Thanks to Devils Kitchen for reminding me that last week was the 25th anniversary of the sinking of the General Belgrano. I remember this happening, I was at school and the Falklands War brought out a surprising amount of anti-war sentiment amongst some of the pupils and much discussion in history lessons. I also remember the May 1983 episode of Nationwide when Diana Gould seriously embarrassed Margaret Thatcher about the sinking of the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone and whilst heading away from the Falklands. This questioning became a favourite piece for the BBC to repeat as often as possible so as to attack "Thatch" and something that Tam Dalyell and Anthony Wedgwood Benn wold bang on about as often as possible during the 1980's and much of the 1990's until 1997.
Over the years it has become accepted by most in the UK that the General Belgrano was sunk illegally or at least immorally. I would like to try and reverse this accepted opinion. The following facts are extracted from this Wikipedia article and from documents referenced there, including this one:
Fact 1. The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200 mile total exclusion zone around the Falklands. (W)
Fact 2. During war, under international law, the heading of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. (W)
Fact 3: The captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate. (W)
Fact 4. Hector Bonzo, admitted that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of 2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre. "Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack," (R1)
Fact 5: Though the ship was heading away from the Falkland Islands, it had been moving towards the task force all the previous day, and had only turned around because an air attack on the task force was cancelled due to lack of wind to launch planes from the aircraft carrier operating to the north of the Falklands. (W)
Fact 6. Belgrano had in fact been ordered back towards the coast to wait for more favourable conditions for an attack. Her captain, Hector Bonzo, said "We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders" (W)
Fact 7. Though the ship was outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action — on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read: "In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly." (W)
Fact 8. Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano". (W)
Fact 9. Also the rules of engagement were changed specifically to permit the engagement of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking - This is per Admiral Sandy Woodward's book one Hundred Days (page 219). "At 1330Z she (HMS Conqueror) accessed the satellite and received the signal from Northwood changing her Rules of Engagement. ... The change said quite clearly he may now attack the Belgrano, outside the TEZ" (W) and other
Fact 10: Admiral Woodward also made it clear that he regarded the Belgrano as part of the southern part of a pincer movement aimed at the task force, and had to be sunk quickly. He wrote: "The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention" (W) and other
Fact 11. In 1994 the Argentine government conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was "a legal act of war" (W)
Some things, no a lot of things, about the "left" in this country really annoy me. The automatic assumption that what is done in the name of the UK is wrong. The assumption that what our Government tells us (particularly if it is a Conservative Government) is a lie.
How many anti-war commentators criticised the Argentinians for any of the following?:
a) invading the Falklands in the first place
b) killing UK armed forces personnel
c) attacking HMS Sheffield (not an attack craft but there to provide a long-range radar and medium-high altitude missile "picket" far from the British carriers)
As Margaret Thatcher said on the same Nationwide interview "I think it could only be in Britain that a prime minister was accused of sinking an enemy ship that was a danger to our navy, when my main motive was to protect the boys in our navy".
I think that much of this attitude to our armed forces continues today in much of the coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and indeed most conflicts that the UK, rightly or wrongly, gets involved in.
I also note that the left wing commentators tend not to comment on how defeat in the Falklands War led to ever-larger protests against the military regime and is credited with giving the final push to drive out the military government that had overthrown Isabel Perón in 1976 and participated in the crimes of the Dirty War. Galtieri was forced to resign and elections were held on 30 October 1983 and Raúl Alfonsín, the Radical Civic Union (UCR) party candidate, took office on 10 December 1983. See here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There are many points to be made here, the first and foremost though, for any British citizen, should be that we were at war and the GB was an enemy warship, and therefore fair game. If we would have bombed it at anchor then so what? We were not the aggressors initially.
Secondly, and the point many fail to see and even understand is this:
Though the ship was outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action
Well of course not...and it is a fallacy, once hostilities had opened, to claim that there was any exclusion zone. This is the usual lefty, ant-Thatcher ploy, and it is not credible.
I was there, and would be happy to see every man of the Argentinian navy, army and air force dead before the loss of a single British soldier, regardless of whether they were conscripts.
