A British oil rig is due to start drilling off the Falkland Islands and, not coincidentally, the Argies have now suddenly decided again that they want the Falklands, islands which were British before Argentina was even born.
Argentina is to take its case to the UN, where Britain may find itself in the minority, though not in the wrong. After all, the Falkland Islanders are as British as people from Land's End, John O'Groats and all places in between, not to mention that it's the islanders' democratically expressed wish to remain British.
Even the left-wing leader of Venezuela has stuck his oar in, addressing the Queen on TV to hand over the Falklands to Argentina (Chavez preaches to Britain about "colonialism" yet Venezuela is, of course, the country which wants to annex half of neighbouring, and English-speaking, Guyana).
The US has so far remained silent, but with an anti-colonialist President at the helm whose Kenyan grandfather was supposedly imprisoned and tortured by the British in the 1950s (though we've only got Obama's word for it) it may be that the US will side with the bad guys (just as it did during the Napoleonic Wars).
Britain will defend its citizens in the Falklands Islands, even if that means war with Argentina again.
The Falkland Islanders are as British as people who live in Land's End and it's our duty to defend them
By Stephen Glover
25th February 2010
Daily Mail
The Falkland Islands have been British for longer than Argentina has even existed, so surely it would be more right for the Falkland Islands to lay claim to Argentina
A week ago the revived dispute between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands did not seem very serious. The idea that it might lead to a further conflict was far fetched. Now it is no longer possible to remain serene.
Thirty-two Latin American and Caribbean countries have demanded that Britain stop drilling for oil near the Falklands. They include several which we had counted as our friends. A resolution is being tabled at the United Nations General Assembly condemning Britain.
We will be vilified by many countries - and perhaps by a majority at the UN - as an exploitative neocolonial power. Will anyone jump to our defence? I wouldn't count on our 'partners' in the European Union. The United States, which has so far remained silent, may not wish to oppose its many allies in Latin America.
Moreover, Barack Obama has more than a smidgeon of anticolonialist blood flowing in his veins, his grandfather having been (according to the President's unquestioned account) imprisoned and tortured by the British in Kenya in the 1950s.
I can see how he might be easily persuaded that Britain has no right to a collection of islands 8,000 miles from her shores, and should not be planning to extract oil.
A big and nasty argument is almost certainly looming in which we will find ourselves in a tiny minority. And although Argentina seems unlikely to repeat her disastrous 1982 mistake of invading the Falklands, some form of hostilities cannot be ruled out.
A Royal Navy submarine and other vessels have been dispatched to the South Atlantic.
What should be done? The case for defending and maintaining the Falklands has to be made by the Government all over again.
It is 28 years since a British naval task force liberated the islands, and people need to be reminded why we must defend them now as we defended them then. The claptrap about Britain being a rapacious neocolonial power needs to be exploded.
In 1982, Margaret Thatcher quickly grasped the fundamental point that the 2,000-odd people who then lived in the Falklands were as British as the inhabitants of Land's End or John o' Groats. They had a right to be protected by their own government from the depredations of a fascist junta.
Many people forget how heroically Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, had to fight to get her way. There were some in the Services who said that recapturing the islands was impossible, and a few in the Cabinet who questioned whether it was wise.
Many in the liberal media and in the Labour Party derided the case for retaking the islands, and even our closest allies, including the United States for a time, had their reservations.
Mrs Thatcher's magnificent persistence in the face of all these doubters and critics may well have represented her greatest triumph. She recognised that a huge wrong had been done, and was prepared to risk her political career to put it right.
She understood that the issue was about sovereignty and Britain's obligations to her citizens, and the war was in no sense a neocolonial caper.
What was true then is true now. The Falklands have never been part of Argentina, which made a half-hearted attempt to claim them before the British returned to the islands in 1833, remaining there ever since.
The islands were empty. There were no natives to be deprived by ruthless colonialists of their land (unlike the Spanish settlers in South America from whom the majority of Argentinians are descended). Gradually the bleak and inhospitable islands were developed by British people. Their descendants, and later arrivals, regard themselves as thoroughly British.
One can almost understand Spain's preoccupation with Gibraltar, since The Rock was once part of Spain, being ceded to Britain in perpetuity in 1713 (so Britain can rightly make Spain wait until Hell freezes over until it gets the rock back), though Madrid's claim has no legitimacy in view of Gibraltarians' overwhelming desire to stay British.
Argentina's unwavering obsession with the Falklands 300 miles from her coast is even more fantastic, and seems almost to border on the psychotic.
