Applied Philosophy

After two years the subject of the Falkland Islands is heating up again, coinciding with the thirty years anniversary of the Falklands War. The trends for ‘falkland’ and ‘falklands’ are going upward on Google Trends, this is not only because of the anniversary, but a reflection of growing tensions concerning the islands:

Google Trends: falklands, falkland

The UK insists that current military operations in the Falklands, including the inclusion of Prince William as part of an RAF search and rescue mission and the deployment of a Royal Navy destroyer to the region, are “entirely routine”.

Argentina has made much of Prince William’s presence on the islands, with one government official comparing him to a “conquistador”.

While Buenos Aires has long claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, the impetus appears to have returned along with the 30th anniversary last month of the failed invasion.

Tensions over the Falklands – which Argentina refer to as Las Malvinas – have been further fuelled by the discovery of possible oil fields in its territorial waters.

—UK and Argentina must stop ‘escalating’ conflict over Falklands, says Ban Ki-moon [my emphasis]

The past two years have provided more information, events have transpired, and now we can discuss the Falkland Islands constructively. I will answer all six points made by Ash. I am, of course, two years late to win a point against an anonymous commentator who probably never returned to my blog again, the reason I am finally answering his points is to better show my position and further our (my and the readers’) understanding of this situation, in particular, and the world around us, in general.

I have emphasised the six points I am going to answer in the quote above, I will number my answers and give them summarising titles.

1. British Intentions

It would be highly naive to ascribe good-intentions to any country’s foreign policy, let alone to an old empire like the UK. The British would not risk blood and treasure to satisfy the wishes of islanders on the other side of the globe. Their actions must have root in British material interests and a consistent British foreign policy. This is not a cynical or anti-British stance, it is simply realpolitik.

Britannia

There are many problems with the position that the Falkland Island sovereignty should be decided by the islanders, chiefly that the islanders are British colonists settling not earlier than 1840, today 90% of the islanders are of British descent. The other major problem is that about 3000 people are claiming rights over 12,000 square kilometres of land and sea, an area about third of the Netherlands which has a population of over 16 million.

In reality the islanders are British by citizenship (according to Wikipedia) and if they want to stay with Britain, they can easily relocate to it. Any good book about the Falklands war would give a more realistic view on the British intentions than “the islanders want the british”; the Argentinians seem to have an idea about Britain motives themselves:

Hector Timerman, Argentina’s foreign minister, accused the United Kingdom of using the wishes of the 2,500 citizens of the Falklands to remain under British sovereignty as an excuse to set up military bases in the south Atlantic.

His lodged an official protest at the UN in New York over the dispatching by Britain of state-of-the-art warships, war planes and, he claimed, a nuclear submarine.

—Argentina: Falkands are Britain’s ‘last refuge of declining empire’

2. Argentinian Intentions

There was certainly a “tyrannical” dictatorship in Argentina, that might have started the war to elevate certain local pressure, but Argentinian claims to the islands are very old and precede the British colonisation of the islands in 1840:

• 1945: Formation of the United Nations, Argentina states its claim to the islands in its opening address.
• 1946: Britain includes the Falkland Islands among the non-autonomous territories subject to its administration, under Chapter XI of the UN charter.
• 1947: Britain first offers to take the sovereignty dispute to the ICJ. Argentina does not accept.
• 1948: Britain again offers to take the sovereignty dispute to the ICJ. Argentina declines.
• 1955: Britain unilaterally refers the sovereignty dispute to the ICJ. Argentina indicates that it will not accept any judgement.

—Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands

A long way to the other side of the world

The military coup was in 1976. It is exactly because the Falkland Islands are such a sensitive issue for the Argentinian national spirit that they chose to reclaim it thirty years ago. The notion that the Argentinian will forget about 12,000 square kilometres right in front of their shores and leave it in the hands of Britain is optimistic to say the least. The recent exploration of the Falkland waters for oil has only helped to crystallise the importance of regaining the islands for the Argentinian people.

Although patriotic fervor over Malvinas has remained high since the war, even intensified with the new diplomatic confrontation, a few Argentines are starting to question their country’s traditional hard-line attitude regarding the islands’ inhabitants. In the past this has ranged from affirming that they are actually Argentines to suggestions they should be evicted post-haste to Britain. “We have to move away from the old sloganeering,” says Gustavo Arballo, 36, a law professor at the University of La Pampa in central Argentina who recently penned a column in the left-wing daily Pagina/12 suggesting the islands should be granted wide autonomy in any future arrangement. “We’re a nation of 40 million against islands with only a few thousand inhabitants, that’s like an 18-wheeler bearing down on a bicycle.”

