Self determination for all but the whites

Veteran clown Seumas Milne "argues" in the Guardian that the recent 1514 to 3 vote in favour of continued British rule of the Falkland islands is a North Korean-style ballot:

No doubt 1,514 island residents really did vote in favour of continued British rule. The only surprise was that three islanders dared to spoil the rousing choruses of Land of Hope and Glory by voting against.
It's that the poll was a foregone conclusion and designed to miss the entire point of Britain's dispute with Argentina over the islands – which began 180 years ago when one of Lord Palmerston's gunboats seized them and expelled the Argentine administration.

Astonishingly, Milne appears unaware of the fate of previous Guardian columnists (Flavia Dzodan, Sean Penn, ambassador Alicia Castro) putting forward their ideas on Argentina taking over the "Malvinas". He gets swiftly set straight in the comments:

The islands might be 8,000 miles from the UK (something that doesn't trouble other countries of the world with THEIR islands) but they are 400 from Argentina.
If distance is the issue, then it is still an issue with the Argentine claim. As would be the usual bollocks about "continental shelf."
There are numerous disputes - ones of a more serious nature - such as the islands disputed between the Japanese and Chinese, between North and South Korea, etc etc. I suggest that the Guardian gets stuck in there. Maybe send a journalist to stir up shit in China and Japan, North and South Korea.

It used to stagger me that a flagship journal for human rights and democracy, such as the Guardian styles itself, would support the military annexation of land and populations based on a flimsy-as-paper argument about a Huguenot, Luis Vernet, making a commercial settlement in 1828 under a joint Argentina-UK pact where Argentina refused to provide any warship to back his claim. Sadly, it appears that Seumas is happy to pursue any argument, no matter how absurd, as long as it is contrary to the policy of the UK government, even if that means backing the increasingly dictatorial and distasteful Argentine regime.

As the above commenter notes, there are plenty of more unsavory regimes casting their island claims far beyond their shores. That Seumas does not see fit to remark upon these makes one wonder what it is about the Falklands that he finds so exceptional.

Seumas is sadly not immune from the occasional inconsistency in his argument:

[...] most of whom weren't born there but are subsidised to the tune of £44,856 a head to keep them in the Rhodesian retro style to which they are accustomed?

I like the precision of that "44,856". The sly allusion to the racist imperialist rule in Rhodesia is also a nice touch. But what's this?

A generation on, the discovery of potentially large oil and gas deposits around the islands, development of fisheries and growing importance of the Antarctic sea lanes have changed the picture.

Well, Seumas, either the Falklanders are financial dependents, or they're not. Which is it?

Lasy word to commenter Chrispytl:

So Milne wishes to now simply ignore the wishes of virtually the whole of the residents of the Falkland Islands?
The man must really hate democracy.
He must love the EU though.

Seumas, I think you've met your match. Time for a piece on a less challenging topic.

Dear Argentina...

Too good not to share, despite being on Facebook. Blighty dissects the Argentine claims:

We could probably avoid an argument over the fact that the Falkland Islands, in and of themselves, aren't exactly pretty. There are no hanging gardens, no waterfalls, no exotic wildlife. They're a windy bunch of rocks a long way from anywhere, although I grant they're nearer to you than they are to us.
Which begs the question about why, exactly, you never bothered to settle them.

Harsh! but fair.

Now, there are many ways people can be oppressed, forced, compelled and abused - just ask Sean Penn - but a polite note is not one of them. The Argentine in charge thought briefly about resisting, but he didn't have many soldiers and besides, most of them were British mercenaries who refused to fight. So on January 3, 1833 you left, Argentina, with wounded pride and your nose in the air.
You had never settled the islands. Never established a colony of your own. Never guarded it with a garrison of your own soldiers. They had never, ever, been yours.

Go read the whole thing. Especially you, President Kirchner.

How to defend the Falklands against Argentina

This article from the UK Defence National Association (implacably opposed to defence cuts) has claimed that if Argentina was determined to invade then the UK could not defend the islands:

It warned that the islands' coastline could not be defended from an invasion and that Argentina could use almost all of its armed forces to invade at a time when the British forces consisted of "just four Typhoons, a Type-45 Destroyer, and Rapier short range missiles around Mount Pleasant airfield".

