Will the UK lose the Falklands?

[Red Rat]

The Royal Navy currently possesses 20 Major Surface Combat Vessels, of which on average 5 are in refit at any one time. I very much doubt that the Royal Navy could put together 1 x Carrier Group (a carrier needs escorts) let alone 2.

At the strategic level the UK policy appears to be to make the Falklands issue one of self-determination, while at th same time making clear that the Falklands sovereignty issue is not linked to that of South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the British 'slice' of Antarctica. If the Falkland Islanders did decide (or it was decided for them ) to join Argentina then valuable fishing and natural resource rights, as well as a claim to Antarctica would remain. I cannot help but wonder though, what would happen if the Falkland Islanders opted to join Chile instead...

Currently the Falklands are very prosperous with one of the highest per capita incomes in the Commonwealth and an enviable standard of living. The prosperity is based on incomes from fishing revenues. The commercial exploitation of oil and gas in territorial waters (including the claimed Exclusive Economic Zone - the EEZ) would be a strategic game changer for both the UK and Argentina.

One thing that the UK learnt very clearly from the 1982 conflict was the value of maybe having submarines in the area; I would expect this to continue.

[davidbfpo]

The UK press have been feasting on the newly released Cabinet papers for 1982, under the 'Thirty Year Rule' for public disclosure and so we have this headline 'US wanted to warn Argentina about South Georgia'. I recall that relations were a little taut, but this stretches the imagination:

The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files.

US strategic, national policy aside it has been in the public domain for many years the divergence between DoS and DoD; this disclosure is new to the public.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...h-Georgia.html

[ganulv]

The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files.

Or was it just Secretary “I am in control here” Haig?

[carl]

Haig's attitude seems chicken hearted at its base. An attitude of 'Yes, but... What if...Oh maybe we can be work it so everybody likes us...' Not only is that chicken hearted it is immature. There are times when you have to choose a side. I think Haig's attitude is maybe in the ascendant nowadays.

Maggie on the other hand, she always was a better man than most men.

[davidbfpo]

Carl posted:

Maggie on the other hand, she always was a better man than most men.

The invasion of the Falkland Islands was the nearest that Mrs Thatcher came to losing power - until many years later, from within her own party - such was the power of the parliamentary reaction; note public anger took awhile to develop. The then Leader of the Opposition, from the Labour party was Michael Foot, made an amazing speech, some viewed it as his best, to a packed and angry House of Commons.

Yes three government ministers resigned, from the Foreign Office (FCO), notably it's head Lord Carrington.

[Bill Moore]

From the article David provided the link to

He feared that support for a European colonial power would undermine ties with Latin America and hamper Washington’s covert campaign against communism in the western hemisphere.

Our relationship with the UK and other colonial powers has a long history of being troublesome, and the deals we made to support France, UK, and the Dutch regain their colonies in Asia alone after WWII have resulted in tens of thousands being killed. The American idea of independence was compromised and we lost considerable influence that at the time played into the hands of the communists.

Fast forward to 1982 and Latin America where we were supporting a number of States battle communist insurgencies and had the Monroe Doctrine I can understand Haig's position. I definitely don't agree in putting an ally at risk by compromising their mission, but overt U.S. support couldn't be beneficial to our longer term interests in the region. Some other approach to mediate the conflict may have been possible, but I suspect like everything we do it was crisis action planning and they were looking for expedient means to minimize damage to our national interests.

We had a similiar spat where we actually acted (diplomatically and economically) during the Suez Crisis (1956/7) time frame against the UK and France. Nassar and the Egyptian people saw the UK as a greater threat to their national interests than the USSR, and the US needed Egypt in their anti-communist coalition. Nations act to pursue their interests.

[carl]

I definitely don't agree in putting an ally at risk by compromising their mission, but overt U.S. support couldn't be beneficial to our longer term interests in the region. Some other approach to mediate the conflict may have been possible, but I suspect like everything we do it was crisis action planning and they were looking for expedient means to minimize damage to our national interests.

I look at it a little differently. We do have to give our nation the best chance. But in the case of the Falklands, what actually gave our nation the best chance to do well in the world at large over decades to come? I think the best chance was not to seek advantage with Argentina, which in the context of the world's countries is the prototype of an ineffectual lightweight. The best chance was to stand with a historic ally with whom we have the closest possible cultural ties and a country that for the previous 600 years had been a force to be reckoned with, not to mention a critical part of the forces facing the Bear in Europe at the time. We would have been nuts to have equated good relations with Argentina with standing by the Brits.