NOT THAT MANY people have noticed, but there is a nuclear summit taking place in Seoul, South Korea. The summit is being attended by Argentina’s foreign minister Héctor Timerman, who has lashed out at us over our deployment of a nuclear powered submarine, which, we of course cannot confirm its existence or weaponry, one way or another for obvious security reasons.
Héctor refers to the Treaty of Tlatelolco which was signed in 1967 and became effective in 1968. The treaty refers to the deployment of nuclear weapons within Latin America and the Caribbean. It does not apply to nuclear powered vessels only to weapons, and Héctor is trying to solicit from the British confirmation that any submarine we have, or may have, in the South Atlantic does not carry nuclear weapons.
As Nick Glegg (who is representing the UK in Seoul) said, ‘I’m afraid I am duty bound to respond to the insinuations made by the Argentinean delegation of militarisation of the South Atlantic by the British government. These are unfounded, baseless insinuations’. If we, as a nation sign a treaty, then we stick to the tenets of that treaty. My God! When it comes to our dealings with Europe, I sometimes think that we should ignore such obligations altogether. But we do not. Even our enemies cannot fault us when it comes to honouring any treaty we sign up to.
Héctor can sleep well in his bed tonight. If the Treaty of Tlatelolco forbids nuclear weapons, then he will not find any in the South Atlantic.
As for any charge of militarisation of the South Atlantic; we are about to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the defeat of such a militarization begun by Argentina and brought to an end by Britain. One would have thought that the Argentinean foreign minister would be joining us in our moment of celebration, if, that is, he truly believes in the non-militarisation of the South Atlantic.
ALSO IN SEOUL, a letter has turned up signed by no less than five Nobel Prize laureates including none other than that old icon of the Western liberal bleeding heart, Bishop Desmond Tutu. His and the letters other signatories , including someone who I would recognise if I were still a Guardian reader; an Argentinean artist called Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who campaigned against the military dictatorship under General Galtieri . Once again one would have thought that this artist would have been grateful to the British for ridding him and his fellow countrymen and women of the painful boil that had infused the body politic of Argentina.
What the letter seeks to do is persuade both Britain and Argentina into talks over the Falklands. Of course they know that Argentina would be only too ready to agree and the UK all too ready not to agree.
The UK’s position is as it has always been. The UK will only enter into negotiations with Argentina over the island’s sovereignty, if and only if, the citizens of the Falklands agree to such negotiations, which they do not.
It is not a case of the UK wishing to hold on to a colony (the description of which is disputed anyway), but to play fare with our kith and kin who have a lineage on these islands going back to the re-establishment of British rule 179 years ago.
Both Desmond Tutu and his co-signatories have to understand that our claim to these islands are indisputable. But even if this was not the case, after 179 years of ‘occupancy’ it would have left the people living on the Falklands with the right to remain on the islands and under the protection of whatever country they deemed would serve their interests.
They choose to remain British, and we therefore must protect their interests. If they have a change of mind and come to the conclusion that they wish to seek a deal with the Argentineans that give the island’s over to them, then Britain would stand aside. But I must say, by invading them 30 years ago, the Argentineans do not exactly inspire confidence among the islanders.
If Bishop Tutu or any of his co-signatories, wish to play the honest broker, then let them visit the Falklands and solicit the views of its citizens . So far all they have appeared to do is accept the Argentinean case, which makes them less than honest brokers.
Negotiating the futures of the Falkland islanders over their heads, and without their consent to do so, is something I would have thought, considering his experiences in South Africa, Desmond Tutu would have been opposed to.
THE OTHER SIGNITORIES of the letter were Rigoberta Menchu, a Mayan activist no less, from Guatemala, Mairead Maguire of Ireland (need I say more), US national Jody Williams (?) and Iran’s Shirin Ebadi (?).
I am sure all of these good people believe in the self-determination of peoples, or why else would they be Nobel laureates . They must know in their idealistic souls, that no such negotiation between the UK and Argentina can ever take place unless the islanders themselves agree to it, or, which is not within the realms of impossibility, some future British government betrays the islanders to the Argentineans.
There are other great issues surrounding Argentina’s ambivalence to the ‘colonialist war-mongers’ in the UK, which comprises an up and coming election in Argentina where Cristina Kirchner, the current president of her country is seeking re-election - as well as the discovery of generous quantities of oil which no doubt, due to the present oil price, makes drilling a profitable enterprise in the South Atlantic.
Whenever we, as a Western nation, choose to help a country like Libya, or Kuwait , that great fraternity of liberals accuse us of low and base acts. They say oil, is the one and only imperative for such actions, despite the fact that if this were indeed true, they overlook the fact that their lives rely upon this same substance as much as anyone else. But do they complain that Argentina’s motives for their attack upon their own country, may follow the same trajectory they accuse the West of following.
Could it be that Argentina’s president is angling for a portion of the wealth that will flow from the bottom of the South Atlantic? I believe her first instinct, like all politicians, is to be re-elected. Cristina Kirchner has carried out an anti-British campaign in order to secure her presidency.
Her useful idiots serving her ambition can count Adolfo Pérez Esquivel among them. The Falklands are non-negotiable unless the islanders themselves agree. It matters not how many Nobel laureates Ms Kirchner rallies to her cause, or however much she seeks to isolate the islands in her attempt to win votes. Like General Galtieri , she seeks the popularity that will give her a second term in office. She cannot replicate the late general’s military ambition without repeating his failure. So she seeks the solidarity of other South American countries in reproving the great colonial Satan – Great Britain.
We must continue to support these islanders militarily; we must defend the Falklands with as much ambition and rigour as we would any county within the UK from the outside. We must protect the Falklands from the Argentineans. They have no sovereignty over these islands and rely purely upon the island’s geographical position next to their nation, to claim their right of ownership.
If we fail the Falkland islanders we will have severed an arm from the UK’s body. If any government allowed the Falklands to become part of Argentina without the express whish of its people, then such a government deserves the fate of falling victim to revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment