Letters
The Belgrano incident
Sir: Simon Jenkins's account, 'The truth about the Belgrano' (11 June) differs sharp- ly from the truth about the Belgrano in a re- cent book The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins.
In the Spectator, Simon Jenkins con- cludes: 'Irrespective of the Be/grano's course or destination on 2 May, it would have been militarily irresponsible not to have put out of action so substantial a part of the enemy's arsenal.' In his book Simon Jenkins wrote (I assume he wrote it, because he lays claim to the political sec- tions): 'Both then and later it seemed remarkable how readily Mrs Thatcher's Cabinet assented to a step which caused Britain to inflict the first major loss of life in the Falklands war.' (Page 148.) Two pages later, he expanded on this theme: 'What was the purpose of declaring geographical limits within which enemy ships would be liable to attack, only to act outside them, even if Britain was within the letter of her legal rights? It is argued that I Conqueror had not attacked immediately', Belgrano could have steamed through the shallow waters that reach out into the Atlantic in these regions and given the sub- marine the slip. But it is difficult to believe that if the British had delayed an attack un- til they had given warning of an extension of the TEZ, the task force would have been put at serious risk. Had it not been for events which swiftly followed, Britain s strong diplomatic position and the suPP°I1 for it from her allies could have been seriously compromised by the Belgrano at- tack.' Which truth is the truth? And why has Simon Jenkins changed his tune? Will he also address himself to the question to which there has not yet been a single con- vincing answer: why, if the Belgrano had ot° be sunk wherever it was and in whichever direction it was heading, was it not sunk when it was first sighted? Why was the sink- ing delayed for 30 hours — until exactly one hour before the Argentine junta sat down to discuss the Peruvian peace plan? falling 'victim Jenkins patronises me as falling 'victim to a mendacity from Buenos Aires; I have not been to Buenos Aires. have spoken to no one there. I have spoken tu, Foreign Office officials and to members the elected conservative government .0! Peru, all of whom without except!'" believe that the Argentine junta, includIngt Admiral Anaya, were preparing to acceP.. the Peruvian peace plan on 2 May last Yea e.' '_ and rejected it only after and because of the sinking of the Belgrano. Presiden Belaunde, Prime Minister Ulloa
Foreign Secretary Arias Stella, all of whom were in close touch with Buenos Aires and with Washington at the time, have all testified to this conviction. Their view is not recent, but was vigorously expressed at the time. I find them more credible than Simon Jenkins and all his sources in Whitehall, with their constantly shifting analyses. Paul Foot
Daily Mirror, Holborn Circus, London ECI
Previous page
