands were an economic and political liability. That was probably still its preference under Lord Carrington until the Argentinian provocations. If only they'd sat tight and waited, it would probably all have worked out better.
{16} The British Ambassador to the UN. Good speeches as I recall. Calm urbanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment