It sometimes feels like the Cameron premiership has so far been a replay of the early Thatcher one what with the cuts, the riots, bust-ups with France, and backbench discontent over the direction of the government. This sense of de jà vu is heightened by tensions over the Falkland Islands a month before the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion. One just hopes a bad film isn’t made about an elderly Mr. Cameron thirty years from now…
The perennial debate over the Falklands, like the one over Iran, is typically distorted by a mix of scaremongering, ulterior motives, and simple prejudices. In the last few days, retired military figures have warned that the Islands could not be retaken if they were invaded again, which led to pundits like Nile Gardiner warning that the only way to protect them is to reverse all the defence cuts. That it is virtually impossible for Argentina to retake the Falklands by force is neither here nor there.
As welcome as a rethink of the SDSR would be, there is a less costly way for the Prime Minister to deter Argentine aggression in the South Atlantic, which would also be more precise in achieving its goals than the naïve belief that overwhelming military might guarantees deterrence. The best way to avoid war is to prepare for one and Mr. Cameron should let both Buenos Aires and Washington know that we are. Dispatching HMS Dauntless to the region should be viewed as just the start of things.
If Argentina ever made another attempt at invading the Falklands, stopping it from happening a third time must be one of our key objectives. Given that dislodging them from the Islands in 1982 was not enough to deter them, Britain should expand the war to the Argentine mainland; striking both military and government targets. The point of such an escalation would be to convey to the Argentines that with each invasion attempt they make, our response will be more and more severe.
We should be prepared not only to expand any war with Argentina to the mainland but also to leak that we are prepared to do so. The leak should be that some British military planners are looking at potential targets for us to strike in the event of a conflict. In the subsequent media furore, someone known to have the ear of the Prime Minister should give an interview defending the Ministry of Defence for considering such actions. The implication would be that Mr. Cameron is also seriously considering it.
The interviewee should also use the opportunity to state what would be our main argument in a war with Argentina: that the Falkland Islands are British; that the people are British; and that taking them by force in order to exploit their mineral wealth is just naked colonialism on Buenos Aires’s part.
It is unfortunate but necessary that we will also have to blackmail other countries in the region, as well as our most important ally: the United States. But the point of such blackmail would be to put further pressure on Argentina and so avoid war.
With regard to Latin America, we must convey the message to Argentina’s neighbours “that acceptance of Argentina’s claims to the Falklands is not a risk-free strategy”, as Matt Ince of RUSI has written. If Brazil or Uruguay were anything other than cautiously neutral in any Anglo-Argentine spat then their relationships with the United Kingdom would suffer. As one of the largest investors in the region, we are “not without options and economic clout”. One hopes that this message would result in behind-the-scenes pressure on Buenos Aires to ratchet down its rhetoric over “Las Malvinas”.
The United States has always been wary about British claims to the Falkland Islands and the attitude of the Obama administration seems to be no different from that of the Reagan one thirty years ago. In 1982, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig pushed hard for a negotiated solution to the conflict. Mr. Haig’s efforts failed because, as he told President Reagan, Margaret Thatcher “has the bit in her teeth, owing to the politics of a unified nation and an angry Parliament, as well as her own convictions about the principles at stake.”
David Cameron is in both a more difficult and a more favourable position vis-à-vis the United States than Mrs. Thatcher was in 1982. He will have to deal with a considerably more capable Secretary of State than Al Haig, but Britain has leverage over the Americans. We should make it clear to the Obama administration that any Argentine attack on the Falklands would result in a unilateral British withdrawal from Afghanistan. This should also be quietly said by a junior minister like Nick Harvey in the House of Commons in response to a planted question.
By pressuring Washington on one of its key security concerns, we will hopefully pressure them into pressuring Buenos Aires to refrain from attacking the Falklands.
I do not believe that war between Argentina and the United Kingdom is likely (I still have some faith in Democratic Peace Theory, despite my reservations), but we can make one even less likely by preparing for it. This does not require ripping up the defence budget, but rather the clever use of hard and soft power to persuade Argentina that the Falklands simply aren’t worth the bother of our crushing response.
Of course, this approach also relies on David Cameron being Otto von Bismarck, which, alas, he isn’t.
wm
February 2, 2012
Is this post a rich parody? Why are some rocks in the south Atlantic more important strategically than offending an old ally like the US by pulling out of Afghanistan?
Sn
February 2, 2012
The US policy on the Falklands is actually insulting to the British. The UK have supported the US in 2 very recent and bloody conflicts, which have attributed to the demise of the UK military and it seems that the US with the “sit and negotiate” comments is actually offending the UK, simply because the US should have either supported the British policy in the SA or at least refrained from remarking on it at all.
wm
February 2, 2012
The times have changed. In the Cold War the US needed the anti-Communist Argentine generals support, hence the ambigious US stance. Today, however, the US would absolutely support the British IF Argentina attacked the Falklands unprompted as the last time. Having said that, the US would not likely support attacks on the Argentine mainland.
