The Falklands and Our Allies
There is a great deal of debate on the nature of our political and strategic relationship with the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth and individual nations.
One of the fundamental principles of UK defence and security strategy is the recognition that large scale operations will always be conducted in conjunction with allies. What characterises this type of large scale expeditionary operation is the matter of choice; we choose to participate in this type of expeditionary or arms length operation because we make the judgement that it is in our national interest to do so. Other nations make the same judgement and so coalitions are created.
We tend to think of ourselves as the junior partner in the context of the EU, NATO or the USA, moving in the direction of the consensus view but what would happen if that consensus view was not in our national interest, what if the conflict is not of choice, but necessity, can we really rely on our allies when the chips are down?
What brings this question into sharp relief if of course the recent escalation of tensions in the South Atlantic, if military operations were called for they would not be a matter of choice.
One might argue that the UK can take care of its own people thank you very much and doesn’t need or want any support, practical or moral, from anyone else. We still need to know that our friends and allies stand ready to offer a helping hand should we ask, though.
Putting events in historical context, in 1982 our most consistent and strongest ally was not as one might imagine, the USA, but France. US support was eventually forthcoming and welcome but prevarication and bickering between the Department of Defence and the State Department might have actually emboldened Argentina and escalated the conflict. The DoD and Secretary of Defence were publically supportive of the UK position whilst the State Department and it’s head were more supportive of Argentina. Only later in the conflict cycle did practical assistance and political support materialise, extremely helpful and in some cases tactically decisive as it was. France on the other hand, offered decisive and enduring support backed up with practical assistance at every level.
Fast forward to today and there are strong similarities but equally many differences.
Some things endure though.
The single most enduring factor is that of self determination.
One might argue back and forth over the details of sovereignty claims between the UK and Argentina (the facts are pretty clear however the Argentine government wants to pretend otherwise) but the islanders wish to remain British, this is the fundamental point that so many on all sides seem to conveniently forget, that and the memory of the 255 service personnel who died in 1982. The islanders have decided they like warm beer, Coronation Street and not being ruled by a nation that has a proud history of throwing its political opponents out of aeroplanes, sans parachute.
Not in quite the same league as General Galtieri, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is capitalising on the sovereignty issue to resolve her own political woes and credit where credit is due, they have played a very effective game.
A carefully constructed tub thumping session at the Rio Group, followed by a well coordinated victim session at the UN (one of many over the years)and culminating with a press conference at a planned meeting between el presidente and the US State Secretary seems to have achieved its aim of putting the UK in the aggressor category and Argentina in the victim corner.
There are of course more holes in the Argentine government’s claims than a Swiss cheese, for example, Argentina’s Foreign Minister complained at the UN that the UK has broken international law in allowing the exploration activity to proceed, when questioned on exactly which laws these are the sound of silence is deafening.
Playing the victim of imperial colonisation, Argentina and her gullible supporters conveniently forget that it was not the UK that invaded in 1982 and it was not the UK that laid thousands of anti personnel land mines, in fact the word ‘laid’ implies a plan, they were scattered indiscriminately. Has Argentina actually bothered in the nearly thirty years since 1982 to carry out any demining, what do you think?
The Argentine game plan of nationalism at home and playing the victim abroad culminated with the meeting with one Hilary Rodham Clinton during which reporters and Cristina asked some direct questions.
Hilary’s response…
“We want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. We cannot make either one do so but we think the right way to proceed, so we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.”
Whoah, hold the presses.
What exactly does she mean by ‘the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place’
Is this statement of a US position that says there is actually something to discuss i.e. sovereignty should be discussed, in the eyes of the US, the matter not being settled.
Was this calculated to encourage Argentina, snub the UK and damage a long standing strategic relationship or simply incompetence, who knows?
In the age of Facebook and 24×7 news channels an image is much stronger than a word.
Hilary might like to reflect on what parts of the British Army deployed to Afghanistan in response to an attack against US citizens on US soil, read their South Atlantic battle honours and ask how those very same units fighting, bleeding and dying alongside US soldiers and marines might view this image. In fact on the same day and the day after this picture was taken Rifleman Carlo Apolis and Corporal Richard Green of 4 and 3 Rifles were killed in Afghanistan.
