More like this
Advisers told Thatcher to 'buy out' Falkland Islanders
Paying 'bribe' of $100,000 to families in disputed territory would avoid war, PM's aides recommended
MARGARET THATCHER'S senior advisers proposed "buying out" the Falkland Islanders by giving $100,000 to each family, rather than sending a task force to defend their sovereignty, newly-released files reveal.
The papers, drawn from the former PM's personal archive, also reveal the deep divisions within the government as the prospect of war with Argentina grew. One unnamed MP told the party's Chief Whip that the war would be "a big mistake" and make the 1956 Suez crisis "look like common sense".
Another comment recorded by the Whip expresses the hope that "nobody thinks we are going to fight the Argentinians. We should blow up a few ships but nothing more."
The publication of the 1982 papers by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation comes just two weeks after the result of a referendum showed islanders are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining a British overseas territory. Earlier this week, it was reported that Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner had asked for her compatriot Pope Francis's "intervention" in the long-running Falklands dispute.
The BBC's Bridget Kendall says the papers reveal for the first time "how deeply split the [Conservative] party was over the Falklands". The Guardian points out that "contrary to the jingoistic spirit at the time" the deep divisions over the Falklands "went to the very heart of Downing Street".
Fiscal alternatives to war were proposed by some of Thatcher's most senior staff. Senior economic adviser Sir Alan Walters and chief of staff David Wolfson both put forward schemes offering to "buy out the 1,800 islanders" rather than send a task force to the South Atlantic. Wolfson gave specific details of such a scheme on 22 April 1982, suggesting each islander family be offered a "bribe" of $100,000 and given lifetime guarantees allowing them to settle in Britain, Australia or New Zealand with full citizenship. "This is the bribe which would have to convince [General] Galtieri that they would vote for Argentine sovereignty," he told the PM.
The papers also reveal Thatcher's "steely determination", says the BBC. A draft of a strongly-worded letter to President Reagan shows the "no-holds-barred approach" she used to rebuff US attempts to broker a peace deal. ·
Disqus - noscript
...the same papers might show that Ken Clarke, a junior health minister at the time, (I think) was utterly craven - he suggested that Britain should capitulate to Galtieri's military junta; love her or hate her (and I am ambivalent towards her, by the way) she was, at least, a leader in her time.
Sadly there is no such person in Government or Opposition with her patriotism or her leadership qualities today - we are a poorer nation as a result.
"how deeply split the [Conservative] party was over the Falklands".
Did anyone tell the Conservative Party membership? As a Conservative Party member at the time, I did not meet a single fellow-member who was against the Falklands War.
What a pity that she did not take their advice! War is such a hopelessly stupid thing, not to mention destructive,that it should never be taken on lightly. No doubt if leaders and members of governments were actually going to be physically involved in the fighting ( as well as those of the imperial mentality) they would think twice. But who cares if ordinary men and women lose their lives for some irrelevant dubious 'cause'?
Yolande - much as I respect your opinion (by the way - I am ex - military and was closely involved in the Falklands conflict) I fear that to capitulate to such acts of aggression simply invites and encourages more of the same.
I don't think that Mrs Thatcher considered, at the time, the "deterrent" effect of retaking the islands - rather, she considered her own political position - but regardless of her motives for taking us to war, on a wider front it was considered that the performance of the British military at that time has, since then, served to deter further Argentine aggression and, importantly, it made the Soviets reconsider their own supposed military prowess
vis a vis the West.
What did not impress me, prior to the shooting war in the Falklands, was the naked exposure of the American position - one of cynical self interest and pragmatism - they were primarily concerned with preserving their commercial and diplomatic interests in the region.
I now have no time for our "Special Relationship" with the US - it is an expedient to afford the US to rampage around the world, evangelising about, and imposing their own brand of, "democracy" - the "special relationship" is useful to the US if it carries Britain's endorsement - we should be far more circumspect in our dealings with America and we should be much firmer in our resolve NOT to go to war unless it is in OUR OWN (not America's) vital national interest.
"... offer citizenship in OZ & NZ"! Did the Home Country ask them upstart colonies how they felt about that?
The islanders were, and still are, NOT british citizens. Any oil in the vicinity (the true trason) certainly is british. Like the US bumper sticker put it, "how come our oil is under their sand?".
Michael - how right you are! - another example being that of General Noriega of Panama; the Americans also have blood on their hands with regards to Nicaragua (courtesy of the CIA). The US, frankly, is a law unto itself and woe betide anybody or any nation that gets in its way.
Admittedly, this is wandering off the point of the original story - ie Mrs Thatcher's difficulties within her Cabinet re going to war over the Falklands in 1982.
I believe that the oil in Falkland waters belongs to the Falkland Islanders and the oil companies. Although some money will no doubt flow into the hands of the British exchequer.
Interesting to note that in 2007, Nestor Kirchner voided a 1995 oil and gas exploration agreement with the UK. Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman has been threatening to take legal action against British oil companies drilling in Falkland waters for the past 14 months but is getting nowhere - because Argentina has no jursdiction. This proves two points: The Falkland islands are British and Argentine politcians cannot be trusted.
Britain has right on her side morally and legally through the UN to remove the illegal invaders. The cause was righteous and as a result the vicious Junta was removed - just how many Argentine would have died at the hands of the Junta. both domestically and after they would have invaded Chile which was their intention.
They have had full British citizenship since 1983, giving them the right of abode in the UK.