I’m of the opinion that war in the Falklands is not likely and cooler heads will prevail, but bellicose language and intentional news leaks by either side will not be helpful.
TrT
February 5, 2012
What use is an ally that gives away your citizens?
Anonymous
February 2, 2012
Because the US would get over it, like they did last time. But if we lost the Falklands, our status would never recover.
Mathew Rose
March 26, 2012
If Argentina have the nerve to attack the Falklands again then the UK should not just stop at re-taking the Falklands again but by going a step further this time & bombing the hell out of Argentina to teach it a lesson.
If you attack British land & try to subjugate British citizens then they should pay the price.
The Falklands are a British territory & also the 4,000 or so people that live there are British citizens with British blood going back hundreds of years.
If you attack them you are attacking the whole of the UK & what we stand for.
I could not imagine the USA letting anyone invade Puerto Rico with out a huge fight so why should we? The Falkland Islanders are ethnic British since 1833
Ed
April 5, 2012
I do not believe it will take much to deter the Argentines from invading again as I don’t think they really want to; nevertheless it is better to be safe than sorry, and so reinforcement of the defence of the islands is prudent.
I do not believe the Argentines will invade for two reasons: a) they may find nationalist breast-beating and the romantic notion of ‘recovering’ las Malvinas more attractive than the reality of possessing some South Atlantic islands with a hostile population. b) I do not believe they are foolish enough to risk defeat and humiliation again, and the associated risk for the Argentine government responsible.
The ‘war’ is more likely to be diplomatic. Argentina will play this as a claim against a declining power clinging to a colonial outpost, which may play well in the Third World and even perhaps among some in Washington and other allies. The former will be attracted to left-nationalist ‘anti-colonial’ rhetoric (think Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela) and the latter may wish to back what they see as a region of the future, rather than a power of the past. As opposed to this, we should remind the Brazilians especially, who want a greater role in the world befitting their growing economy, that backing bellicose and tenuous territorial claims is ill-fitting of a serious country, but rather smacks of a tinpot regime. The Argentines could learn from this too, as far from raising the prestige of their country in the world it merely reinforces the image of a banana republic.
sirhumphrey1
April 5, 2012
I’ve done some work on the reality of trying to invade the Falklands – its a lot harder and less likely to occur than some people would like to make out.
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/reality-of-falkland-islands-dispute-why.html
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/planning-considerations-to-recapture.html
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/reality-of-capturing-falkland-islands.html
Enjoy!
Jon
October 29, 2012
Clearly you have very little understanding of the region. The UK decided early in 1982 not to strike main land Argentina for fear of spreading the war, that was when Argentina was a distrusted isolated country. Today its relationships are very different, a military attack or even a threat of one on a mainland Latin country would lead to military cooperation and pacts. As the first bomb landed the new Brazilian nuclear attack fleet would be leaving harbor (which is already working with Argentina on reactor design).
The largest trading block with Latin America is the USA, which is about to be overtaken by Asia the UK economic clout to the region would be like being hit in the face with a wet paper towel. If such a policy as you have presented was implemented all Argentina would need to do is send an old military tub boat out, wait with glee for an UK strike on its mainland and then have a united Latin military to play with. With attacks on the mainland even the EU would find it hard to support the UK let alone the USA. Today the USA is viewed as being in decline and is rapidly loosing influence in the region. I am afraid the Falklands problem will not go away as South America views it as if the Isle of White was invaded 200 years ago by the French who then then set up a small French colony.
The problems will not be solved by anyone’s military and Argentina is its own worst enemy when it comes to the isles. It has been invited on a number of times to work with the British government most recently offered a 50% share in any oil. A more thinking Argentine government would jump at it as all it needs to do is get approx 3000 of its residents to move there and force a island democratic vote on sovereignty.
ColMcMurphy
November 14, 2012
Show me one hundred (just ONE hundred) of argentine people wanting to live there, and I will say that any sovereignty claim is fair. But if you check the population density in the whole patagonic region… it’s clearly enough nobody really want to live in a place with such a rude climate.
Argentina lost its opportunity of being close friends with islanders with that war. Before the war there was a flight in a daily basis served by the Argentine Air Force to the Port Stanley airport that was built up by the Argentine Air Force, there was a YPF office and oil and fuel were supplied by YPF to the island.
When people living in the islads needed complex medical assistance they used to go to Comodoro Rivadavia where they were promptly treated.
Actually there was technically no frontiers at that time… those days are now forever lost.