In all fairness one must also look at the US position, relations with Latin America are important and the recent intelligence revelations have been damaging but adherence to the rule of law is not something that we can conveniently push to one side.
Even with these concerns there is a big difference between staying out of an argument and wading in. Actively encouraging talks whilst having a laugh and a joke in Argentina is not the same as quite neutrality and a recognition of what is happening in Helmand.
People in the UK understand the need for a subtle and balanced approach from the US so this foreign policy blundering is either just that, egotistical grandstanding wrapped up in foreign policy incompetence and nothing much to worry about in the long term or a deliberate changing of the dynamic between the US and UK.
It is one thing to give the Prime Minister of the UK a crappy cheap present but it is entirely a different matter to dabble in the lives of its citizens.
The EU has played a smarter game, indicating that the issue is between the UK and Argentina. There is an obvious awareness of the forthcoming General Election and to antagonise the UK would be very counterproductive especially given the UK’s contribution to EU coffers, member states of the EU know full well the inbuilt resistance in the UK to greater EU integration.
If Argentina did attack we would not be able to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter because of Article 6 i.e. all bets are off south of the Tropic of Cancer. The Lisbon Treaty might actually offer more support, especially article 42, clause 7, oh, the irony.
The map below shows the ISAF Contributing Nations, perhaps Hilary can ask Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela to backfill the gap that would be left by us moving 10,000 personnel from Afghanistan to the Falkland Islands in order to deter Argentina or defend British people and territory. Whilst they are at it we might ask the US to politely vacate Ascension Island and Diego Garcia. In fact, Diego Garcia is about ten times as worse as what the Argentine government accuse the UK of doing, yet the US benefits from Diego Garcia so let’s all pretend that one doesn’t count.
It is in everyone’s best interest for the UK and the Falkland Islands to have cordial relations with Argentina, not least because of economic reasons but the issue of sovereignty is simply non-negotiable while the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British. The way forward for Argentina is to share in the development of the area, not by throwing existing agreements on hydrocarbon exploration and fisheries in the bin and shouting Malvinas, Malvinas, Malvinas to anyone who will listen. If President Kirchner hadn’t nationalised a major airline and seized billions of pensions funds, international oil exploration companies might have been more willing to assist with exploration and exploitation of Argentina’s own offshore reserves. There may be a hydrocarbon bonanza and their might not be but surely the sensible option for Argentina is to cooperate on exploration and exploitation and share the possible proceeds.
Of the 795 entries on the State Department’s website that include the term ‘self determination’ one in particular stands out
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
The words, double standard spring to mind.
So our two principle partners are either shuffling and looking at their shoes or actively giving succor to our adversary. When things get difficult, true colours are exposed. I know, lets tell them they are either with us or against us!
Hilary Clinton likes her Reset Buttons, perhaps the UK should be thinking about going shopping for one of our own, we might even manage to get the spelling right and whilst we are at it we could table a motion at the UN to urge the US to discuss the sovereignty of Texas with Mexico.
As for our EU partners, once again the much vaunted common security approach is innefective, consisting entirely of teflon coated, sharply pointing downward shoulders.
Where exactly is Baroness Ashton on the issue.
Brazil backed Argentina’s protests at the inclusion of the Falkland Islands as a British overseas territory in the Lisbon Treaty, the Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said in Paris that his country was discomfited by the islands’ inclusion. With the ongoing development of closer ties between Brazil and France one might reasonably wonder if this has anything to do with the deafening silence coming from Paris, I suppose the possible sale of Rafale’s to Brazil is irrelevant as well.
The time has come for the UK to recognise that we still need our allies but fundamentally, they will act in their own interests, not ours. The special relationship remains very strong between the people of the US and the UK but if governments fail to see it the same way then we need to fundamentally appraise our position, after all, we have sacrificed much blood, treasure and prestige to stand side by side with the US on the so called ‘war on terror’ yet this seems to count for nothing.
As for the South American and Caribbean nations signing up to the Islas Malvinas crusade, they might wish to look at their trade balances with the UK and the amount of development aid they receive from us and think again.
Isn’t it about time that we reasserted a more robust and independent minded approach, acting with confidence in our own interests without this constant deference to others.