OK, so let's assume that Argentina manages to get the element of surprise, lands a planeload of commandos at Mount Pleasant airfield (by pretending to be a commercial flight from Uruguay or something), puts a serious amphibious force to sea and devotes all its active airforce to supporting the invasion. Let's assume that there is no intel warning of the attack, so the first the Falkland Islands military contingent knows about it is when the commando force spills out of a C-130 on Mount Pleasant airstrip and the radar simultaneously picks up the inbound 34 Skyhawks and 15 Mirages comprising the entire long-range offensive capability of the Fuerza Aerea Argentina. Would the attack succeed?

The Falkland Islands military force could scramble one (QRF) Typhoon before the commandos made things too interesting to take the other aircraft out of their hangars. That Typhoon could at best take out 8 Skyhawks with a combination of missiles and guns before they could reach Mount Pleasant, but also reduce the fuel of other Skyhawks by locking them up with radar and forcing them to take evasive action without knowing if a missile is on the way. Then, assuming their mission is to target Mount Pleasant airfield and eliminate concentrations of forces, the Skyhawks have to avoid Rapier 2000 batteries specifically placed to expect attack by low-flying Skyhawks. Again, 1980s planes face missiles developed 10-15 years later than them. If 20 aircraft approach the target, another 5-10 will take hits from Rapier and machine gun fire so only 10-15 will be able to deliver their (dumb) bombs.

The problem the Argentine aircraft now have is the Type 45 destroyer alerted to the invasion. Generously assuming that the inbound strike aircraft have somehow managed to slip by it (say, by flying very low and thus reducing their already-low maximum range), any survivors will now be exposed to an alerted and very pissed-off Type 45 firing salvoes of modern Mach 3+ Aster missiles at 1980s design aircraft. If 3 or 4 aircraft manage to return from the strike, they'll be doing well.

Let's look at the commandos. Assuming they use their Special Operations Forces Group they should be able to muster 64 armed commandos (max capacity of a C-130) for the attack on Mount Pleasant. The commandos have the advantage of surprise and being elite forces; against that, even if only 1/3 of the 1200 British soldiers on the islands are in the area, those are unfavourable odds of 7:1 against the attacking force. Bear in mind also that most British Army units have spent time in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are very familiar with being shot at and conducting small-unit action under live fire - an advantage not to be underestimated. At best, the commandos will be able to destroy a couple of Typhoons and aircraft facilities before being surrounded and immolated or forced to surrender. An airfield is a very large area, and takes many hundreds of troops to secure.

So what of the amphibious force? Let's be generous and assume that the commandos have knocked out Mount Pleasant for at least a couple of days, so the amphibs can sail the 400 miles and land unopposed by aircraft. We also assume that no Astute or Trafalgar sub is in the area launching Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles at them. They will have no effective air cover, and the British will have reasonable advance warning of their approach, so they will either have to mount a major landing against dug-in and pre-warned opposition near a port to secure it (good luck with that), or land light forces away from military concentrations and then hike over land to their target. They will not be able to transport over any significant helicopter force, so will be restricted to what they can carry on their backs and in light vehicles.

All the UK forces need to do is secure Mount Pleasant, fix any damage to the runway, then wait a few days for a squadron of Typhoons to deploy via Ascension. They can then proceed to bomb the living crap out of the landed Argentine military, deny them air or sea resupply, and wait for surrender.

The 1982 invasion of the Falklands pitted 600+ Argentine troops against 60 UK Marines and 10 sailors (8:1 odds), and was by no means a cakewalk - one of the senior Argentine Marine commanders was killed assaulting Government House. One of the deciding factors was the presence of Amtracs (armoured amphibious vehicles). I don't see either overwhelming odds or east amphibious assault being realistic this time around. The Argentines are not going to assault the Falklands unless they are crazy - and if you want to stop them, just bolster the AAA defences and ground security of Mount Pleasant.

The maxim that generals always fight the last war is a useful one, but in this case it's almost literally true - the Argentine forces are essentially unchanged from the end of the 1982 conflict due to an economy that is constantly circling the drain, and meanwhile the British have had 30 years to evolve their military in general and the Falklands defences in particular against a very specific threat. The only way Argentina could muddy the waters is to bring the Venezuelans into the conflict or something.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it...

...specifically, the Argentinian diplomats who are optimistic about enlisting Plaid Cymru support for their claim on the Falklands (based on the Welsh emigration to Argentina many decades ago) should have read up on the Bluff Cove attack on Sir Galahad where a large number of Welsh Guardsmen were killed.

