Falklands Not Comic Opera

The press is having great fun these days ridiculing British reaction to Argentine's invasion of the Falkland Islands as some kind of Gilbert and Sullivan opera.  Yet, there are serious principles of peace and democracy involved which could have far reaching impact on the United States.  

It must be admitted that Americans with foreboding memories of Korea and Vietnam are having difficulty taking the confrontation seriously.  There is a certain quaintness about the affair - what with the prompt return of prisoners and the "entertainment" of captured Argentine offices at dinner aboard Her Majesty's flag ship.  

Leave it to the British to show us how to conduct a civilized war.  

The most often asked question of British officials on television talk shows is, "Are the barren Falklands worth fighting over?"  The astonishment of British guests at the query is genuine.  They correctly perceive the Argentine invasion as another challenge to the rule of law.  

Over and above this fundamental philosophy there are the practical problems of ownership and human rights.  

Argentina's claim to the islands is based thinly on conquest.  At one time, Spain maintained a small colony on East Falkland while Britain established a colony on West Falkland, each disputing ownership rights of the other.  Both abandoned the islands when Buenos Aires revolted against Spain.  

A decade later, Argentina put a cattle ranch on East Falkland and kept it operating for 12 years.  After a quarrel over whale and seal hunting rights around the islands, Great Britain removed the small band of Argentina cowboys with U.S. help.  

The bottom line is that Argentina "owned" the Falklands for 12 years after driving out the Spanish, and Britain has occupied the islands for 150 years after driving out the Argentines.  

The real issue for Britain is the brazen invasion of its territory without provocation.  If the British were to only sign and ignore the Argentina aggression - not to mention the subjugation of 1800 English-speaking, English-thinking, English-living citizens - there would be no end to similar grabs around the world.  

Great Britain still owns, or has commonwealth relations with, scores of other dependencies.  In the immediate vicinity of the Falklands are the islands of St. Georgia and South Sandwich.  In the South Atlantic there is British Antarctic, South Shetland Islands, South Orkneys and Graham's Land.  Then there is St. Helena where Napoleon was exiled, Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island.  

Closer to the U.S. sphere of interest is Bermuda and the Caribbean islands of Montserrat Antigua, St. Johns, British Virgins, Cayman, Turks and Caicos.  What would the United States do if Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua or Soviet Union plucked off these unsinkable aircraft carriers within bombing range of our cities following a British collapse?

Should the Falklands fall, Britain is sure to be challenged at Gibraltar which has been its possession for 178 years; at Hong Kong Island (not counting a mainland lease with China); at Brunei, Malaysia, at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean; and at the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific.  

The United Kingdom is no longer large, but it is far flung.  As our oldest and most trusted ally, Britain helps guard the outposts of democracy not only for itself, but for the free world as well.  

Last you think this is peculiarly a British problem, consider the claims of Mexico - taught there in public schools - to California and Texas.  According to popular conception, there were taken from Mexico in the "Unfair War" and must be returned.  

A Mexican exchange student who lived with me for four months recently solemnly promised that when he became an influential politician he would "take back the rightful possessions of Mexico."  

This opens a big can of worms.  Can Alaska be reclaimed by Russia because it was illegally sold by a lame-duck Czar at a ridiculously low price?  Should we abandon the U.S. commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Castro?  

As with Britain, the United States owns a lot of outlying islands valuable as strategic defense bases: Guam, Virgin, Wake, Midway, Johnson, Howland, Jarvis, Baker, and Palmyra.  

We also administer as trustee the islands of Carolines, Marshalls and Marianas (formally owned by Germany); and Bikini, Eniwetok, Pelau, Peleliu, Truk, Yap, and Kwajelin (formally owned by Japan).  

All of this real estate means something to the U.S. or we wouldn't bother with it.  Some of it is more desolate than the Falklands, and many of the dependent citizens can't speak English.  Much of it is claimed or coveted by other nations.  

Neither we nor Great Britain can permit uncontested invasion and piecemeal confiscation of these places just because each one, individually, is "not worth fighting for."  Thousands of fine Americans were killed while fighting to gain vital oceanic strongholds.  

Collectively U.S. islands dependencies are priceless.  What would we have done without them in the Pacific during World War II?  What would we do without our possessions - and those of the British - in a showdown with the Soviet Union?

It was proper for Britain to negotiate briefly, and for us to abet the effort, in order to mollify the defeatists who infect free democracies.  However, there can be only one effective response to negative force and that is greater positive force.  