A tip of the beret to New Wars, Kings of War, 13th Spitfire, Richards previous post and lots of commenters for ideas and information that supported this post
33 comments
Post your own
i thought the same dominic, however the headline underneath was that belarus (the arms supplier) had signed a contract to buy crude oil from the very same fat controller so thought had a little more legs than previous claims “oil for arms-gate”!!!
Chavez announces a new arms deal every week, gets him lots of headlines and makes him look ‘ard, but they’re shelved shortly afterwards when the supplier refuses to accept “strong bolivars” in payment and he cant scrape together the dollars to pay up.
The last big arms purchase was 24 SU-30′s in 2006.
Since then its been small arms and bluster becuase he just doesnt have the cash.
oh great now the bloke who has told the queen to back off or else, is gtting even more equipment(from belarus….stand by stand by!!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6Mb0hTbtUv9N4hKHmbGdbmaN5MQD9EFVG5O0
In the interests of honesty, I am the author.
Fair point, no civilian was killed but from testimony, that was pretty lucky. There were numerous accounts of brutality against civilians including mock executions, pointing weapons at children to coerce their parents and numerous other excesses so you can hardly blame them for not wanting a re run.
Large parts of the islands are still off limits because of indiscriminate mining
Were the invading Argentine forces treated as liberators, no.
The bottom line is the wishes of the islanders, whilst they wish to remain part of Great Britain, at least as an overseas territory, that is the end of the matter. Argentina either lives with that basic fact or does something about it, whinging and moaning isn’t actually going to change anything.
Sorry
Admin, regarding the conflict of 1982 I don’t consider going over it is going to bring anything new to the table. However… all the brutal and cruel the Argentine invasion of the islands was, no civilian was killed. I don’t think you can say the same about your war on “terror” and the poor countries subjected to invasion in the chasing an “entity” that does not have a face or nationality. Aside from that, moving into present again, I don’t think anyone in Argentina would agree on assisting in the extraction of natural resources because the collective intelligence of the Argentine people does not have closure regarding this issue, and that is in the first place because no mediation or international resolution has ruled out our claim. And why is that? Because the UK refuses to sit down and discuss sovereignty, ignoring the invitation from the UN to do so. Could it be that legally the UK claim cannot hold ground and that is the main reason you will not sit down? I would like to read your thoughts about this. I do apologize about the IQ remark, it was triggered mainly by some of the authors remarks, which are not worth going over again.
Cheers
considering i have the “lower” IQ “even if you send more troops to Afghanistan the fact that you are absolutely wrong on this issue and Argentina is right” I reckon i could use better debating skills than that might as well assaid my dad’s bigger than your dad!!!
but as admin pointed out this is a forum about defence as in equipment/future trends etc it’s not about warmongering, so hey ho and all that
Marcos, some of the writing is a little tongue in cheek and written from a specific perspective but the UK did not invade, brutalise the islanders, destroy property, loot, scatter anti personnel mines all over the place that are still there to this day and cause of the death of over a 1000 people, so I am sure you can forgive some of the invective.
The political, social and military context in Argentina today does not support military action today, but that is today. Who knows what the mood of the nation will be like in a year or ten, if you can predict this then please let me have next weeks lottery numbers.
I am truly glad that no sane person in Argentina would support military operations which makes the current tub thumping about the issue even more puzzling, would it not be more advantageous to cooperate in the development of the area rather than cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Before the current nonsense there was every chance that Argentina could have shared in the hydrocarbon (if they actually exist) and fisheries spoils but now I am afraid, there is no chance. And you accuse the UK of stupidity!
We truly want the best relationships at all levels with Argentina and there is no animosity at a personal level because despite what you think the best type if military force is one that you don’t use.
I will let your insult about intelligence stand because it is worth more as is but f for one minute you think that just because this is a military forum, used by people with a military background it is unthinking then the only one that looks ridiculous is you.
“The islanders have decided they like warm beer, Coronation Street and not being ruled by a nation that has a proud history of throwing its political opponents out of aeroplanes, sans parachute.”
Clearly written by a complete ignorant of the current Argentine political and social reality. Well, can’t really be surprised as this is a defense forum… not the highest IQs around.
