Letters from the past

Gulf News looks back over the years at concerns and issues raised by readers in their letters to the newspaper. It's a retrospective that offers an insight into the community, the development of the country and the people. This week's letters are from 1982.

Parallels
There are more opinions on the Falklands crisis than perhaps the number of islands that make up the archipelago put together, more, some would add, than the total number of British and American newspapers put together.

One intriguing opinion is that of American commentator William Buckley, who has sought to draw a parallel between the Argentine takeover of the Falklands and India's liberation of Goa, on its western shore, from Portuguese colonial occupation in 1961.

As Buckley narrates it: "On the evening of December 18, 1961, it happened that my wife and I were guests of the Portuguese ambassador to Washington, the purpose of the invitation being to show us a film taken during the previous summer of a tall-ship race between Lisbon and South-ampton.

The evening was interrupted by bulletins recounting the progress of the Indian Army against the Portuguese colony of Goa. What stayed in my memory was the soft-stated remark, at the end of the evening, by the tall, aristocratic Portuguese. What he said was that he wished, at his age, to find himself not in Washington but in Goa, as he would have liked to end his life by offering his own body to the Indian bayonets."

The well known ideologue of United States conservatism then muses over the lessons to be drawn, which include the question: "Why is it that we cannot contrive to give effective rein to such nationalist passion when it beats, as it continues to do, in the hearts of the great dispossessed in Poland and Hungary and Romania and East Germany and all those lands that have never dared to hope that the British fleet is concerned for their sovereignty?"

Quite regardless of the jitters it appears to have created for William Buckley, the Indian view of the Falklands crisis on the other hand was stated very succinctly at the recent non-aligned committee's meeting in Kuwait - that is, to avoid any entanglement in this controversy other than reiterating its stand that the dispute should be settled peacefully and without further resort to force.
From Mr J.V.N.
Full name withheld by request
Dubai

Clarifications
As the British Consul General in Dubai, I would like to make some comments regarding Gulf News' editorial on the Falklands crisis. Firstly, Gulf News' reference to Britain's "military adventure" takes no account of the sequence of events leading up to the present crisis.

Argentina's military invasion of the Falklands on April 2 was an act of unprovoked aggression, which caused the crisis in the first place. The first shots were not fired during the reoccupation of South Georgia on Sunday but three weeks before, by the invading Argentine forces attacking the Falklands.

We are striving for a peaceful solution if possible but it was not we who broke the peace. Secondly, Gulf News stated that Britain is correct in insisting that Argentina withdraw her forces so that negotiations can begin.

You add that the right course for Britain is to go to the United Nations. We have done so. Security Council resolution 502, which is mandatory under international law, calls upon Argentina to withdraw her forces. Four weeks later she has not done so.

To condone such cynical defiance of the rule of the law and of the solid mass of international opinion could encourage further similar acts, whether by Argentina or by others. History affords many examples of where the international community's failure to take action over comparatively minor acts by aggressive powers led to much graver crises later.

The cost must be paid and we are proud to pay it when such an important principle is at stake. Thirdly, Gulf News did not mention the Falkland islanders. Nor was their right to self-determination mentioned.

Surely no peace-loving nation based on democratic principles can be indifferent to a community which has lived peacefully for 150 years to being suddenly subjected against its will to an alien military dictatorship. Britain has always insisted that the wishes of the islanders be taken into account in any decision on their future and we shall continue to do so.

Finally, who is the leader "fighting to save political life"? Is it the democratically elected Prime Minister of Britain with two years still to run in office or is it the head of a fascist military dictatorship desperately trying to distract his subjects from a fast-deteriorating domestic situation?
From Mr I. Hinchcliffe
Dubai