Rejoice, Rejoice: The Liberation of Port Stanley (Plus further observations on the "Special Relationship")

Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands. Baroness Thatcher has a statement you can listen to here. The old girl's still not for turning:

I feel privileged, and very moved, in making this broadcast. The Falkland Islanders are celebrating the anniversary of their liberation. The memories of that time are for many as fresh as yesterday. Such intense experience unites us in spirit - even though a quarter century has passed, and though we are 8,000 miles apart. Today, I send my best wishes to them - you are in my thoughts and in my prayers.

Twenty five years ago British forces secured a great victory in a noble cause. The whole nation rejoiced at the success; and we should still rejoice. Aggression was defeated and reversed. The wishes of local people were upheld as paramount. Britain's honour and interests prevailed. Sending troops into battle is the gravest decision that any Prime Minister has to take. To fight 8,000 miles away from home, in perilous conditions, against a well armed, if badly led, enemy was bound to be an awesome challenge. Moreover, at such times there is no lack of people, at home and abroad, to foretell disaster. Then, when things go well, they are just as quick to press some hopeless compromise.

So we could never at any stage be sure what the outcome of the Falklands War would be. But of two other things I could be sure - first that our cause was just, and second that no finer troops could be found in the world than those of our country. That is still the case. Britain's armed services are unmatched in their skill and professionalism. More than that, they are the model of all that we wish our country and our citizens to be. The service they offer and the sacrifice they make are an inspiration.

The Falklands war was a great national struggle. The whole country knew it and felt it. It was also mercifully short. But many of our boys - and girls as well, of course - are today stationed in war zones where the issues are more complex, where the outcome is more problematic, and where life is no less dangerous.

In these circumstances, they often need a different sort of courage, though the same commitment. So, as we recall - and give thanks for - the liberation of our islands, let us also recall the many battlefronts where British forces are engaged today. There are in a sense no final victories, for the struggle against evil in the world is never ending. Tyranny and violence wear many masks. Yet from victory in the Falklands we can all today draw hope and strength. Fortune does, in the end, favour the brave. And it is Britain's good fortune that none are braver than our armed forces. Thank you - all.

The Falklands War, however, is another reminder that it can be tough to be an Atlanticist in Britain. Indeed, Atlanticism generally rests upon just two pillars: one emotional, the other intellectual. National Interest, the third pillar that might be thought a key part of foreign policy calculations, only stands occasionally; or, rather, a relatively narrow sense of national interest as far as immediate British objectives are concerned is sacrificed on the altar of a broader, rather more nebulous sense that the Atlantic alliance is a matter of vital national concern that must be protected at any cost, even if this means sacrificing significant British goals to do so.

That explains why Britain is prepared to accept appallingly insensitive or even hostile behaviour from the United States (Exhibits A and B here being Suez and Skybolt). Whitehall and the FCO may grumble, but the message is that There Is No Alternative and that keeping close to the Americans is the pre-eminent national objective. That intellectual rationalisation, together with the sense of common historical and linguistic ties etc, also helps explain why Britain was prepared, when push came to shove, to accept that one of FDR's war aims was the destruction of the British Empire. If that was what it took, then so be it. Ditto, with bankruptcy. American support for its friends comes with a heavy price and even then it cannot be relied upon. At least if you're America's enemy you know where you stand.

The Falklands demonstrated this. In many respects the French were better friends to Britain than the Americans. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, of course, was openly pro-Galtieri (a fact that might have been recalled more frequently upon her death) while the State Department and, ultimately many inside the White House, pursued a path that could, to borrow a term from more recent times, only be considered "objectively pro-Argentine" since State and Al Haig seemed determined to press London to agree to forfeit British sovereignty (which was, you'll recall, rather the whole point of the conflict). For a fascinating glimpse on Haig's shuttle diplomacy see White House and NSC staffer Jim Rentschler's diary [PDF] as he accompanied Haig around the world.

This continued to be the case even after the US officially (if woefully tardily) came out in favour of a
"pro-British" position more than a month after the initial act of Argentine aggression. This "pro-British" point of view was, mind you, only utterly undermined by the proposal, as outlined in a NSC memo, that the US use its "leverage" with the UK to:

"initiate another peace offer... [that] would link ultimate Argentine sovereignty after a reasonably protracted period (say 20 years) with immediate withdrawal of Argentine troops and a third country or mixed administration between now and then".

In other words, Argentine aggression should be rewarded as part of a policy of refusing to reward aggression and standing resolutely with the US's most reliable and closest ally. This absurd proposal came  after the sinking of the  General Belgrano and HMS Sheffield. If this was the "pro-British" position one wonders quite what the "anti-British" point of view might have been?

Somehow I doubt Mrs Thatcher would have behaved in quite this way had, say, Puerto Rico been invaded by Castro.

It was, as always, a damn close run thing and it is not the least of the accusations that may be made at successive Tory and Labour ministries that an expedition on the scale of the Falkands Task Force would now be beyond HMQ's armed forces.

The war was also a rare conflict in which both sides eventually won: not only did Britain prevail, but the liberation of the Falklands ultimately led directly to the happy collapse of General Galtieri's putrid junta.

Comments

[campbell]

Tricky this, as, typically, I do not have the details at my fingertips but in a recent documentary on Radio 4 it was made clear that while Haig was shuttling, the Pentagon was making available whatever materiel the UK requested and on demand. Thjis they were doing with White House approval and on instructions.

If it is still available on the BBC website the programme is well worth tracking down. Not least for Haig's utter shock at the attitude of the British War Cabinet and for an example of a classic Thatcher put-down directed at the hapless Foreign Secretary. The sort of 'crusher' that makes anyone in the room at the same time want to hide behind the nearest available sofa.

[kb]

"Pentagon was making available whatever materiel the UK requested and on demand."

well if was sidewinders then the pentagon were prepared to let the UK replace the nato stocks that we'd sent off to the south atlantic. But clearly we'd have have to pay a premium to replace them at such short notice.

For a lot of us , after the end of the cold war then the 'support' we received from the US over the falklands islands was the end of it.

My father whose is 69 is of an age where the american alliance is an emotional alliance.

i'm 30 years younger and the american alliance has been a give and take relationship, where the americans have taken and we've given.

After iraq and blairs humilations then they are very few people in the UK who really think the supposed alliance is worth a damn.

Quite frankly the US isn't worth 150 british soldiers lives.

[kb]

"In many respects the French were better friends to Britain than the American"

oh and btw in every respect the french were better friends than the americans in 1982.

And if we'd listened to them in 2002/03 when they told us that iraq had no wmd's , had no links to 9/11 and an invasion would cause the country to fall apart, then possibly 150 british soldiers would still be ailve today.

Of course one thing the right will never ever forgive chirac for is being 100% right about iraq.