Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

The measures taken to combat the largely French-made aircraft and missiles that did so much damage to British forces in 1982 were revealed in the memoirs of Sir John Nott, the defence secretary at the time, published in 2002 and reported on at the time by the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...John-Nott.html



In other words, MI6 travelled the world buying Exocets. And the ones they couldn't buy, they sabotaged.

Cheers Chris, I thought as much. I had been aware of the Higgins book "Exocet" which covers much of that activity but Notts memoirs look to be an interesting read, especially his acknowledgement of the pivotal role which France played in helping Britain during the campaign.

EDIT:

Just picked his book up for £8.10 including postage.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Cheers Chris, I thought as much. I had been aware of the Higgins book "Exocet" which covers much of that activity but Notts memoirs look to be an interesting read, especially his acknowledgement of the pivotal role which France played in helping Britain during the campaign.

I think the UK's relationship with France is all too often misrepresented. There's too much emphasis on the politics of the EU and too little on the depth of military cooperation between us.

Having sold planes and missiles to Argentina, France was mortified to see those weapons deployed against us and immediately started doing everything possible to show us how to defeat those weapons.

[Tim Deegan]

I know this is an old article. But I just found it, and thought it might explain the situation to those who don't know: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...lands-war.html

---------- Post added at 11:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I think the UK's relationship with France is all too often misrepresented. There's too much emphasis on the politics of the EU and too little on the depth of military cooperation between us.

Having sold planes and missiles to Argentina, France was mortified to see those weapons deployed against us and immediately started doing everything possible to show us how to defeat those weapons.

Apparently not quite: http://blogcritics.org/books/article...entina-during/

According to author Ali Magoudi, French President Francois Mitterrand (1916 – 1996) made a stunning claim that during Britain’s Falkland Islands war with Argentina in the early 1980s, Margaret Thatcher (1925) threatened to use nuclear weapons. Unless Mitterrand gave the British the "deactivate" codes used by anti-ship missiles that France had sold to Argentina.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

I know this is an old article. But I just found it, and thought it might explain the situation to those who don't know: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...lands-war.html

---------- Post added at 11:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------



Apparently not quite: http://blogcritics.org/books/article...entina-during/

Tim,

I think that the "This stunning but uncorroborated revelation..", "The author freely admits that there is no way to back up his claims of what Mitterrand apparently said" and "Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures" caveats in that article pretty much tell a story in themselves.

I'm looking forward to reading Sir John Notts memoirs.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think the UK's relationship with France is all too often misrepresented. There's too much emphasis on the politics of the EU and too little on the depth of military cooperation between us.

Having sold planes and missiles to Argentina, France was mortified to see those weapons deployed against us and immediately started doing everything possible to show us how to defeat those weapons.

We have been allied together since 1904!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_cordiale

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Tim,

I think that the "This stunning but uncorroborated revelation..", "The author freely admits that there is no way to back up his claims of what Mitterrand apparently said" and "Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures" caveats in that article pretty much tell a story in themselves.

I'm looking forward to reading Sir John Notts memoirs.

Well I'm just quoting it, and not implying if it is true or false.

By the way, did you see that I edited my other post to include a wikipedia link?

@ Alan Fry.Re South America support for Argentina They won't..they have enough issues of their own and apart from giving word of mouth support won't get involved.They mostly have enough trouble running their own countries and dealing with drug cartels to get involved.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Well I'm just quoting it, and not implying if it is true or false.

By the way, did you see that I edited my other post to include a wikipedia link?

Yes Tim, I saw that - I was already aware of that particular claim but it relates to a misrepresentaion of the sale of exocets, not the pruchase of them.

"The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers able to supply large numbers of Exocet to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles."

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

@ Alan Fry.Re South America support for Argentina They won't..they have enough issues of their own and apart from giving word of mouth support won't get involved.They mostly have enough trouble running their own countries and dealing with drug cartels to get involved.

Thanks for telling me!

Good, concise, article here:

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2012/...oes-to-alaska/

Ms Kirchner should not be surprised, therefore, that the British Government refuses to reopen negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands now. Argentina has lost this fight in more ways than one, and it’s time they respected that fact.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Damien

Good, concise, article here:

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2012/...oes-to-alaska/

Good post Damien

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Good post Damien

Yes, it is quite a good post - mildly amusing in parts - if a little jaundiced.

The alternate view , including actual cabinet office references and UN Resolutions, is equally interesting.

Either way, given that the nationality of the islanders is not in dispute then it is better that the territorial claim be settled once and for all via diplomatic means rather than militaristic jingoism.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Either way, given that the nationality of the islanders is not in dispute then it is better that the territorial claim be settled once and for all via diplomatic means rather than militaristic jingoism.

That suggestion presupposes that there is a claim to be settled. Just because Argentina makes a claim, it does not follow that the claim is legitimate. And at this point the British government has no reason to acknowledge, and therefore legitimise, Argentina's claim by agreeing to talk about it.

The UK holds all the cards here. Despite petty manoeuvres such as barring Falklands-flagged vessels from South American ports, ultimately Argentina will lose out. It stood to gain from the construction of any on-shore processing facilities required once oil starts to flow from the seabed around the islands but that is now increasingly unlikely.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, it is quite a good post - mildly amusing in parts - if a little jaundiced.

The alternate view , including actual cabinet office references and UN Resolutions, is equally interesting.

Either way, given that the nationality of the islanders is not in dispute then it is better that the territorial claim be settled once and for all via diplomatic means rather than militaristic jingoism.

Absolutely...they should just ask the Falkland Islanders to vote on who's flag they want to be under. And then Argentina can accept the outcome, and let it rest. But I think we already know the outcome.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, it is quite a good post - mildly amusing in parts - if a little jaundiced.

The alternate view , including actual cabinet office references and UN Resolutions, is equally interesting.

A year after the French landed, the British established a settlement at Port Egmont on West Falkland, but abandoned the territory in 1774. Spain maintained a presence on the Falklands until 1811. The newly independent United Provinces of the RÃ*o de la Plata (which included Argentina) believed that Spanish possessions should revert to them and in 1820 sent a ship to the abandoned Falklands. In 1829, Argentina appointed a governor. The British then sent two warships to the Falklands and struck the Argentine flag. Argentina, impoverished and divided, did not have the means to resist.

Britain never ceded our claim on the Islands and when the United Province of Buenos Aires sent a settlement they still recognised that claim, they asked for approval after all. It went wrong when they appointed that governor against the protests of the British who subsequently went to reassert control. The Argentinians being impoverished and divided is immaterial to that matter and was largely a consequence of their own mismanagement of their settlement.

Argentina always reference the treaty were Spain granted them the Islands but they were not Spain's to give away, and referencing UN Resolutions is meaningless when the UN's policy on self-determination supersedes them. So we're back to the same position as we were before, legally they are British, and that is the will of the people of the Island.

That Argentina want the Islands based on a land despite that pre-dated their own existence as a nation is laughable.

They are welcome to challenge the legal status of the island as we have invited them to do twice, they declined twice. They don't want to challenge it presumably they know they would lose. We're not going to give up the Islands, they don't have the will or power to take them by force, they don't want to take it up in the International Court. Therefore they should let it go.