Basic HTML Version
engaged-in sheep farming, the pro–
duction of wool from the islands'
640,000 sheep being virtually the
only export.
What the Falklands lack in
excitement, as well as sunshine (it
rains 200 days ayear), has been off–
set by tranquility from the outside
world's problems-until now. One
native "kelper" (as the islanders call
themselves in reference to the abun–
dance of offshore seaweed) stressed
toa reporter that his own family had
lived in the Falklands for five gener–
ations. He added that
"we thought
it
the most peaceful place on
earth."
British Weakness Draw s Attack
The Falklands dispute boils down
to the basic issue of balance of
power. When Britain was strong,
Argentina did not dare to attack.
From
18~3
to (at least) the out–
break of World War 11 , Britain was
overwhelmingly more powerful
than Argentina. This explains why
no Argentine governmertt could, in
realistic terms, do little more than
keep the claim alive.
Then carne the post-war dis–
mantling of Britain 's colonial
empire, coupled with the steady
shrinkage of the Royal Navy
needed to protect remaining far–
flung fly specks of empi re such as
the Falklands.
The Argentines signaled earlier
this year that in view of stalemated
on-again-off-again negotiations
with Britain over the future of the
islands, they might resort to force
to recover the
Ma/vinas,
as they
refer to the islands. In that sense,
the British were caught napping.
They did not have enough military
presence in the South Atlantic to
deter the rumored invasion.
Five years ago, the then British
government of Prime Minister
James Callaghan feared a similar
move by Argentina. Mr. Callaghan
and his foreign secretary, David
Owen, ordered three British frig–
ates from the Mediterranean to the
South Atlantic. The immediate
threat passed.
The British, experts believe,
should have been more alert to the
"signs of the times" inside Argen–
tina. The country's deteriorating
4
economic ,situation-with inflation
raging at 140 percent a year and
half the country's indust rial plants
idle- spawned large demonstra–
tions in Buenos Aires and else–
where. The calls for economic
reform and a return to civilian rule
were a clear indication that the
increasingly unpopular military
government would soon act to
recover the islands, the one issue
that unites the highly fragmented
Argentine society.
The government of General (and
President) Leopoldo Galtieri
played its patriotic trump card only
two days after throngs of protesters
had demonstrated against it. This
led the
Times
of London to edito–
rialize that the invasion was a "re–
flection of the Argentine govern–
ment's inability to satisfy its people
without creating fantasies and dis–
tractions for them."
The
Times
also notes that the
Argentines "moved not because we
had suddenly wi thdrawn our
defences from the Falklands–
there never were any-but because
something convinced them that we
no longer had the will or perhaps
even the capacity to retaliate
against an attack."
Britain's prestige- its reputation
for power- was too low to forestall
the attack.
Brltlsh Criticize U.S.
While preparing to meet force with
force the British government at
first gave the United States a
chance to try to work out a nego–
tiated settlement.
However, with the positions of
the conflicting parties so firmly set,
with national honor, prestige and
the very survivability of each gov–
ernment at stake, the arduous shut–
tle diplomacy conducted by U .S.
Secretary of State Alexander Haig
between the distant capitals of Loo–
don and Buenos Aires (l8 hours by
air) proved to be futile in the end.
The British government, press
and public understand American
desires for peace in the Western
Hemisphere. But there developed
growing resentment in Britain over
what was initially perceived as U.S.
"fence-straddling" and the appar–
ent unwillingness to get tough with
Argentina, the clear aggressor in
the struggle.
The British pointed to the fact
that they have been the staunchest
"thick-and-thin" ally of the United
States throughout the 20th cen–
tury. Whenever the U.S. has asked
for similar kinds of help from its
friends, Britain has given it-often
at considerable cost.
In recent times the Thatcher
government joined in U.S.-spon–
sored trade sanctions against the
Soviet Union for its invasion of
Afghanistan, endorsed the U .S. call
for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow
Olympics and backed the U.S.
response to the martial-law crack–
down in Poland.
Britain also supported sanctions
against I ran during the U.S.
embassy hostage crisis. Prime Min–
ister Thatcher has unreservedly
backed the controversial U.S. call
for modernized nuclear weapons in
Western Europe to meet the grow–
ing Soviet threat, including cruise
missiles on British soil.
Says a senior official in the
British Foreign Office: "We gave
you unstinted support when you
needed it and have been your
loyalest global ally. If you cannot
give us your strong support at a
moment when British sovereign
territory has been invaded, there
is the possibility of grave damage
being done to the alliance between
our two countries."
The United States has since
come down 6rmly on Britain's side.
But until that time, it was on the
verge of offending not only a
trusted ally but a close brother
nation. And the wisdom of the
Proverbs clearly states that "a
brother offended is harder to be
won" - meaning won back- "than
a strong city" (Prov. 18:19).
The U nited S tates and Great
Britain
are
brothers. Bible proph–
ecy clearly shows (write for our
free book
The United States and
Britain in Prophecy)
that both
nations are descended from the
ancient "lost ten tribes" of the
house of Israel. The British .people
are descended from Ephraim, the
youngest son of Joseph. Ephraim
was prophesied in the "last days"
(Continued on page 41 )
The
PLAIN TRUTH