Bottomline, you are all alone on this, even if you send more troops to Afghanistan the fact that you are absolutely wrong on this issue and Argentina is right constitutes a huge detriment to your hopes of any “allies” coming your way to help you diplomatically.
Military wise, that will not be necessary… as much as you and the UK press resists the notion in fact Argentina has changed a lot from 1982, a military option is not even an option, not because we don’t have means (we really dont) but because no sane Argentine man or woman would support it.
Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley repeatedly calls the falklands malvinas during meeting with british diplomats
now i know this is in the daily express but too much information and name naming not to have some foundation, how arrogant/rude that this man can do this in a meeting, time to pull up the drawbridge, read for yourselves
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/162569/The-Falklands-No-Malvinas-says-U-S-
Thank you Sven.
I am afraid there is a fatal confusion in the minds of our leaders between internal security and defence. This manifests it in the idea that by fighting the Islamo-fascists in Afghanistan we avoid fighting them in Bradford. We have ended up, of course, doing both.
Well, the attack happened on North American soil, not in AFG.
The perversion is not geographical in nature.
Instead:
a) NATO was never meant to be directed against political-religious criminals.
b) No alliance EVER before felt compelled to keep fighting its enemy after it lost power.
The aggressor’s loss of control over the own state always meant the end of the alliance emergency. There has never been an obligation in any alliance ever (also not in NATO) to keep up the efforts indefinitely till it’s made sure that the aggressor party will not rise back to power.
The latter is especially weird as the U.S: waged the invasion of AFG not as a NATO operation, bu as a national operation with later some assistance by a few allies. The NATO bureaucracy and friends got scared by the idea of not being allowed to play in AFG and pushed for an own role – ISAF.
To me, the article V activation of NATO was finished in early 2002. Somehow it was forgotten to make that official.
Thank you Sven. Just confirms another of my opinions, that the American war in Afghanistan has perverted NATO as well as annoying a lot of Muslems.
Europe North America, Algerian departments of France (long obsolete) and North Atlantic north of the tropic of Cancer.
Interestingly, an attack on the Asian part of Turkey or on Hawaii seems to be excluded from NATO collective defence (Hawaii was no state yet in ’49 and Turkey joined NATO only in ’52).
It may be that later additions to the treaty (when new members joined) extended the original coverage.
Europe’s Eastern border (Ural, Caucasus, Bosporus) is the Eastern limit, the U.S. West Coast is the Western limit.
OK Sven, while you are reading these documents for us – what do they say about the eastern & western limits of the North Atlantic area?
Well spotted Sven, will amend the original
“If Argentina did attack we would not be able to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter because of Article 6 i.e. all bets are off south of the Tropic of Capricorn. The Lisbon Treaty might actually offer more support, especially article 42, clause 7, oh, the irony.”
The relevant limit is the tropic of cancer, not capricorn:
“Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
* on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
* on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
Micheal if you truly can’t say what you were doing in 82 – then perhaps you should not have mentioned it at all ! I seem to remember a History Channel (?) documentary where it was suggested French actually Secret Service worked alongside MI5 / MI6 in setting up ‘stings’ to ensure no Exocets got to Argentina from 3rd parties.
Anyway – good article except: “Hilary might like to reflect on what parts of the British Army deployed to Afghanistan in response to an attack against US citizens on US soil” – 67 British Citizens were killed in the attack on the World Trade centre – more than any single IRA or other terrorist atrocity as far as I am aware, so it was not JUST an attack on U.S. citizen on U.S. soil – it was an attack on Britains, Canadians, Dutch, Danes, whoever happened to be in the buildings at the time. Thus our initial response, to get involved in the invasion of AF and getting rid of Taliban and AQ there was the right thing to do – not just blindly supporting our “main ally” like we did in Iraq.
I’m not sure I’d go quite that far we should have the ability to fight anywhere, we just shouldnt try and stay there and “fix” things.
Hello Dominic
Totally agree. Isn’t that what we had in our glory days? A powerful navy with a smallish but professional army. We should confine our fighting to places that have a coastline – which suggests we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan!
