First off, I’d like to pay tribute to the well-argued and thoughtful views that Alex Bigham has set out in this column for the past three years. I’m really pleased to be picking up where he left off.
Alex helped keep foreign affairs on the party’s agenda during the post-Iraq years. I think most members would rather pretend that we don’t actually need to discuss foreign policy, perhaps afraid of another decision such as Iraq that might divide us. In the past I’ve written for Progress on defence and security, and there will be some of that in coming weeks, but I thought I’d kick off with one of the most baffling news stories on the international pages in recent week: the Falkland Islands, and ask: can Labour support a second Falklands War?
The current situation in the Falklands appears to have grown like a slowly gathering cloud on the horizon for the coalition. Yet the response would make you think that they’d only had five minutes to consider their strategy for dealing with the Islands before reaching for the trigger.
Sending a government minister (Willets) and a member of the Royal Family (Wills),to the Islands, supporting a bizarre 4×4 ‘drive-by’ to tell Sean Penn what the Islanders think of his interventions, and, joking aside, the deployment of a very expensive and high-tech destroyer HMS Dauntless to the Islands, all suggests David Cameron has made up his mind about how this episode is going to conclude.
For politicians, the first Falklands war has a simple and familiar plot. A limited yet easy to understand cast of characters, a storyline with good and bad, and a straightforward conclusion that everyone understands and remembers.
There is an equally simple and familiar comparison between David Cameron now, and Margaret Thatcher in 1982. She was a beleaguered PM with economic woes at home who used the chance for a military stand-off 8,000 nautical miles from Britain as a chance to restore national pride. He is facing an age of austerity which voters are beginning to wake up to with a shock. Could he be thinking now might be a good time for a flush of military action overseas?
Whichever way the government’s mind is wandering over the UK strategy for the Falklands, the question I can’t help asking is do the Falklands matter to us? Are we angry about Argentinian claims to the Islands because we fundamentally believe them to be part of Britain’s national fabric, or because we think the islanders themselves should decide their future?
I have full respect for the islanders and their desire to remain British, but I don’t think the Falklands should be allowed to set the agenda of our relationships with south America, or divert our attention from other urgent and arguably more serious challenges.
It’s short-sighted to think that the current tense stand-off will not affect our relations with other countries in the region, both now and in the future.
We’ve already seen how the Argentinians feel about the issue. The Argentine President Cristina Kirchner has behaved in a surprisingly similar fashion as the junta who ruled her country during the first Falklands War. It’s unimaginable that she, or the Argentine people, will change the way they feel about the Falklands or the means they are willing to use in order to secure Argentinian control on the Islands.
So what to do? As an observer, it’s tough to tell what the FCO is up to behind the scenes, and how far they are allowing this issue to dominate their agenda with our international partners, or indeed how hard they are working to secure a peaceful conclusion to the current tension.
I also can’t say that I believe the Falklands to be an important strategic issue for UK foreign policy for the 21st century. They are a bit of a one-off in diplomatic terms. But that doesn’t mean Labour should fall asleep and nod military action through without serious challenge.
I think there are three possible tests for Labour to apply to the current tensions before we should support any military action:
Support from the US
If you were going to draw one lesson from the 1982 Falklands war, then it would be not to allow the United States to stay silent again. Gaining support from our closest allies, and the international community cannot be an add-on for the UK this time around. Very little logical analysis of Britain’s interests in the region has taken place to date, and now is the time for Labour to ask the question: would UK military action in the south Atlantic carry any support from our allies, particularly the US?
The right hardware
Sensible critics have already begun asking if Britain can actually win a conflict over the Islands. The recent defence cuts have taken a scythe to the UK’s theatre deployment capability. In an recent interview in the Telegraph, General Sir Mike Jackson (the retired head of the army) suggested that it is actually ‘impossible’ for the UK to recapture the Islands following a new Argentinian invasion. General Jackson cites the scrapping of the UK’s legendary Harrier Jet as his cause for concern. So Labour should push the government on a detailed military strategy which takes account of our new handicaps.
The human consequences
During the 1982 conflict the UK lost 255 soldiers, the Argentinians between 800 and a thousand. I don’t believe that we can talk seriously about any troop deployment, ever, without asking if we are ready for casualties. We have to ask, and answer the question: are we ready for human casualties, military and possibly civilian as a result of a military escalation in the region?
