Haughey is right on the Malvinas

Charlie Haughey was quite right to withdraw Ireland's support for EEC sanctions against Argentina, for several reasons. Among these are:

* the last time Britain called for sanctions against "an aggressor" was in 1965 in the case of Rhodesia. The issues involved there were far more serious and involved far more people than did the Malvinas case. Yet Britain sent no task force. There was no talk then of a principled stand against aggression and, worst of all, it was Britain itself, under both Labour and Conservative Governments which deliiberately and secretly broke these same sanctions and afterrwards lied about it. That the same politicians who disgraced themselves on this issue should expect anything but ridicule when they ask for support for sanctions on a much lesser issue is, at the very least, a tribute to their brass necks.

* however guilty Argentina may have been of aggression in invading the Malvinas on April 2 last, Britain's claim of sovereignty over these islands is itself based on naked agggression, albeit of some 150 years ago. The least Ireland might do in 'the circumstances should be to remain neutral. Doing a little better they might actually support the Argenntinians.

* given our own history, it is quite right that we should be unashamedly suspicious of any British assertions of soverreignty anywhere in the world, most of all over islands 8000 miles away.

* in the light of the persistent moralising we have had to listen to from London over the years about IRA violence, it would be quite unpardonable for us to do anything, for that reason alone, but oppose the gratuitous murder of several hundred Argentinians by the sinking of the Belgrano outside the "total exclusion zone" which Britain itself commposed. Murder is murder, is murder ...

The background to the dispute is as follows: Argentina secured its independence from Spain in 1810 and the national territory at the time involved the Malvinas islands. In 1825 Argentina signed a Treaty of Friendship with the United Kingdom in which the independence and territorial integrity of Argentina was recognised by the United Kinggdom and therefore, by implication, the sovereignty of Arrgentina over the Malvinas.

In 1833 Britain took the Malvinas islands by force and expelled the Argentinian residents to make way for British settlers. Ever since, Argentina has continued to assert its claim over the islands and the violation of Argentinian sovvereignty has rankled in the Argentinian national conscioussness.

There have been repeated attempts to settle the dispute through peaceful means. There have been resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1965, 1972, and 1977 calling for a negotiated settlement of the dispute in language sympathetic to the Argentinian claim of sovereignty over the islands. Conferences of Non-Aligned Nations in 1973 and 1976 have supported explicitly the Argentinian claim of sovereignty and called for a negotiated settlement of the dispute.

The United Kingdom Governments at all times stalled and effectively refused to negotiate. Sooner or later, as was the case in Northern Ireland, the festering sore had to burst. It hardly matters to the general principles involved that it happens to be an unsavoury regime which is in power in Buenos Aires when the sore did: burst. Neither Goes it matter to the general principles involved that the issue may well be exploited by the repressive military junta to its own nefarious advantage - they could not gain such advantage if there weren't a genuine grievance there in the first place. In any event there is again gross British hypocrisy on this issue, for it was them who without scruple gave the armaaments to the military regime to make the repression more virulent.

The fact that it was Argentina which hasnow been the first aggressor again is hardly significant in the balance of moral rectitude - the British were in possession of the islands by virtue of aggression and they continued in that possession through the stalling ofall attempted negotiating procedures. .

The argument that the islanders had 'the right to selffdetermination is, in the circumstances, fatuous. If that principle were to be applied in such circumstances then any act of aggression by any nation could be justified by the simple expedient of the expulsion of the indigenous population and their replacement by natives of the occupyying power which would then invoke the right of selfmination. Granted, the rights of the. islanders cannot be dismissed, given the passage of' 150 years of history, but the principle of self-determination can hardly be the determinant in these circumstances.

But it is the Rhodesian example which gives the lie to the entire British posture in the South Atlantic. In Rhoodesia there was an effective coup d'etat in 1965 by a white minority which wanted to impose a racist autocracy on the black majority. This was a flagrant act of-aggression against British sovereignty and had consequences far more fundaamental than the Argentinian invasion of the Malvinas. Yet the British didn't even seriously consider sending a task force to Rhodesia to overthrow the regime there and assert British authority. They called on the world, through the United Nations, to impose sanctions against Rhodesia and then, as was exposed by The Sunday Times a few years ago, both Labour and Conservative' Governments colluded in the breaking of these sanctions and then lied comprehensively to the world about the entire affair. Many politicians innvolved in that deceit - Harold Wi1son~ James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Ted Heath, Lord Carrington etc. '-- are now the loudest in demanding of their; "allies" support for sanctions yet again. . . '

To cap' it ali, there is now ample evidence that the Briitish were guilty of gross atrocities in the 'capture of Goose Green when they slaughtered literally hundreds of Argenntinian troops after they had effectively surrendered through the waving of white flags. The British claim that after the first Argentinian white flag was .waved troops on the Arrgentinian side opened fire on British troops. Even if that were true, it would still not justify the Wholesale slaughter that ensued. However, we in Ireland .should know better than others what little credence to place on such British claims - they have consistently lied insimilar circumstances in Northern Ireland when there were independent witnesses present. How can we believe anything 'they say in circummstances in which there are no witnesses and 8000 miles away in the south Atlantic. . ~

Charlie Haughey is absolutely right - we should have no hand, act or part in such activities.