Britain is right and courageous in the Falkland fight.  As our only friend who shares the same principles of representative government, we owe them both moral and material support without stint or apology.  

The time for fun and games is over.

READER'S RESPONSE

April 30, 1982

Janice Hutton
Address Blanked

Mr. Lindsey Williams
Pinewood Lane
Rittman, OH 44270

Dear Mr. Williams:

As a British subject presently residing in the United States, I have been following the Falkland Islands crisis with more than casual interest.  Indeed, I was visiting England at the time the invasion occurred and thus was personally exposed to the heartache inflicted on family and friends when, in two instances, their sons were told by the local police to report immediately for active duty.

After the intense media coverage, everyone has now heard of "the Falkland Islands."  However, I believe that most Americans are still unaware of the full history of the islands. . .  I am constantly asked, "Just who do the islands belong to?"  "Who was there first?"  Media coverage has been limited mainly to happenings after 1833.

I want to compliment you on your article in the September 29 issue of the Wooster Daily Record.  This is the best presentation of the facts I have seen presented by any American journalist, and hope it will help the Record's readers understand the situation a little better, especially after Mrs. Hebe de Frediani's article was printed in the April 27 edition.  I have been struggling with a reply to that article as I feel it should not pass unchallenged.  I wish to correct a few of her statements and add a few facts she neglected to mention.  Your article made the point beautifully, and much better than I could have done.  It appears you have "done your homework."

For your interest, I would like to take the liberty to enlarge on a few facts with which you may not be acquainted.

The first landing was in 1690 by Captain John Strong, an Englishman, who named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, treasurer of the British Navy.

The French were there, seal-hunting, by the 1760ts.  They called the place Les Isle Malouines after the port of St. Mato.  The Spanish, last of the three powers to land, adjusted this name to Malvinas.

As for claiming ownership, officially "Bad-Weather Jack" Byron (grandfather of the famous poet) arrived to claim the islands for George III on January 23, 1765.  The following year Byron's subordinate, Captain MacBride, set up a settlement of 100 people around the anchorage of Port Egmont.  British claim to ownership was "by right of discovery and prior settlement."

It is ironic that Argentina had repeatedly used the argument of "long-term occupation" to justify its exercise of sovereignty in the island of Martin Garcia which it grabbed from Uruguay.  This dispute was finally settled by negotiation in the early 1970's.  Thus, Argentina has already set a dangerous precedent, giving credence to the warnings of "land-grabbing" set forth in your excellent article.

The Spanish arrived in the Falklands in 1767 and by 1770 felt aggressive enough to storm Port Egmont.  War loomed, but negotiations produced the deal of 1771 which gave Port Egmont back to Britain.  Britain then claimed sovereignty, but left completely in 1774 because staying on was uneconomic.  But the British left behind a lead plaque (now lost) stating that the islands were "the sole right and property of King George III. "

The nation of Argentina was only created in 1816 (Spain didn't recognize its independence until 1859) and in 1826 sent over some settlers under Luis Vernet, whom Buenos Aires nominated as "governor."  When he seized three United States vessels, the American ship Lexington destroyed the Argentinean settlement of Soledad in 1831.  (A fact Mrs. de Frediani neglected to mention.)

In 1833, British warships sailed in to restore sovereignty.  The remaining garrison departed under protection-they were having a mutiny at the time- - and not a shot was fired at the British.

Thus began 149 years of rule by a British governor.

As for Mrs. de Frediani's statement that her country "built the only airport covered with aluminum existing in the islands," this airport at Port Stanley, completed in 1979, was built largely with some of the 6.6 million pounds in aid which Britain gave the Falklands between 1976 and 1980.  (Statistics courtesy of Jeremy Gates and Michael Brown of The Daily Express.)

I would like to mention one additional interesting fact.  The last major battle of the Falkland Islands occurred in 1914.  German Admiral von Spec was en route for home after terrorizing Allied shipping in the Pacific and triumphing at the Battle of Coronel when he decided to grab the islands for the Kaiser.  He was approaching Port Stanley harbor before he realized that a British "task force" was there-and 2,300 Germans drowned as the British battle cruisers closed in.

Mr. Williams, I did not intend for this to be a dissertation.  But once I started it was difficult to stop since I am, to use a British expression, "bloody upset" about the whole situation.  However, I want you to know of my appreciation for your fine article and support.  If you wish to check on my background, please feel free to contact a very good friend of mine (and yours) - Dave Goldsberry, who has known me for many years.

Sincerely (and gratefully) yours,

Janice Hutton

Home