Sure enough, it seems that Plaid Cymru weren't that interested:

Mr Llwyd confirmed the meeting had taken place, but he said he firmly rebuffed the approach to join Argentina's campaign.
He told The Daily Telegraph that he had "no interest" in helping the South American country with its battle to win support for its claim to the islands.

There's a politician who can recognise a millstone before someone tries to hang it around his neck.

The Countryside Olympics

Danny Boyle wants to open the Olympics by transforming the stadium into the English countryside. I see vast satirical horizons opening. I'm recommend a formation of dancing sheep, a musical chorus of chirping blackbirds and mooing cows, a procession of tractors with farmers growling "Get orf moi laaaaand", and finishing off with a flock of starlings taking a crap all over the Argentine team and their Malvinas badges.

The ambassador to the Malvinas is at it again

Argentina's ambassador to the UK, Alicia Castro appears to be in the UK for the sole purpose of stirring the pot with regards to the Falklands. Does she ever do anything else?

This time, the appeal to history having failed, she has the islanders' "best interests" at heart:

Ms Castro said: "Is it rational that a small community, in the name of very particular wishes and interests, are against any dialogue?
"Does it make sense that because they are not regarding the interests of the 60 million British people, they are not regarding the interests of the 30 million people in Argentina and they are not regarding their best interests, which would no doubt be better preserved if they were linked to the continent?"

Well, Alicia my heart, it may or may not be rational or make sense. However, because the UK believes in the right of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination they are totally free to make irrational or nonsensical choices as they wish.

Talking of which, it was very sweet of you to offer educational aid to the islands:

Describing the islands as a "colonial enclave", she said her government would send teachers to the islands to teach Spanish

One can only imagine the textbooks they would use. Perhaps we could also get some INDEC statisticians to explain how to measure national inflation in the islands' high school maths classes?

Talk about bearding the lion...

Alicia Castro, the new Argentine Ambassador to the UK, decides to open her posting by writing an article in the Telegraph declaring that she's fully in favour of jaw-jaw rather than war-war:

My extensive experience, first in the trade union movement, then in parliament and as a diplomat has made me a strong advocate of dialogue and positive negotiations.

and then begins her argument:

The sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the UK is 179 years old. It dates from the time that Great Britain – in much the same way it invaded Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807 without success – invaded and took the Malvinas Islands by force in 1833.

Oh dear, Alicia. You were doing so well up until then.

Strangely, with all the talk of militarisation and invasion, she only refers tangentially to the war in 1982. Why might that be?

Commentator John DeVries has a solution for Ms. Castro:

Rest assured, as long as Britain remains in the Falklands, the islanders will never attack Argentina or flood it with mutton.
Such is our respect for your country we don't even want payment for this service. We're going to drill for the oil which is in the area, sell it and pay for everything ourselves.

Appoint that man to the post of UK Ambassador to Argentina.

Sean Penn and his shovel

When you're in a hole, Sean, stop digging. His attempt to return the to Falklands-Malvinas debate in Thursday's Grauniad is as entertaining as his previous weighing-in on this matter.

He starts as he means to continue:

...and despite our world's recent and evolving lessons of cultural sensitivity and economic equitability, the UK has refused to return to diplomatic efforts regarding the status of UK and Argentinian claims to the Malvinas Islands, commonly referred to as the Falkland Islands.

I'm curious what he thinks "economic equitability" means in this context: the UK should give the Falklands to Argentina because the UK is rich and Argentina is poor? Interesting.

...any lack of will to re-engage is a clear exploitation of losses already suffered. It is dismissive of a country and continent whose sacrifices and dignity have too long been neglected.

Yes, we appear to have a theme developing here; don't the poor down-trodden Argentines deserve a break? A charitable donation of the Falklands would be just the ticket.

He does, however, seem to have a bee in his bonnet about the UK/USA involvement with Chile:

The UK and General Augusto Pinochet (with ultimately timid support from the US) along with the diversionary invasion by the former Argentinian regime, did a fine job of leaving little room for that argument [that the Falklanders should be deported] on today's world stage.

I'm not entirely sure what connection he thinks Pinochet has here. After all, it was the UK who ended up detaining the former General in an attempt to have him tried for human rights violations. What's his point?

And William is apparently spear-heading a military build-up:

With the deployment of the prince, whose task is helicopter search and rescue missions from an island colony with a population of about 3,000, there is the automatic deployment of warships.

