It is difficult to think of an argument more immoral, stupid or dangerous than the one put forward by former Foreign Office magnifico Lord McDonald this morning regarding the future of the Falkland Islanders.
In case you missed it, he told the Today program that he no longer believed in their right to self-determination. There were only 3,600, he said; they were far away from this country; and, frankly, Britain’s strategic interests had changed since 1982 Margaret Thatcher famously and heroically waged war in the South Atlantic to vindicate the very principle McDonald now apparently despises: the right of a free people to democratically determine its future.
Do you think I am exaggerating or misrepresenting the man who once headed the entire British diplomatic corps? Check the transcription. Lord McDonald’s analysis is immoral because it obviously violates the rights and feelings of the islanders themselves.
The Falklanders want to be British so much that the last time they were consulted they were 99 percent in favor of remaining as they are: a British Overseas Territory. I think there were three votes in favor of another solution – but McDonald will do everything he can to build on that.
His argument is also, of course, immoral, because it insults the memory of the 255 British soldiers who died in the fight for freedom in 1982, and the many others who were injured. As he explained it today, he thinks sacrifice was pointless.
In the noble Lord’s view, we must now push the Falklanders to change their allegiance. If we stopped subsidizing their defense, he argued, they might wake up, smell the coffee, and submit to rule from Buenos Aires. That is not only a matter of principle, but also an extremely stupid argument, because it ignores what is actually happening in the Falklands.
This is not some doomed and abandoned outpost. The population has become larger and more prosperous, and the discovery of the new Sea Lion oil fields offers the prospect of wealth, both for the islanders and for Britain as a whole.
Royal Marine Peter Robinson seen with a flag from his bag on the day the Argentinians surrendered in 1982
It’s a stupid analysis because, above all, it is completely unrealistic about British politics. I am sure there are many Labor MPs and supporters who secretly or openly agree with Lord McDonald, and who will sell the Falklanders down the river tomorrow just because they hate anything that can be classified as a legacy of Britain’s imperial past. But in this country they are a small minority.
As McDonald discovered during the Brexit referendum, the British people care passionately about their democracy and the right to make their own laws. Any attempt by any British government to touch that live wire – to try to force the islanders, as McDonald suggests, into some kind of submission to Argentina – will result in immediate and justified democratic electrocution.
Whatever Foreign Secretary Miliband may believe privately (and I shudder to think), there is no way he would publicly endorse this strategy. No British government can do what McDonald is proposing and betray the Falklands. Burnham knows that.
Everyone at Westminster understands that. They know that McDonald is essentially carving out a media niche for himself as a Euro-fanatic, sell-out performer and poser, so wet you could shoot him off. The problem is that there are many people around the world – not least in Argentina – who will miss this point and think that his view is now widely shared in Britain.
They will reason that he was the permanent secretary of the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and that he speaks with some authority – perhaps even the encouragement of the Burnham government. That is why his analysis is so dangerous.
Ask yourself: why was he even invited on radio to talk about the future of the Falklands, when that question was answered so decisively more than forty years ago?
The answer is that we live in feverish times, when Labour’s foreign policy has been almost entirely spineless. The world has taken note of Labour’s policy on the Chagos Islands, idiotically paying billions to give away a historic British asset.
They have seen Labor flee to Spain via Gibraltar, allowing Spanish authorities to carry out checks on sovereign British territory. They have seen the failure to implement the Rwanda policy, the inability to return the small boats in the Channel; and they have noted that relations between London and Washington are currently in the doldrums.
When Starmer refused to help Trump open the Strait of Hormuz, he caused a lot of irritation in the White House. Unsurprisingly, Trump then decided to cast doubt on his commitment to British sovereignty over the Falklands – especially considering how long it took Reagan to back Thatcher in 1982.
Trump is articulating the unhelpful reality of America’s position on the dispute: that Washington is technically neutral. It is no wonder that Javier Milei, Argentina’s president, has taken this moment to sharpen his rhetoric and sound much more assertive about his country’s claim to the islands.
Milei is an Anglophile and a Thatcherite. I don’t think for a second that he wants a confrontation with Britain on this issue. But he also faces a difficult re-election campaign, and he may find it necessary to stir public opinion in the traditional nationalist manner.
It seems impossible to believe that Argentina would be so angry that it would launch another attack on the Falklands itself. The islands are now protected by a permanent garrison, as well as typhoons and air defenses. But there is clearly a greater risk of some kind of provocation, and that could perhaps lead to another tragic Argentine miscalculation.
Lord McDonald said Britain’s strategic interests had changed since 1982, when Margaret Thatcher famously and heroically fought a war in the South Atlantic, writes Boris Johnson
Soldiers from the Royal Hampshire Regiment surround then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse in Goose Green, East Falkland in 1983
It seems we are heading for a completely unnecessary crisis caused by Labor’s chronic weakness and the left-wing anti-Americanism of the teenagers. That is why it is so utterly insane that the most senior former British diplomat has chosen this moment to say that the Falklands are of no importance to this country.
How does he think this will be shot in Buenos Aires?
Burnham needs to address this problem, and quickly. He must state firmly that the Falklands are British and that he will not accept any nonsense about Sea Lion’s oil fields. Above all, he must demonstrate the practical reality of that promise by sending reinforcements now.
It doesn’t matter whether it involves more planes, troops or ships. Argentinians must now understand that neither Gary Lineker nor Simon McDonald speak for the people of this country, and that Britain has a deep and irreconcilable commitment to defending democracy.
You could say that it’s all ado about nothing, and that no one in Argentina would be crazy enough to provoke another senseless and disastrous conflict when they have so little chance of success.
You may be right, but that’s what the State Department thought in 1982. There’s only one way to undo the damage done by idiots like McDonald, and that’s to send military aid now.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Dictionary corner: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” translates as “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
