Burnham says he will defend the Falklands. But, would he fight for them?

           

 

 

 

This article originally appeared on http://www.gbnews.com

Javier Milei takes to the podium at the United Nations today with the Falkland Islands dispute once again simmering in the background.

Argentina has begun sanctions proceedings against more than 60 companies and individuals connected with oil development around the islands, while Milei continues to insist that Argentina will eventually “prevail” in its sovereignty claim.

Now comes the rather delicious twist. Some of Argentina’s own Falklands veterans appear distinctly unimpressed. Veterans who actually fought Britain in 1982 have accused Milei of using the islands for political purposes. Ramón Robles, president of the La Matanzas War Veterans Centre and himself a veteran of the conflict, says he has no trust in the Argentine president.

Perhaps those who remember what happened last time politicians turned sovereignty into military adventure have earned the right to be cautious.

But Britain should not be complacent either. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has told Donald Trump that Britain will “stand firm in the face of any threats” and defend the Falkland Islanders’ right to remain British.

Good. That is exactly what a British prime minister should say. But what does “stand firm” actually mean?

In 2013 the Falkland Islanders answered the sovereignty question themselves. On a 92 per cent turnout, 99.8 per cent voted to retain their status as a British Overseas Territory. Argentina disagrees.

At present this is sabre-rattling rather than preparation for another invasion. Argentina would face formidable military obstacles if it contemplated repeating 1982. But defence policy exists to prepare for what might happen, not merely what we hope will happen.

Britain does retain a serious military presence. The RAF currently maintains four Typhoon FGR4s at Mount Pleasant, supported by Voyager and A400M aircraft, while HMS Medway took over the permanent South Atlantic patrol role this year. The Government’s National Security Strategy explicitly commits the UK to maintaining a Falklands military presence and protecting Overseas Territories against challenges to their sovereignty. That is deterrence. The difficult question comes if deterrence fails.

Would Burnham order reinforcements south? Would he authorise British forces to engage Argentine aircraft or ships threatening the islands? And, in the ultimate test, would he be prepared to send British servicemen and women into combat to defend British territory? These are not academic questions. A British prime minister who promises to “stand firm” must understand what those words could ultimately require. Nor should Britain assume Washington would automatically ride to the rescue. Burnham was therefore right to put Britain’s position directly to Trump.

But the more important audience is in Buenos Aires. The best way of ensuring Britain never has to fight another Falklands war is to remove any conceivable doubt that it would defend the islands if necessary. Milei may make plenty of noise in New York today. Burnham’s task is simpler: make absolutely certain he knows where the line is.

Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk

 

Lt Col Stuart Crawford’s latest book Tank Commander (Hardback) is available now

• http://www.DefenceReview.UK
• @peoplemattertv
• @509298