Political bluster comes easy; political honesty has to be ground out clause by clause. And there, for 3,000 Falklanders far away, is the message to cut out and keep, as British Prime Minister David Cameron, amid all-party harrumphing, pledges eternal security for the islands.
He may believe it for a few days. The next prime minister in line, and the one after that, may profess to believe it too. But it's still self-serving rubbish; and it still sells the best future for the Falklands perilously short.
Nicholas Ridley, a stalwart rightwinger when he wasn't being a Foreign Office minister, went to the islanders 33 years ago and gave them a sensible option. Britain couldn't bear the cost of supporting and defending them any longer. Too much cash, too much redundant toil. They'd get on far better if Argentina was a helpful neighbour. Geography and commonsense dictated a peaceful solution: leaseback. That way the islanders lived their lives as before, but Buenos Aires took sovereignty in the long run. It was what Ridley and, by inference, even former prime minister Margaret Thatcher thought best.
But the 3,000 said no, the Argentine junta got its messages mixed and disaster ensued. There was one huge benefit: a vicious military dictatorship collapsed. Argentina gained a stable democracy and there were warm promises against any further attempt at a military solution (and the defence budget anyway declined). Diplomacy was left to rule OK. Except that there was no diplomacy.
Shrewd game
And now, 30 long years on? UK's defence budget is shrivelling too. Britain manifestly can't fulfil all the commitments it has made. But 1,000 men, with planes, boats, radar stations and swimming pools, sit in the Falklands, supposedly deterring some non-existent invasion while a flotilla of admirals lobby the Treasury to get their aircraft carriers back.
Billions dribble away over the years to no lasting avail. The Argentinians, who might be our loudest supporters in South America (try seeing how the long ago settlers from Wales enjoy Patagonia), grow bored and frustrated. Prince William sparks predictable tabloid bombast. Nothing gets addressed, let alone resolved.
Things will get worse, much worse, if Buenos Aires plays its cards shrewdly. The Falklands need their air link with Chile. Cut that and supply lines, let alone a semblance of normal life, become impossible to maintain. Will Santiago oblige? The tide of South American opinion has moved against Britain. US President Barack Obama isn't Ronald Reagan. French President Nicolas Sarkozy won't lend Britain a carrier. The squeeze, if President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner wants to exert it, is on.
And all we can do is what we always do in such binds: cry God for Harry, William and St George. Summon up the dispatch box blood. Replace fair dealing with synthetic rage. Forget the Falklanders' best interests yet again.
There's oil in the seas around the islands. There are oilmen flocking to Port Stanley. What there isn't, though, is any big company involvement in looking for it or developing a proper industry that would make the 3,000 (though not Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne) rich. For where do you sell that oil? Where do you bring it ashore? How do you unlock a potential future that axiomatically excludes Argentina?
Honesty includes the one element that Cameron leaves out. If you're going to give the Falklanders a choice and referendum on what comes next, then the choice needs to be real, not rhetorical mush. Could the heirs of Ridley do a deal with Fernandez de Kirchner? Of course they could. That's option A on the ballot form.
But what can we, the taxpayers of Britain, offer as option B? Do we want to keep paying and paying as the decades roll away? Paying to sustain a little colony that can't grow and prosper without fear. Shouldn't we be allowed to say what future we can afford to offer the Falklands beyond a status quo we can't sustain? Our choice for them.
For, sooner or later, oil and forgetfulness will contrive to sell the islanders out in any case. That's the dirty secret behind the bluster, and the truth that needs recognising at last. If Cameron's vetoes in Europe don't last three weeks, why suppose they will last three centuries in the South Atlantic? Why not solve it now?
— Guardian News & Media Ltd