—————————————————————————————
David Chaplin writes the Progressive Internationalism column for Progress
—————————————————————————————
Can Labour support a second Falklands War 1 word YES!
can’t we sell it ? gawd knows we need the money ! we could split the oil proceeds too -more money. Make friends with South America,we need friends.
I have to say David that you sound like something of an appeaser who would be happy to force British people to become Argentinian just because you don’t believe in defending yourself.
The Labour Party fundamentally believes in democracy. And the right to self determination is the foundation stone upon which democracy is built. To ignore it, is to ignore democracy. Furthermore, Prince William’s deployment is routine and is expected of any RAF pilot. The Destroyer’s deployment is vastly overplayed, as it will be more active in counter-piracy/trade protection/peacekeeping off Nigeria than it will be near the Falklands. You also seem to be suggesting that this tension has been created by David Cameron – for which there is no evidence. Once again, Argentina are the aggressors on this case.
On your particular points:
1) USA. Of course, we had quiet support from the US in 1982 through fuel and missile supplies. But the USA is not the be all and end all of this. Under the UN Charter, the right to self determination is a core principle, to be defended if necessary. But also NATO is designed to help protect nation states and their dependancies from foreign invasion
2) There is a difference between being unable to take the islands back and losing them in the first place. Port Stanley is infinitely better equipped than it was before, and the destroyer is an extraordinary piece of kit. The Argentinians could not just waltz onto the islands like they did in 1982. But all this is irrelevant, a military invasion is highly unlikely due to the deterioration of Argentina’s military capabilities. They simply do not have the firepower to do it.
3) You seem to be forgetting that the casualties incurred in 1982 were the direct result of Argentina’s invasion. We were not the aggressors. Those deaths were caused by Argentina’s illegal act, not the UK carrying out its duty to protect the island’s inhabitants.
Fundamentally, the Labour Party believes in the strong helping those who can’t help themselves. The UK is strong, and the people of the Falklands look to us to defend them from military invasion. It really isn’t too much to ask.
It not a case of should it, can it afford not to.
We can not allow the rights of Britich subjects to be used as barganing chips to appease goverments.
What would we do if Spain wanted back Gibraltar next?
No we need to stand up square and support the British people no matter how far away fom the minland they may be. Otherwise the scarafice of the troops that died there and those who continute to serve there, separted from loved ones for months at a time is completely wasted.
It not a case of should it, can it afford not to.
We can not allow the rights of Britich subjects to be used as barganing chips to appease goverments.
What would we do if Spain wanted back Gibraltar next?
No we need to stand up square and support the British people no matter how far away fom the minland they may be. Otherwise the scarafice of the troops that died there and those who continute to serve there, separted from loved ones for months at a time is completely wasted.
If we accept, as I do, democratic peace theory that no two democracies have gone to war with each other then armed conflict is not likely.
Kirchner may be a bit of a populist but she is still a social democrat and with her party in power they have made some great steps forward advancing social democracy which we should applaud. We should try and work with her Party to try and soothe relations. Things will probably get worse before they get better – they are probably using this as a way of distracting the public from their domestic problems – may lead to petty trade wars etc, but I doubt very much it will lead to war. We should stand by the islanders and their right to self determination.
So long as the Argentinian Constitution continues to lay claim to a territory that is not their’s and a people who don’t want to be Argentinian, we will always have this problem. If a beligerent Argentina wishes to test democratic peace theory, that is its perogative.
Gibraltar ! do we still own Gibraltar ? WHY ? Give it back ! gawd knows the Spanish are in hard times ,it might help them.
we could sell Gibraltar but who round the Med.could afford to buy it eh ,apart from Israel. Yes ,I know that’s a bad idea !
We are losing respect all over the world and in our selves and are fast becoming considered a declining nation that will not and cannot stand up and be counted . If you want a country of strong, forward thinking motivated citizens, with pride in their nation there should not even be the question over the issue of do we support and defend the Falklands. Does any political party actually realise how much wishy washy liberalism, regulation and apeasement is destroying this nation and its self respect. No wonder the Scots want to jump the sinking ship Rule Britania & God Save Our Queen