MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands forces deployment.
A warning by the retiring British Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, that British forces are severely over-stretched after the Iraq war has prompted renewed questioning of their overseas deployments and even a suggestion that they should be withdrawn from the Falkland Islands.
But, while the Ministry of Defence keeps all its commitments under constant review, there is no suggestion of any change in the British Government's attitude and its repeated pledge to safeguard Falkland's military security and protect the Islanders' right to British sovereignty. And the British forces regard the tri-service Falklands deployment as valuable training, such as low-level flying, which is not as readily available as elsewhere
The plea for withdrawal of the Falklands garrison comes in a letter in the Times Newspaper from retired servicemen who say Admiral Boyce also mentioned the drain on the forces by deployment in Northern Ireland. The letter -- from John McDermott, of London -- says the military requirements in Northern Ireland are understandable but his letter questions '' why must the British taxpayer still maintain a sizeable garrison on the Falkland Islands 21 years after the armed conflict ended?''
The letter continues: ''This garrison, 8,000 miles in the distant South Atlantic, comprises elements of the Army, Navy and Air Force numbering upwards to 2,000 personnel, requiring enormous and continuous support as well as expensive military hardware such as air Defence Tornados.
''I recently left the Royal Navy after 27 years' service and fought throughout the Falklands conflict, later returning to the islands for post-conflict deployments when an able military presence was both essential for Defence and deterrence. This is simply not the case today, almost a decade after Britain and Argentina normalised relationships.
''Argentina still quietly claims sovereignty and will undoubtedly continue to do so, very much in the same style of Spain's claim upon Gibraltar. Argentina, democratic since 1983,vowed in the name of Anglo-Argentine peace and reconciliation never again to use armed force in pursuit of its territorial claim. So why do we continue to spend millions of taxpayers' money on a garrison that is out of place and time with no present threat to the 2,500 or so non-UK-taxpaying islanders?''.
Supporters of the Falkland Islanders regard the letter as over-simplistic and naive in its assumptions about Argentina and Gibraltar. Argentina renews its claim at every opportunity, as as happened in the latest presidential election. Though it has had elected civilian governments since 1983, it is hardly a model of democratic idealism or of economic competence, struggling with the world's biggest external debt default and much of its population plunged into poverty. Yet Argentina continues to press its claim, encouraged by what it sees as a weakening of British resolve over Gibraltar, with recent proposals for joint sovereignty with Spain.
The same edition of the Times contains a letter from the main architect of the British Task Force in the Falklands War, Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Henry Leach, who assured Baroness Thatcher in 1982 that the British forces could re-take the Islands and eject the Argentine invaders.
He criticises a plan by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to form a European Defence Force independent of NATO. He criticises the leaders of these countries as displaying ''an exaggerated idea of their self-importance''. His letter continues: "NATO would be well-advised to let these 'little men trying to play it big' go their own foolish way. World opinion will do the rest''.
Harold Briley, (MP) London
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCommenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!