the following is taken from and autobiography 'margaret thatcher: the downing street years' 1993. it is a snapshot of her when argentina's dictator invaded the falkland islands inhabited by people who wanted to live under the authority of the british government.
175.1my first involvement with the falklands issue came very early in the life of the 1979 parliament.it was clear that there were only tow ways in which the prosperity of the falkland islanders could be achieved. the more obvious and attractive approach was by promoting the development of economic links with neighboring argentina. yet this ran up against the argentinian claim that the falklands and the dependencies were part of their sovereign territory.ted heath's government had signed an important communications agreement in 1971 establishing air and sea links between the islands and the mainland, but further progress in that direction had been blocked by the argentinians unless sovereignty was also discussed. arguments of this kind led..to advance the so called 'lease back arrangement, under which sovereignty would pass to argentina but the way of life of the islanders would be preserved by the continuation of british administration...nick and i both agreed that it should be explored, subject always to the requirement that the islanders themselves should have the final word. we could not agree to anything without their consent: their wishes must be paramount.
(note: then there were several incidents involving agentinian boats. then in 1983 england received word that 'it looked as it (argentina) was going to invade the islands on friday 2 april'. when thatcher was informed she 'said instantly: 'if they are invaded, we have got to get them back'.)
..'it was also on friday 2 april that i received advice from the foreign office which summed up the flexibility of principle characeristic of that department. i was presented with the dangers of
a backlash against the british expatriates in argentina,
problems about getting support in the UN security councuil,
the lack of reliance we could place on the european community or the united states,
the risk of the soviets becoming involved,
the disadvantage of being looked at as a colonial power.
all these considerations were fair enough.
but when you are at war you cannot allow the difficulties to dominate your thinking:
you have to set out with an iron will to overcome them.
and anyway what was the alternative?
that a common or garden dictator should rule over the queen's subjects
and prevail by fraud and violence?
not while i was prime minister.
(in her speech informing the house of commons) 'i must tell the house that the falkland islands and their dependencies remain british territory. no aggression and no invasion can alter that simple fact. it is the government's objective to see that the islands are freed from occupation and are returned to british administration at the earliest possible moment.
the people of the falkland islands, like the people of the united kingdom, are an island race...they are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. their way of life is british: their allegiance is to the crown it is the wish of the british people and the duty of her majesty's government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. that will be our hope and our endeavour and , i believe, the resolve of every member of the house.
others hared my view that the task force would have to be used, but doubted the government's will and stamina. enoch powell expressed this sentiment most dramatically when he looked directly across the chamber at me and declared sepulchrally:
'the prime minster, shortly after she came into office, received a soubriquet as the 'iron lady'. it arose in the context of remarks which she made about defence against the soviet union and its allies; but there was no reason to suppose that the right honorable lady did not welcome and, indeed, take pride in that description. in the next week or two this house, the nation and the right honorable lady herself will learn of what metal she is made.
(footnote: later, when the war was won, enoch powell returned to the subject in a pariementary question:
is the rt. hon. lady aware that the report has now been received from the public analyst on a certain substance recently subjected to analysis and that i have obtained a copy of the report?
it shows that the substance under test consisted of ferrous matter of the highest quality and that it
is of exceptional tensile strength,
is highly resistant to wear and tear and to stress
and may be used top advantage for all national purposes.
(speaking of alexander haig. i believe the US secretary of state at the time, thatcher 'made it quite clear to him..that he was not being received in london as a mediator but as a friend and ally, here to discuss ways in which the united states could most effectively support us...
'it was apparent from the beginning that, whatever might be said publicly , al haig and his colleagues had come to mediate.
he said that the us was not impartial but had to be cautious about its 'profile.
the argentine foreign minister had indicated that they might accept soviet assistance,k which made the americans extremely uncomfortable. in his judgment the next seventy two hours would be the best time for negotiation as far as the argentinians were concerned. he told us that he had decided to visit britain first because he did not wish to go to buenos aires without a full understanding of our approach.
that was my cue.
i told mr. haig that the issue was far wider than a dispute between the united kingdom and argentina.
the use of force to seize disputed territory set a dangerous precedent.
in that sense, the falklands mattered to many countries-
to germany, for example, because of west berlin,
to france because of its colonial possessions,
to guyana, a large part of whose territory was claimed by venezuela.
we in britain had experience of the danger of appeasing dictators...
if God saves me from my sin,
i am enabled to become His slave,
with no rights but to do what He says no matter what it means for me.
the only way i am free is to give up all 'my rights' and do His will.
only when this happens am i truly free...
only then do i have true freedom
to follow my conscience before God.
to do what God calls right is the only thing that matters
to myself or
to any human being.
if i shy away from anything to protect myself..
.if i fear any man,
fear anything...
i am no longer truly free,
no longer able to help another truly be free,
no longer truly a slave only of God.
...a person can have all the 'rights' in the world to do whatever she wants
and be a most degraded and degrading slave.
...a person can have all human rights denied, go through hell all his life and yet be free to do what is right
before God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment