Was the Falklands a Vital Factor in Thatchers Political Survival - Essay Example

? Was the Falklands a vital factor in Thatcher's political survival? Introduction According Rubinstein, (2003), in 1982 Argentina and the United Kingdom were involved in the Falkland’s war which is also known as the Falkland’s conflict or crisis. This was as a result of Falkland and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands that were disputed. The Falkland Islands is made up of several small islands and two large ones and are located at South Atlantic Ocean in east of Argentina. The dispute was as a result of their name and its sovereignty. The war began on 2nd April 1982. The Argentine invaded and occupied South Georgia and the Falkland Islands. Britain in reaction to this, established a navy task force to attack the Argentine navy and the air force. Their main aim was to put in place an amphibious operation which would assist them to win back the Islands. On June 1982 Argentina surrendered leaving the Islands under the control of the British. This brought the conflict to an end. A total number of 907 people perish during the attack; among these were 255 British and 652 Argentine most of who were soldiers, sailors, and airmen. In addition, several people got injured and three islanders also perished. The two countries had a strong case which was inconclusive. Even though the British argued that they had put the international law into consideration it was not well-founded. According to Gamba (1987) an analysis made with the involvement of the Government, the Royal Navy and Parliament It showed that several impertinent factors and pressures majorly determined the decision of the task force being sent to south Atlantic. The government survival threat due to the argentine invasion factor greatly determined how the conflict was conducted. This situation had a great impact on Thatcher survival in office hence; all the actions put in place was mainly to favour her. Despite the various achievement of the British military the Falkland’s crisis was not solved appropriately The main focus in this paper is the impact of international war participation on political leader’s survival in office. The relationship that exists between the performance in war and the fate of political leaders afterwards is of great significance. In most cases leaders who involve their nation in war are more likely to be faced with domestic political hazard which may interfere with their retention of political power. As compared to the democratic leaders, the authoritarian leaders incline to war for a longer durations when they successfully come to power. In addition, democratic leaders are involved in wars which have lower chances of defeat than the authoritarian leaders. In this case, Margaret Thatcher is central to all the events that took place in the Falklands conflict. The British Prime Minister was criticized by the British press after she invaded the Argentine Falkland Islands. She was perceived as having been slow in reacting to the situation. This greatly affected her political fortunes. Prior to the war, it was uncertain that Thatcher and her party would be re-elected. However, a year later after she managed to repel the argentine forces successfully, Thatcher together with her party was returned to by a large majority to the parliamentary power in the general election that took place in 1983. The Falkland conflict had political impacts that were strong in the two countries. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher was under pressure from the parliament and she had to utilize this opportunity in order to ensure she survived in office. On the other hand, in Argentina Galtieri's Junta opted to invade the Falkland’s for political survival while considering the domestic situation in his country. The intention In most cases armed conflict is pursued with specific intentions which include; obtaining the just causes objects, to correct the impact of aggression and injustice, to pursue peace and reconciliation in the presence of conflicts, and to immediately bring hostilities to an end. The British government Margaret Thatcher being the prime minister tried to justify its involvement in war with Argentina on this basis. However, it remains unclear why the British task force had to be involved. There are factors that prompted the British government to send the naval task force to disputed Island in the South Atlantic. First, the task force at large had acquired a lot of momentum on its own. This is clearly portrayed in the royal navy’s position; the successive British administrators pursued the defence policy in order to reduce the strength of the navy. This resulted in the navy being deeply resentful. With the intention to portray the navy’s potential to all British at large, Sir Henry Leach who was the First Sea Lord found a great opportunity in the Falkland’s conflict. When the government approved the Argentina invasion, Leach looked for an opportunity to deliver his views to the secretary of defence and luckily he secured one where he managed to explain why the task force needed to be sent. He managed to influence everyone during the meeting. The task force had been prepared way back before the Argentine invaded the island and even before the government approved of it to be assembled and sent. The government’s decision to send the task force was influence by several factors, among them was the absolute drive of the military preparations. The confidence which was possessed by Sir Henry Leach on the naval potentialities together with the momentum he had on obtaining the approval of the government for the planned operations overcame the cabinet member’s and the chiefs of staff hesitations from prevailing. Leach provided solution to Margaret Thatcher incase she had purposed to react in this situation in a forceful manner. She attained what she required in order to challenge the reservations of John Nott and several others. Leach performance impressed the prime minister hence, tended to listen to him. The task force obtained the drive it required from Leach. There is a possibility that from the royal navy’s objectives which were completely immaterial to the Falkland conflict was one of the contributing factors to the decision of sending the task force. (English and Watts 1982), William Whitelaw specified the decisive factor. According to Freedman (2005), William Whitelaw insisted that the government will be forced to resign if the task force was not in place. The government would not be able to approach the parliament without the task force and an appropriate action plan. The violent parliament fully supported the assessment that had been conducted by Whitelaw during a meeting that came afterwards. In any moral discussion with regard to the British military Falkland’s effort it must be considered that the conflict’s conduct and course depended majorly on the urgency of Margaret Thatcher’s desire. Her main aim was to evade the consequences resulting from her incompetence and to be able to remain in authority. The image in which Margaret Thatcher being the iron lady was trying to portray together with her unusual incompetence resulted in total failure in the Falkland policy established by the British and the invasion of Argentina. According to the Frank’s report, Margaret Thatcher was the main to blame for the fault of failure and not the foreign office. The possibility of an extensive conflict with Argentina had been foreseen by the foreign office and they tried to act accordingly to prevent it. The task force being in place or not the prime minister was involved in risky events which would result in the fall of her party. In the whole process Thatcher rule almost came to a halt luckily, Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary, Humphrey Atkins and the Lord Privy Seal and Richard Luce, the Minister of State in the FCO resigned hence, became saviors to the government. Thatcher’s career would have come to end if the whole government would have had to step down. In addition, her economic project that was ambitious and all what she had focused to attain would have also come to a standstill. In order to secure her own administration, she had to portray that her government had taken hold of the situation. This was only possible with the help of the task force. The analysis which had been made earlier Whitelaw’s seemed to be right, this was portrayed by speeches made by the conservative backbenchers who insisted on the restoration of the Britain’s honor and the obvious threats they posed on what might befall the government for failure to respond as required. The government’s survival predominant importance was not only the determining factor for the task force to be send, it also acted as the major factor that influenced the conduct of the British in whole conflict. Although the essays written by Alexander Haig were not clear on these issues, his observations regarding Thatcher position being threatened and the pressure she received from the parliament seemed to be correct (Blundell, 2008,). Several direct statements were made concerning the existing relationship between the war conduct and the British government by Lord Lewin. Parliament was also among the significant agency of decision making; in a special convoked session they conducted discussions concerning the April 1982 invasion by Argentina. The tone was set by Margaret Thatcher where she condemned the Argentina’s government aggression which was against the territory of the British. The territorial sovereignty issue emphasized by Thatcher contrasted greatly with the statements that were made later by the government. It remains impossible to determine whether Margaret Thatcher was putting across her own personal beliefs in the whole process. There was no evidence to indicate the importance of territory in discussions held by the government before the commons debate. Earlier, the government had never portrayed any attempt to conduct development on Falkland’s economic development. To several conservative backbenchers their main interest was to bring back their possessions which had been grabbed by Argentina. They were mainly concerned with the interests of the British people and ignored that of the islanders. Margaret Thatcher’s backbenchers were the most individuals who threatened her survival in office. They were very powerful and could bring the government down; in fact most of them threatened her during the debate. In this given situation they had the will to exercise their power if an appropriate action was not taken by the government. The labour party was focused to overpower the government, however; the conservative Backbenchers were the determinants in that they were the only individuals who had the ability to tip the scales of power. In this case, the most significant state was the reasons the government had in sending the task force. The speeches made by the government on April 1982, together with that which had been made during parliamentary sessions previously portrayed a clear picture on the situations and other issues which were taking place. It showed deep current of feelings similar to that of the ancient Conservative Party backbenchers of the British Empire and colonialism. This was the most motivating factor to the Conservative Party backbenchers during April 1982. According to the international law, colonialism is best known as a crime. This clearly suggests that the establishment of the British Empire was an act of crime hence this includes Falkland’s being founded as the colony of the British (Rea and Wright 1997). In the situation of the Falkland crisis, the labour party remained in a great dilemma. Its main target was to be able to swoop on the government and take advantage of the resulting embarrassment to create adequate political capital. The position of the labour party was under the influence of John Silkin, who was the party’s Defence spokesman. He played key role when the crisis erupted in the absence of Denis Healey who was in the United States at that time. He was greatly involved in pushing for the government resignation. Michael Foot who belonged to the labour party criticized what he referred to as the foul and brutal aggression and that it was bound to fail in the world. He was mainly concerned with the islanders who were based in Falkland and highlighted that they relied on Britain mainly for their protection. He wanted the government to admit its responsibility on the betrayal of the islanders. The labour party wish was to charge the government to being accountable for all the destructions caused. However, this could not be the case since the issue was considered to be a national crisis. The labor party’s main responsibility was to exploit the misfortune of the government. However, they provided a way out to the government through the successful task force. In most situations it is difficult to determine motivation; a strong case against the British government was supported by adequate evidence which was in place. The government did not have a right intention in getting involved in the conflict instead; they were focused to accomplish their own objectives which cannot be referred as just causes. In most conflicting situations, engagement of military action normally comes as the last resort. The government responded to the argentine invasion as a result of pressures which were well coordinated. It involved the political, the military and the economic pressures. There was adequate time to solve the conflict through negotiation, especially considering that the task force took close to three weeks to reach the islands. However, the available time was not well utilized. Both the British and the Argentine remained in their conflicting positions. As a pre-condition for withdrawal the Argentine wanted their sovereignty to be recognized. On the other hand the British were persistent with their self determination principle mainly for the island. On 3rd April 1982, Margaret Thatcher overcame the wrath of the parliamentary through her promise to rectify the situation which had resulted from the invasion of Argentina. Her promise mainly specified that the she would ensure that the British territory was reclaimed and that any given settlement would be predominated by islander’s wishes. She also insisted that aggression was not supposed to pay hence; through it the Argentine could not benefit at all. Considering all the three principles which were restraining the government had no adequate time to conduct negotiations on the disputed island with the Argentine. The parliament judgment on the prime ministers success was mainly through the three principles which were highlighted by Thatcher. In addition, Thatcher was reluctant to get involved in the negotiations because she was aware it would be fail considering Argentina domestic situation. The domestic situation was the key factor for the Falkland’s invasion by the Argentine with focus being on Galtieri's Junta survival politically. Initially the task force was perceived to be a military threat which had been established to mainly push the Argentines to consider negotiations. Towards the end of April the prime minister concluded that she would not be able to successfully obtain her major objectives through the negotiation process. Therefore, she opted for the military action in place of the military threat. This took place immediately when the task force had reached the South Georgia. Conclusion The war which involved Argentina and the United Kingdom was referred to the Falkland’s war. It is also referred to as the Falkland’s conflict or crisis this was as a result of Falkland and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands that were disputed. The Falkland Islands is made up of several small islands and two large ones and are located at South Atlantic Ocean in east of Argentina. The war began on 2nd April 1982. The Argentine invaded and occupied South Georgia and the Falkland Islands. Britain in reaction to this, established a navy task force to attack the Argentine navy and the air force. Their main aim was to put in place an amphibious operation which would assist them to win back the Islands. The Falkland conflict had significant political impacts that in the two countries. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher was under pressure from the parliament and she had to utilize this opportunity in order to ensure she survived in office. On the other hand, in Argentina Galtieri's Junta opted to invade the Falkland’s for political survival while considering the domestic situation in his country. Several factors forced Margaret Thatcher to deploy the naval task force to the disputed island, among these was that parliament had vowed to bring the government down if the task force was not put in place hence, the prime minister had to respond immediately. In this situation Margaret Thatcher was greatly involved in risky events which would result in the fall of her party. The whole process almost brought her rule to an end, luckily Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary, Humphrey Atkins and the Lord Privy Seal and Richard Luce, the Minister of State in the FCO resigned hence, became saviors to the government. Thatcher contrasted greatly with the statements that were made later by the government. It was impossible to determine whether Margaret Thatcher was putting across her own personal beliefs in the whole process. There was no evidence to indicate the importance of territory in discussions held by the government before the commons debate. Earlier, the government had never portrayed any attempt to conduct development on Falkland’s economic development. In this situation, the labor party targeted the government. Their main agenda was to swoop on the government and take advantage of the resulting embarrassment to create adequate political capital. They wanted the government to resign from office. However, Mrs. Thatcher remained keen during the whole conflict process. In fact she did not get involved in the negotiation process as she would not be able to successfully obtain her major objectives through it hence, opted for military option instead of just the military threat. It is perceived that the British involvement in the Falkland crisis did not meet the theory of just war criteria. It is clear that the British military were not just focused on just War. Considering that the right intention it reveals that in political life it is normal for government to have concerns for its survival in power. In addition lack of the appropriate intention does not imply that the British should not have been involved in war. However, Mrs. Thatcher definition of objectives which was considered to be more than just the causes was contributed mainly by the inexistence of the appropriate intention. Through it was not possible to have a settlement from negotiation Bibliography Blundell, J 2008, Margaret Thatcher: a portrait of the Iron Lady, Algora Publishing, London. English, A & Watts, A 1982, Battle for the Falklands: Naval Forces Osprey Publishing, London. Fowler, W & Chappell, M 1982, Battle for the Falklands: Land forces Osprey Publishing, London. Freedman, L 2005, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war Routledge, London. Gamba, V 1987, Thon.e Falklands/Malvinas war: a model for North-South crisis prevention, Taylor & Francis, London. Laver, R 2001, The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Netherlands. Rea, T & Wright, J 1997, International relations 1914-1995; Oxford University Press, Oxford. Rubinstein, W, D 2003, Twentieth-century Britain: a political history, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Smith, G 2006, Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982 by Land, Sea and Air, Lulu.com, UK. Wheeler, T 2004, The Falklands & South Georgia Island, Lonely Planet, London. Read More