The discovery of oil, and the possibility that it might be extracted in considerable quantities, has reawakened Argentinian dreams.
But if the Falklands are British sovereign territory, as is surely inarguably the case, and the principle on which a naval task forced sailed halfway around the world, the British Government has the right to grant licences to drill for oil.
The 32 Latin American and Caribbean governments appear to be so blinded by colonial grievances, and their minds so stuffed with anti-colonial rhetoric, that they miss this point.
The legitimacy of Britain's claim is based not just on history but also - and, I would say, principally - on the perception by every last Falkland Islander that they are British.
Once before, in the months before Argentina invaded the Falklands in April 1982, a two-faced Foreign Office managed to convey the idea to the military rulers in Buenos Aires that Britain did not really care about the islands, and might not defend them. It is essential that such a mistake is not repeated.
Of course, there is no place for sabre-rattling or provocative talk or inflammatory threats, all of which would go down badly in South America. The British Government needs only to communicate its quiet determination to stand by the Falkland Islanders whatever happens.
Anything less would be grotesque betrayal of the 254 British servicemen who died in the Falklands War, and the others who were injured. More than that, it would be a betrayal of the islanders who expect their government to protect them in the event of conflict.
Naturally I hope it will not come to that, and I don't suppose it will. Argentina is apparently in no mood to mount another invasion, and probably does not have the military means.
Nor, according to some experts, does Britain (many said the same in April 1982), but there is now a proper airfield at Port Stanley, the capital of the Falklands, with four Typhoon jets and other air defences.
The Government may well have to send further aircraft and more naval vessels to persuade Argentina and its South American friends that it means business.
More likely than an armed conflict is a prolonged stand-off in which Britain is subjected to a high degree of vitriol and the Union flag is burnt from time to time in Buenos Aires and other places.
The Foreign Office, which does not relish being hated by foreigners, and would like to square everyone, will have to get used to Britain being unpopular in many quarters.
From the British Government the important message should go out loud and clear that our defence of the Falkland Islands, and any assets it may have, has nothing whatsoever to do with neocolonialism or any nonsense of that sort, but with the rights of British citizens who look to us - their fellow citizens - to protect them.
dailymail.co.uk
Argentina is to take its case to the UN, where Britain may find itself in the minority, though not in the wrong. After all, the Falkland Islanders are as British as people from Land's End, John O'Groats and all places in between, not to mention that it's the islanders' democratically expressed wish to remain British.
Even the left-wing leader of Venezuela has stuck his oar in, addressing the Queen on TV to hand over the Falklands to Argentina (Chavez preaches to Britain about "colonialism" yet Venezuela is, of course, the country which wants to annex half of neighbouring, and English-speaking, Guyana).
The US has so far remained silent, but with an anti-colonialist President at the helm whose Kenyan grandfather was supposedly imprisoned and tortured by the British in the 1950s (though we've only got Obama's word for it) it may be that the US will side with the bad guys (just as it did during the Napoleonic Wars).
Britain will defend its citizens in the Falklands Islands, even if that means war with Argentina again.
The Falkland Islanders are as British as people who live in Land's End and it's our duty to defend them
By Stephen Glover
25th February 2010
Daily Mail
The Falkland Islands have been British for longer than Argentina has even existed, so surely it would be more right for the Falkland Islands to lay claim to Argentina
A week ago the revived dispute between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands did not seem very serious. The idea that it might lead to a further conflict was far fetched. Now it is no longer possible to remain serene.
Thirty-two Latin American and Caribbean countries have demanded that Britain stop drilling for oil near the Falklands. They include several which we had counted as our friends. A resolution is being tabled at the United Nations General Assembly condemning Britain.
We will be vilified by many countries - and perhaps by a majority at the UN - as an exploitative neocolonial power. Will anyone jump to our defence? I wouldn't count on our 'partners' in the European Union. The United States, which has so far remained silent, may not wish to oppose its many allies in Latin America.
Falklands war veterans demonstrate in front of the National Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina yesterday to demand the British leave the islands
Moreover, Barack Obama has more than a smidgeon of anticolonialist blood flowing in his veins, his grandfather having been (according to the President's unquestioned account) imprisoned and tortured by the British in Kenya in the 1950s.
I can see how he might be easily persuaded that Britain has no right to a collection of islands 8,000 miles from her shores, and should not be planning to extract oil.
A big and nasty argument is almost certainly looming in which we will find ourselves in a tiny minority. And although Argentina seems unlikely to repeat her disastrous 1982 mistake of invading the Falklands, some form of hostilities cannot be ruled out.