I've news for you, Sean my old chum, warships have their own helicopters. They don't need land-based SAR such as that provided by F/Lt. W. Wales's Sea King. SAR supports the fishing, recreational and commercial shipping around the islands. Now if Captain H. Wales were to turn up in his personal whirlybird, Sean may have a point; I'd certainly not be keen to be an Argentine soldier facing the pointy end of one of those...

CiF commentater davidabsalom identifies an omission in Mr. Penn's argument:

"It is difficult to imagine that there is no correlation between the likely discovery of offshore oil reserves and the message of pre-emptive intimidation being sent by the UK to Argentina."
Equally difficult to imagine that there is no correlation between the likely discovery of offshore oil reserves and attempts by Argentina to intimidate the 3,000 residents of the Falklands by refusing their ships access to Argentinian ports. Or many other South American ports thanks to Argentina's extensive diplomatic efforts with its neighbours.

In one breath Sean supports the right of Falklanders to self-determination, and in another bemoans the breaking-off of diplomatic efforts to resolve the islands' status. Surely he should take the obvious cause and support a referendum by islanders to determine which nation they want to be a part of?

When even the Guardian commentators lose sympathy

Argentinian and Amsterdam-dwelling hip chick Flavia Dzodan decides to write a comment piece in the Grauniad on how colonialist David Cameron appears to be about the Falklands:

With this comment Cameron did a bit of historical "re-arranging the furniture". He conveniently forgot to mention that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands were expelled by an act of force in 1833, and the current population descends from the people brought by the British to replace the Argentinian inhabitants. By definition, this is an act of colonialism.

The CiF commentators aren't as sympathetic to her point as she might have hoped. It turns out that other people such as bangorstu can use Wikipedia too, and read out the bits she left out:

The original inhabitants WERE NOT evicted in 1833.
The original inhabitants were French colonists in 1764.
A year later the British arrived in the islands and established another colony, in ignorance of the French presence.
Note all of this happened six decades before Argentine independence...
The French agreed to leave in 1766, and there was a diplomatic tiff with Spain which nearly led to war.
The British left around the time of the American War of Independence - but left a plaque noting that they had not given up sovreignty.
The Spanish ruled part of the islands from Buenos Aries until 1811 whereupon they left - again, leaving a plaque.
On independence the Argentinians attempted to annex the islands - leading to the 1833 incident. They had no right to do so, and the colonsits were evicted.
But this Argentine whinng about their 'orignal inhabitants' ignores three separate colonies from three different nations which had existed before they were even independent.

Quote of the month from commentator slimpanatella:

Galtieri waved his cock and got it bitten off. Deal with it.

The comments are a treasure trove of colonialism, in the unlikeliest of venues:

Im not very patriotic (being of immigrant stock) but a few years ago whilst staying at a backpackers hostel in Buenos Aires I was so incenced to see on a big wall map "Islas Malvinas (Ar.) I took my biro and crossed out the (Ar.) and wrote (G.B.).

Poor Flavia must be thinking she posted to the Daily Mail by accident. A word to the wise, darling: don't fuck with the Falklands. Argentina had its chance, and blew it.

Las Islas Malvinas son nuestras, mi culo

Argentina is saber-rattling about a blockade of the Falkland Islands and various pundits are speculating about a re-attempted invasion, now that the British military have down-sized.

Just one question: has anyone in the press looked at the ORBAT of the Argentine military? Never mind the land forces, what ships would escort troop-carrying craft and what aircraft would provide air cover?

According to Wiki the Argentine Air Force order of battle shows 2 squadrons of Pucara light ground attack prop craft (about 24), 2 of Skyhawk A-4AR (about 20), 3 of Mirage variants (about 20). The Argentine Navy has 4 destroyers of early 80s vintage (most delivered around the end of the Falklands war), three diesel subs that should be in a museum, and 9 corvettes with no apparent SAM equipment.

Assuming a generous 75% availability rate, that would give the Air Force 15 Mirages against the 4 Typhoons on Mount Pleasant. That's not going to cause the Typhoons to even break a sweat. On the naval side, the destroyers wouldn't stand a hope in hell against a Trafalgar-class SSN, let alone an Astute-class (HMS Astute seems to be on track to be in service in early 2012).

This is all about Cristina Kircher trying to willy-wave, but the problem with this is that she doesn't actually have a willy.