—Argentina and Britain’s Unfinished War: Hate E-Mail, Harassing Calls and Prince William

What has become different is the way Argentina approaching this subject, the crude military approach is gone and now there is a systematic approach: on the diplomatic front, the media front, the UN, the economic front, even the possibility of autonomy for the islanders. This time the Argentinians are playing to win.

3. Past Victory

The third point is sadly not a point in an argument at all. What is the point of stating that the Argentinian navy was sent packing thirty years ago? The comentator only provided another example to the English Empirical philosophy that I stated in the post itself: “[T]he English philosophy of Empiricism: What worked the first time must work the second time.” I really could not have asked for a better comment than the one Ash wrote, demonstrating my point.

Let us delve into the claim further: indeed the Argentinian navy was crippled after the sinking of the General Belgrano, but it was never the navy that constitued the major threat against the British:

The retaking of the Falkland Islands was considered extremely difficult: the main constraint being the disparity in deployable air cover. The British had total of 28 Sea Harriers and 14 Harrier GR.3s available for air combat operations, against approximately 122 serviceable jet fighters, of which about 50 were employed as air superiority fighters and the remainder as strike aircraft, in Argentina’s air forces during the war. The U.S. Navy considered a successful counter-invasion by the British to be ‘a military impossibility’.

—Falklands War

Different types of Royal Navy warships since 1980

The Sheffield was sunk by a modern air-launched anti-ship missile. Both the Ardent and the Coventry were sunk by twenty-years old A-4 skyhawks dropping unguided bombs, despite those ships having the most modern anti-aircraft defences. Of course the times are not the times and a lot of things have changed in the past thirty years, mainly the decline of the Royal Navy. The biggest difference from thirty years ago is the loss of air cover:

The Royal Navy flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, will be decommissioned “almost immediately” rather than in 2014. The Joint Force Harrier aircraft will be retired. Both of these measures will save money for the purchase of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

—Strategic Defence and Security Review

The Sea Harrier flew almost three-quarters of the sorties in the Falklands War (see Air Campaign). Without the Harriers the last aircraft carrier the Royal Navy (the Illustrious) is used as helicopter carrier instead. Of course the UK has plans to build two bigger and modern aircraft carriers, the first will be introduced in 2020. The promise of a modern ship might not be fulfilled, this was clearly seen in the Falklands War when old aircraft’s sunk modern ships (the British should know this better than anyone, they crippled the Italian fleet with biplanes in WWII). A bigger question is whether the promised ships themselves will materialise, the financial crisis has cast doubt on the second and a sudden economic downturn might scuttle the whole project:

Construction stopped by 1992, with the ship structurally complete but without electronics. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, ownership was transferred to Ukraine; the ship was laid up, unmaintained, then stripped. In early 1998, she lacked engines, a rudder, and much of her operating systems, and was put up for auction.

—Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag

4. Argentinian Feelings about the War

After the war the military government of Argentina did indeed collapse and in its place came a liberal democratic government. The new government put the full blame of the defeat on the dictatorship, absolving the Argentinian people. This is an understandable reaction to defeat that has happened many times in history. It does not mean that the Argentinian people had no interest in claiming the Falklands.

The new liberal government made friends with the British, even absolving them from any legal responsibility for the sinking of the General Belgrano. That government and everything that it represented in Argentina collapsed in the economic crisis of 2001. Everything changed after the government default, the devaluation of the peso, the five presidents in two weeks, nothing was the same afterwards, including the Falkland issue. Clearly the Argentinian people have not ‘accepted’ defeat or resigned themselves to the status quo.

Argentinian protesters have marched on the British embassy in Buenos Aires, burning the Union flag, in protest at the Duke of Cambridge’s six-week deployment to the Falklands Islands.

A branch of the British owned HSBC bank was also attacked late on Thursday by a mob of 100 men armed with clubs, spray-painting it with “English out of Malvinas” – the Argentinian name for the disputed islands.

Quebracho, a hardline left wing group behind the HSBC protest, vowed to target a different British business every week as the relationship between the two countries plummeted to its lowest ebb since the conflict 30 years ago.