“The whole episode is a reminder that when the chips are down, we are the only people who can be relied upon to act in our own best interests”
Cant argue with that, but then, thats why I’m such a fan of moving the UK on to a strategic raiding footing and building up our submarine launched long range guided missile force to the point where we can operate alone against virtualy anyone, at least in the short term.
As a postscript I agree with Rupert Fiennes when he write:
The whole episode is a reminder that when the chips are down, we are the only people who can be relied upon to act in our own best interests
Hello Dominic
I am rather unsure what I can say on an open forum, but I know what job I was doing in 1982 and where I was doing it.
In any case, accepting that the French were telling the truth and then finding out they weren’t might have been a bit expensive for the people on the receiving end of an Argentine missile strike.
Micheal
France told us that the Exocets sold to Argentina were basic models, with no additonal upgrades, and refused to sell Argentina any more.
Since we helped design the predecessor to the Exocet, that was handy information.
They didnt give us any “destruct” codes, because they only exist in Bond films.
This doesnt make France our ally, they simply have an interest in Overseas Territories being held against closer foreign powers.
Well no I P; I don’t miss George W. I assume you are American so you should be happy that I don’t blame Americans for our crappy situation. It is our fault entirely. I just want us to get out. To de-couple from the US. No more American wars. If we are not going to be America’s biggest supporter in the future, we won’t need to large carriers, so we won’t need the F-35.
Well, now don’t you all wish you had George W. Bush as the president!
So far President Obama hasn’t been too friendly to UK.
1. Cancels VH-71, big contract for AgustaWestland.
2. Reneg on the agreement for transfer of software for F-35 that Bush and Blair worked out.
and now this.
My own view is that we should grow up – our dependence on the Americans is pathetic. I’ll stick to my view that the French just cannot be trusted. I attended many NATO meetings in the 1980s. These were working meetings, not gatherings of politicians or mandarins. No one trusted the French. Not even the Belgians!
I would like us to have a new foreign policy – No American wars and no French wars.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your interesting comment, in a lot of the post conflict books and reports one gets the impression that at a personal level existing relationships between the US and UK bore much fruit but at a governmental level the US continued to hedge their bets and even when victory was looking assured, after Goose Green, the US were still trying to pull strings and make sure the victory was not going to be as emphatic as it eventually was.
I think I read in Margaret Thatchers memoirs or similar that she repeatedly stated that the support from France was immediate and enduring.
One wonders how much this was due to relationships rather than politics but I think that taken in the round the French contribution was immediate and enduring, whereas the US contribution was hesitant and inconsistent
One for the historians to ponder I guess but the article tries to suggest that we need to be more independant and start acting in our interest because when all said and done the implied quid quo pro that we are supposed to get from sublimating our interests with the US or EU just doesnt actually materialise
No they didn’t.
Michael,
Actually they were incredibly helpful with Exocet. They went out of their way to stop shipments of spares etc. Apparently they also provided technical data to help us plan a defence.
I don’t want to shatter anyone’s illusions, but the one thing the French could have helped us with was the Exocet. Not only were they very unhelpful, in their usual French way, they were obstructive.
My experience was that generally, American military and intelligence agencies could be trusted, but not their politicians. With the French you can’t trust any of them!
my first response to that picture of Ms clinton was absolute rage and if she can’t se that she was been played to get that photo, then she shouldn’t hold a position of responsibility. However i now would like to thank clinton because now when the CVF is questioned we can hold up that photo ans say we need an independant capability to mount operations, because our “special friends” aren’t coming to this party.
perhaps ms clinton would like to sit down and discuss that little bit of cuba they refuse to hand back, or the cries of independant rule from the hawaiian native islanders, and lets not forget the incredibily oil rich alaska, methinks eye,speck and log are words coming into my head!!
the removal of troops for op herrick is a good bargaining chip but i would also throw deiago garcia into the ring, a removal of use would make them think twice about sounding off.
must stop before i go into full rant mode!!
Now i understand why France is so independent when it comes to their defence. With friends like america, who need enemies?
The whole episode is a reminder that when the chips are down, we are the only people who can be relied upon to act in our own best interests. The attitude of the last 20 years that “anything missing can be filled in from the US” is foolish, to put it mildly