A Royal Navy submarine and other vessels have been dispatched to the South Atlantic.
What should be done? The case for defending and maintaining the Falklands has to be made by the Government all over again.
It is 28 years since a British naval task force liberated the islands, and people need to be reminded why we must defend them now as we defended them then. The claptrap about Britain being a rapacious neocolonial power needs to be exploded.
A man burns a British flag in front of the Foreign Ministry building in Buenos Aires
In 1982, Margaret Thatcher quickly grasped the fundamental point that the 2,000-odd people who then lived in the Falklands were as British as the inhabitants of Land's End or John o' Groats. They had a right to be protected by their own government from the depredations of a fascist junta.
Many people forget how heroically Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, had to fight to get her way. There were some in the Services who said that recapturing the islands was impossible, and a few in the Cabinet who questioned whether it was wise.
Many in the liberal media and in the Labour Party derided the case for retaking the islands, and even our closest allies, including the United States for a time, had their reservations.
Mrs Thatcher's magnificent persistence in the face of all these doubters and critics may well have represented her greatest triumph. She recognised that a huge wrong had been done, and was prepared to risk her political career to put it right.
She understood that the issue was about sovereignty and Britain's obligations to her citizens, and the war was in no sense a neocolonial caper.
What was true then is true now. The Falklands have never been part of Argentina, which made a half-hearted attempt to claim them before the British returned to the islands in 1833, remaining there ever since.
The islands were empty. There were no natives to be deprived by ruthless colonialists of their land (unlike the Spanish settlers in South America from whom the majority of Argentinians are descended). Gradually the bleak and inhospitable islands were developed by British people. Their descendants, and later arrivals, regard themselves as thoroughly British.
One can almost understand Spain's preoccupation with Gibraltar, since The Rock was once part of Spain, being ceded to Britain in perpetuity in 1713 (so Britain can rightly make Spain wait until Hell freezes over until it gets the rock back), though Madrid's claim has no legitimacy in view of Gibraltarians' overwhelming desire to stay British.
Argentina's unwavering obsession with the Falklands 300 miles from her coast is even more fantastic, and seems almost to border on the psychotic.
The discovery of oil, and the possibility that it might be extracted in considerable quantities, has reawakened Argentinian dreams.
A British rig has begun drilling for oil off the Falklands despite opposition from Argentina and other South American countries
But if the Falklands are British sovereign territory, as is surely inarguably the case, and the principle on which a naval task forced sailed halfway around the world, the British Government has the right to grant licences to drill for oil.
The 32 Latin American and Caribbean governments appear to be so blinded by colonial grievances, and their minds so stuffed with anti-colonial rhetoric, that they miss this point.
The legitimacy of Britain's claim is based not just on history but also - and, I would say, principally - on the perception by every last Falkland Islander that they are British.
Once before, in the months before Argentina invaded the Falklands in April 1982, a two-faced Foreign Office managed to convey the idea to the military rulers in Buenos Aires that Britain did not really care about the islands, and might not defend them. It is essential that such a mistake is not repeated.
Of course, there is no place for sabre-rattling or provocative talk or inflammatory threats, all of which would go down badly in South America. The British Government needs only to communicate its quiet determination to stand by the Falkland Islanders whatever happens.
Anything less would be grotesque betrayal of the 254 British servicemen who died in the Falklands War, and the others who were injured. More than that, it would be a betrayal of the islanders who expect their government to protect them in the event of conflict.
Naturally I hope it will not come to that, and I don't suppose it will. Argentina is apparently in no mood to mount another invasion, and probably does not have the military means.
Nor, according to some experts, does Britain (many said the same in April 1982), but there is now a proper airfield at Port Stanley, the capital of the Falklands, with four Typhoon jets and other air defences.
The Government may well have to send further aircraft and more naval vessels to persuade Argentina and its South American friends that it means business.
More likely than an armed conflict is a prolonged stand-off in which Britain is subjected to a high degree of vitriol and the Union flag is burnt from time to time in Buenos Aires and other places.
The Foreign Office, which does not relish being hated by foreigners, and would like to square everyone, will have to get used to Britain being unpopular in many quarters.
From the British Government the important message should go out loud and clear that our defence of the Falkland Islands, and any assets it may have, has nothing whatsoever to do with neocolonialism or any nonsense of that sort, but with the rights of British citizens who look to us - their fellow citizens - to protect them.
dailymail.co.uk
Last edited:
