Notebook
The innocent spectator can only regard with bewilderment the growing ramifications of the Falklands crisis. As I Write, the real battle for these miserable islands has yet to begin. But quite enough has already happened to satisfy even the strongest appetite for drama. I am not just referring to the loss of life, ships and air-
craft in the South Atlantic, significant though this has been. We are fighting not
°MY to save the Falklands, but the Pope's visit and the World Cup. We are witnessing the disintegration of the European Com- mon Market and of our relations — impor- tant for the future of Ulster — with the Republic of Ireland. Meanwhile, relations between the United States and the countries t)! South America have suffered a trauma aorn which they may take years to recover.
he is where we have already got to. From here we are about to embark on an invasion which, however successful, can only Multiply the problems facing us, producing God knows what further ramifications. Its
final of-,u,t_,come,' as Ferdinand Munt in k Spectator column last week, week, 'is onehis to be awaited with the grimmest apprehen- 51°,112 Despite this, there is no longer any run in urging the Government to hold ,aek. It would not even be right to do so. Short of accepting the Argentinian occupa- Lift and withdrawing the ultimate threat of c3rce, the Government has done all it can to ftrocure a peaceful settlement. The task
South is now assembled and ready in the ‘3outh Atlantic. If anything is now para-
in°unt for Britain in this crisis, it is the safe- ty of that force. This can best be secured by a quick and successful invasion. But what a mess it all is! The combination of British url, Ong and Argentinian law-breaking has ha inflateda minor territorial depute that it ?s come to assume overriding importance lor the peoplessuffer of both countries. And both
Will .
This week everyone has been on his t_ hands and knees, begging the Pope not 1,,,7 cancel his visit to Britain — not only Mr rscirtnall St John-Stevas and the Roman Catholic bishops, but the British Govern- ment as well The Prime Minister and Mr tV,Y,in have generously offered to vanish into hri_in air if the Pope agrees to come. He will Privilege accorded to few. Oddly enough, hu_in Cardinal Hume and the Government have been using the same argument in their 'Er rts to persuade him to go ahead with his th mage. If he doesn't do so, they say, bendecision will be misunderstood; it will ta; t,aken as a papal judgment against Bri- /,,:n s attempt to recover the Falkland "ands. But by using this argument, they are in fact strengthening the case against the visit. They are showing that the Pope's doubts are fully justified. If he doesn't come, we will feel he disapproves of us. If he does come, we will feel he supports us. And the Argentinians will judge his deci- sion by the same yardstick. In other words, it is no use the British Government or anybody else insisting upon the purely pastoral character of the visit, for it is bound to assume political significance. The Pope himself told Cardinal Hume that it would be difficult to achieve the right at- mosphere 'if the country is concentrating on other things, if people are mourning their dead' . He was quite right. If he comes, and the war is still on, every word he says will be weighed, both here and in Argen- tina, for its relevance to the Falklands af- fair. If he does not mention the war, he will be accused of shirking the issue. If he urges peace (as he can hardly fail to do), he will be suspected of anti-British sentiment. So however great the disappointment to millions of people, and however severe the financial loss to the Catholic Church, to the manufacturers of papal souvenirs, and to the authors of instant 'Pope' books (like Mr St John-Stevas, who shared a birthday with the Pope last Tuesday and who ex- plained on that very day in the Daily Ex- press how it was he, Norman, who 'first raised the matter with him'), the Pope should decide to stay at home. When that decision is made, it is important — in fairness to a great man — that it is properly understood. If he does not come to Britain, it will not be because he has succumbed to political pressure from Argentina (The Times reported this week, incidentally, that there had been no pressure on him from Latin American hierarchies). Nor will it be because he supports the Argentinian case in the Falklands conflict. It will be because our minds will not be on peace and recon- ciliation; they will be, as he said himself, 'concentrating on other things'.
It is a pity that the great fuss about press and television coverage of the Falklands crisis has reached its climax while our press columnist, Mr Paul Johnson, is on holiday. He would no doubt have had a lot to say about it, and perhaps still will. But in the meantime there are one or two obvious points to be made. The first is that, as in all matters relating to the Falklands, there has been a loss of any sense of proportion. This is not total war, it would be quite wrong for the BBC to be trying to support our war ef- fort. It is supposed to report and analyse events with balance and objectivity. While it often failS in this purpose, it seems to me to have done rather better over the Falklands than in its treatment of, say, Nor- thern Ireland. Second, it cannot be convinc- ingly claimed that the overall picture of events provided by the BBC has been slanted against the British Government or has undermined public support for the Falklands expedition or has helped the Argentinians. Thirdly, the BBC has been forced to depend on film and pictures from Argentina because of the extraordinary lack of such material on our side. (Admittedly, things have recently improved. No longer are we shown commercials for the British Defence industry — glistening ships and air- craft exercising in idyllic surroundings. In- stead, we are shown the task force itself, but on film so old that it already has the nostalgic quality of an old war documen- tary.) There is much to criticise about the BBC, but no more than usual.
wenty-four years ago, the London 1 borough of Lewisham thought up an imaginative scheme to keep listless youths off the streets. It decided to organise a five- a-side football competition to be played in the borough's five parks throughout the summer months. the programme was a great success. At its height, 600 teams entered, giving themselves names associated with the streets in which the players lived. But last November, so Mr Bert Lodge of The Times Educational Supplement reported last week, the local women's rights working group decided to intervene. It sponsored a petition protesting against girls being excluded from the competition. This presented a problem, as the competition was run under Football Association rules which forbid mixed football for girls of above secondary age. Nevertheless, the Council did its best to comply. It reorganis- ed the competition into three leagues boys versus boys, girls versus girls, and a mixed league for the under-13s. But the women's rights group protested again. The single-sex leagues, it said, still amounted to discrimination. Once again the Council cav- ed in, despite warnings that, by allowing them to play mixed football, it might place the safety of girls at unnecessary risk. And what has been the result? 'By April 6,' says the TES, 'only 19 teams had agreed to com- pete, compared with 244 at the same time last year. A month later, the figure had risen to 34, still leaving 1,000 boys saying they do not want to compete in mixed foot- ball.' So this summer there will be 1,000 disgruntled youths roaming the streets of Lewisham. Is the women's rights movement still pleased with its 'victory'?
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
