The Falklands: what next?
Jo Grimond
rr his may be an unwise moment to write 1 about the Falklands. I assume that we shall regain the islands and then agree to some joint administration. I assume and hope that we shall do so.
Even so, the affair could well have disastrous repercussions. As after Suez, the Government will seek to brush aside the appalling bungle which led to it, claiming that in the end it showed the courage, foresight, capability and international public spirit for which Britain is famous. Courage the Services have shown. Other- wise we have yet another example of the ex- traordinary capacity of the Foreign Office for error. The defence lobby will grow even more clamorous. President Eisenhower warned long ago against the growing power of the Pentagon in cahoots with industry. We may well find the Government increas- ing naval hostility when it looks as though any metal surface vessel is extremely vulnerable. Perhaps we should return to the glorious wooden walls of sail so successful at Trafalgar.
I am glad to say that the Government have stopped talking about sovereignty. Churchillian poses and claims that we must at all cost assert claims, however pointless, to rocks, however barren, are on the wane. But a good deal of nonsense still blows about the Commons and gets dutifully reported as is always the fortune of the lunatic fringes. We are told that interna- tional order will be flouted if we do not en- force our rights in full. We are said to be the champions of the rule of law; if we had accepted Argentinian aggression, world anarchy would have resulted.
There were good reasons for not bowing before Argentinian aggression but I do not remember these sentiments being widely ex- pressed when India seized Goa (without any referendum among its people), nor indeed has that seizure or the much worse aggres- sion in Afghanistan led to any dramatic decline in international relations which, with Russia under the Communists, will always remain frightening.
I agree with the Government that Argen- tine forces must leave the Falkland Islands. But what happens then? It is not a question of whose flag flies there but of how the islands are to be served, supplied with stores, medical services and the other necessities of modern life — let alone defended, which may prove to be the least of the problems. Of course, the islanders may choose evacuation, which would simplify things in some but not all ways. Along with 'sovereignty' I am glad that the word 'paramount' is disappearing from the Government's innumerable statements. The wishes of the islanders must have weight, but they can hardly be paramount over all other considerations.
Though nothing excuses the Argentinian invasion much of our bluster is a little ab- surd. It is of course well known that we tried to get rid of the Falklands by offering them to Argentina and leasing them back. There is a record of what Mr Ridley, then a Foreign Office minister, said to the islanders — and by all rumour it was pretty straight and indeed sensible stuff. The Government almost totally neglected Lord Shackleton's report. It can hardly be said that they treated the islands as among the brighter and more cherished jewels in the British crown.
If some administration for the islands can be worked out by the United Nations, well and good. But the UN has no staff to supp- ly the mundane services which will be need- ed not for a year or two, but permanently, if the Falklands remain inhabited. The best hope appears to be that under the aegis of the UN we and the Argentines — possibly with the aid of the United States and other South American countries — can provide what is needed. But it hardly looks at pre- sent as though the Argentines will be very co-operative.
Meanwhile, there is silence in Parliament about oil, minerals and fish. Again, no wonder that the Government do not broach the subject of exploration or development because to date they have shown no interest in it. They would not even extend the
'Look up the Geneva Convention — the fiends are dropping copies of the Sun.'
Spectator 22 May 1982 airstrip. But it is strange that so little has been said on these topics.
Since the BBC regards itself as of para- mount importance, it is natural that the at- tacks on it have received wide publicity. They seem to me to be ill-directed. The fault of the BBC is not treachery but smugness: not a propensity to air nu- popular or eccentric news but a tendency 10 exalt the trivial, the publicity-seekers and the orthodox opinions of its own London, vaguely left, upper-middle-class staff. Its fault is not that it ranges the world for opi- nion — indeed it seldom gets beyond Wat" ford — and news from Buenos Aires is to me welcome. I hope now we may see some other views unpopular with the orthodox given more coverage; for instance, those of South Africa.
It is ludicrous to demand that every pro" gramme should be exactly balanced. Already many discussion programmes are like public meetings. We still have t° endure the irritations of the news, the to-ing and fro-ing, the sententious interventions from our reporter in Timbuctoo who tells us at unnecessary length what the news- reader could easily have transmitted. The exaltation of newsreaders is one of the strangest foibles of the BBC. I understand some relics of our age are to be buried at Castle Howard. I suggest the mummy of ,_a newsreader, tastefully embalmed, as the idol of 20th-century television. I suspect that the BBC is doing rather well over the Falklands — much better that' I it has sometimes done over the IRA. What know is that some newspapers, particularly the Sun, are doing quite appallingly If anything brings shame on us it is the horror' comic treatment of war by that paper. SC:. nauseating has it been that the press has had to do some dog-eating — and h°t,, the Guardian and the Scotsman have, to their credit, protested. When he last appeared on television .1 rather took to Mr Murdoch, but his behaviour over the Falklands must have, destroyed any faith in him. And it is he tha", matters. It is time the press owners stopped holding up pious hands and declaring that , they cannot interfere with editorial freedom. As well might a brothel owuelo claim that what the prostitutes did was he concern of his, that he left it entirely to tri' madam and that in any case he was meeting a public demand. The Chairman of t's BBC came down to the House of Comth°110 to defend his outfit. Press owners are a r too ready to become peers but few ev,e answer criticism in the House of Lords Alastair Milne, who has worked I„ some other part of Britain than London, w` may get a wider slant on views and COnl" ment; in fact, I like to think that is haPPell; ing. For in the aftermath of the Falkland fair rational discussion of the machinery ,°f of Parliament, of our foreigad and defence policies and of the press an television is going to be more essential than ever. We must not be conned, as We were , after Suez, into pretending all is for the best and nothing needs to be changed.
Previous page