—Protests in Argentina as Prince William begins Falklands deployment

The great change that happened in South America means that any conflict (diplomatic, economic, etc.) between the UK and Argentina would probably escalate to become a conflict on the South American level. Not all countries would automatically support Argentina, but once they are involved it would mean that any future military conflict would involve them too. Argentina is claiming that British military presence in the area is a threat to the whole of South America.

Venezuela’s left-wing president has raised the stakes over the Falkland Islands by pledging his armed forces would fight alongside Argentina in any conflict with Britain.

The inflammatory promise from Hugo Chavez came in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the April 1982 invasion of the islands by Argentina.

—Venezuela threatens Britain over Falklands as its president vows to side with Argentina

5. The Royal Navy

I do agree that the Royal Navy is old and by all accounts pass its prime. The sharp decline in the number of ships since the Falklands War and the loss of its aircraft carrier leaves it a less capable navy, but capable to do what? Ash says that Britain has no want or need to invade South America and I should quickly add nor do they have the capability to do so, today and thirty years ago.

The Falklands War was not about invading South America, it was about reclaiming islands 300 miles from the southern tip of Argentina after a half-backed Argentinian invasion. The whole operation was considered very difficult thirty years ago and there was a considerable risk, but the UK knew that the Argentinian did not have enough power to hold the Falkland against the whole might of the UK armed forces. A half-hearted try at reclaiming the Falkland would have ended in disaster.

The UK certainly wants and needs to maintain the Falkland Islands and the questions is: is the oldest navy still capable of defending the Falklands?  Two years ago in a short post I considered that another war with Argentina would be naval suicide for Britain. This time around the chances of defeat are higher, those of victory are lower. The Argentinians are not going to repeat the same mistakes of the past. South America has changed considerably.

A defeat in the South Atlantic would not be an isolated event, but would have disastrous consequences, I once explained how a single day in war could change a country’s destiny:

British Overseas Territories

In a single day, the tenth of December 1941, attacks from Japanese aircrafts sank Prince of Wales & Repulse and broke the British power in Asia. The Japanese swept the British aside and advanced as far as Burma and would have gone further if it weren’t for the US victory at Midway.

—Bagehot on Money

The Falklands Islands are one of fourteen British Overseas Territories, all but four of them are in the Caribbean and South Atlantic including the British Antarctic Territory, which overlaps the Antarctic claims of Argentina and Chile.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, the former head of the army, General Sir Michael Jackson, says defence cuts have made it “impossible” to win the islands back after a successful invasion, in the way the British task force did in 1982.

“What if an Argentinian force was able to secure the Mount Pleasant airfield? Then our ability to recover the islands now would be just about impossible,” says General Jackson, who was Chief of the General Staff until five years ago and led the army into Iraq.

“We are not in a position to take air power by sea since the demise of the Harrier force.”

Britain no longer has an aircraft carrier and the Harrier fleet which performed with such distinction during the Falklands War has been sold to the US Marine Corps.

—Britain could not reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades, warns General Sir Michael Jackson

A military defeat or even a failure to reclaim the Falklands would open the door to further claims by Argentina and other South American countries. Argentina continues to claim sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The reaction at home would also be extreme, the navy currently claims that a single ship could “take out all of South America’s fighter aircraft let alone Argentina’s,” failure would not result in rearmament, but rather extreme cuts in the navy. The less money spent on it the weaker it would get, the less it is capable of defending oversea territories on the other side of the world.

6. The American Position

South America is the backyard of the United States. As “leader of the free world” nothing happens without their involvement, overtly or covertly. Its support to the UK during the Falklands War is known:

The United States initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the U.S. peace overtures, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom.

An important factor was military support. The USA provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.

—Falklands War

I am sure new books will be written as more information from the time is declassified. When the UK government took the gamble and sent a huge naval force to reclaim the Falklands, it forced the hands of the US and other European countries into supporting it. The current, and future, UK government will not take such a huge gamble again; the British military strategy for the Falkland is to keep a sizeable force stationed there at all times—air cover is provided by land-based air force aircraft’s—to prevent Argentina from taking it, eliminating the need for a force capable of retaking the Falkland.

Argentina is currently building domestic and South American support for its claim, while at the same time changing the status quo from normal relations to treating the Falkland as occupied territory. Currently they lack the military ability to retake the Falkland by force, but once taken they will not give it up easily and if Britain should try to retake it then it would be committing naval suicide.

See Also:

• Non-linear Historical Development
• The Story of Europe