Not A Sheep - your post is brilliant and succinct.
Shotgun - your comment is why the right lose arguments.
1. It is a given that the Argentinians were initially aggressors.
2. However, there was a pause between the Argentinian attack and the arrival of the task force during which diplomacy took place aimed at ending the conflict without further bloodshed. If it was possible to achieve our objective without killing but we still killed, then we are responsible for those deaths.
3. The left wing case against the war contains two exclusive arguments:
a. Such a non-belligerent solution was possible (and about to be achieved).
b. Regaining the Falklands was not worth losing lives.
By arguing that it is a fallacy, once hostilities had opened, to claim that there was any exclusion zone you appear a fool because there was an exclusion zone, like it or not. It was declared after "hostilities opened" and before the actual invasion (during the pause). Claiming a non existent exclusion zone therefore looks like an attempt to evade the facts. It addresses the false claim that the ship was sunk "outside the zone", not by showing that the ship was a legitimate target under the warnings issued by the UK government, but by attempting to shift the debate. Such as tactic would tend to reinforce the simplistic assertion that the zone was rigidly demarcated on the 200 mile limit.
2. However, there was a pause between the Argentinian attack and the arrival of the task force during which diplomacy took place aimed at ending the conflict without further bloodshed. If it was possible to achieve our objective without killing but we still killed, then we are responsible for those deaths.
Absolute, utter, simplistic crap.
There was only one way that peace would have resulted, and that was if the Argentinians would have left the Islands completely.
This is why lefty shite like you spout loses the argument every time. A peace process and diplomacy? Would you care to list the terms that were discussed? How could any diplomacy with an invading aggressor, short of them leaving unconditionally, work?
Your name wouldn't be Chamberlain would it?
3. The left wing case against the war contains two exclusive arguments:
a. Such a non-belligerent solution was possible (and about to be achieved).
Rubbish, and you know it.
b. Regaining the Falklands was not worth losing lives.
Yes it was, and further, it was worth it to show the principle of self determination against an invading aggressor would be resisted.
Your Chamberlain mask is showing again.
By arguing that it is a fallacy, once hostilities had opened, to claim that there was any exclusion zone you appear a fool because there was an exclusion zone,
Now any credibility you had has just gone south and you've show yourself to be a total cretin. In time of war there is no exclusion zone, and the original exclusion zone was not made as a limit to hostilities, but as a warning zone. We did not limit ourselves, we limited them
Is that too complicated?
The original communique to the Argentine Government from the Swiss embassy from the UK government which made the 200mile exclusion zone included this: Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures
Now which part of all that don't you understand and need any clarification on?
Claiming a non existent exclusion zone therefore looks like an attempt to evade the facts.
Please point me to where I claimed there was no exclusion zone. This zone you claim was sacrosanct, would it be sacrosanct under any circumstances, or do we take the actual words the Government used, and refer to international law for guidance? Or do we just take your words?
It addresses the false claim that the ship was sunk "outside the zone",
What false claim? The GB was sunk outside the stated exclusion zone.
not by showing that the ship was a legitimate target under the warnings issued by the UK government, but by attempting to shift the debate.
I showed you earlier that the ship was a legitimate target by referring to warnings given by the British Government, and also, the GB, under international law, was also a legitimate target.
No credibility left at all Mr Chamberlain.
Such as tactic would tend to reinforce the simplistic assertion that the zone was rigidly demarcated on the 200 mile limit.
This is a strange statement for you to make...when it is you arguing that the 200mile zone was sacrosanct and the British Government and forces were apparently, not allowed to act outside this zone even in time of war.
Prozac Mr Chamberlain, that would help.
I am with Shotgun on this.
The real knot to get the Left into today is to ask them about their views on the Falklands. Wait 20 minutes and then ask about the legality of the war in Iraq.
It is claimed that the real reason for invading Iraq is regime change which is illegal under "international law". Yet they are almost to a man willing to defend a military junta in its attempts to effect regime change in the South Atlantic.
Now there are two mutually exclusive positions for you.
Post a Comment