Irish policy on the Falklands war

jonniebgood1

The 30th anniversary of the Falklands war has just passed and it could be interesting to look at how the war was viewed in Ireland and also to look at the policies that Ireland adopted in terms of UN resolutions and attempts at trade embargos by the British. The Falklands community on the islands have alot in common with Northern Unionists in that they see their loyalties lying with the British. Ireland and Britain of course had relationship problems still at this time so it was not going to be straightforward with the old policy of an enemy of Britain being Irelands friend being not to far in the background. Ireland had backed UN resolution 502 that allowed Britain defend itself as self defence http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution502.html . However the Hunger strikes were recent and I would imagine in political terms it would have been popular to make a stand against Thatcher.

My question is how much support did Ireland give to Britain during the conflict?
Thatcher asked for Irish support for the trade embargo -private papers released in 2010 showed this, http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/margaret-thatcher-asked-ireland-for-falklands-help-15042053.html did Ireland go along with this?
Also for people who were about at the time, was their much feeling towards the conflict or was it seen as irrelevant in Ireland?

Manach

From my own memories of the time, there was a mixture of reactions. On one extreme there were groups whose viewpoints on the UK were directly linked to the situation in Northern Ireland, hence very much in favour of the Argentina blow against perceived colonialism. The other was a pro-British view, seeing them as a victim of an attack and perhaps caught up in the drama of watching the assembly and journey of the fleet across the world. The RTE news reports at the time made riveting viewing.

Judgement Day

My memory of it was along the lines of the Eurovision in the old days where the UK used to give Ireland 12 points and Ireland would give them 0.

The usual suspects (SF, FF etc.) supported the Argentinians (mine enemy's enemy is my friend) and the hand wringers wanted peace at any cost. Naturally, I supported the Brits but it was the first time in my life when I fully understood that war is not like in the movies. The graphic coverage of the injured, some missing limbs escaping from the British troop ships involved in the daylight landings on the Falklands has stayed with me to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Sir_Galahad_(1966)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo0BNYGgEV4

mike65

The Irish government of Squire Hockey was nothing less than unhelpful and hostile at the time, set things back quite a bit. Ireland happened to be on the Security Council at the time and tried to use that position against the UK.

http://gubu-world.blogspot.com/2008/08/charlie-haughey-and-falklands.html

Here's an interesting letter about then minister for defence Paddy Power

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0131/1224311002864.html

dubhthach

It's interesting how in modern Argentina that the actions Junta is in general condemned, let the invasion of the Falklands is excluded from such condemnation

I always think of the Newsweek cover when it comes to the Falklands war. Great headline!

mike65

Thing is that basically was the Empire! If the Argies had realised just how thin the khaki line was...

Judgement Day

Good point. And as a reward for recovering the Falklands the Royal Navy and British Army bore further cutbacks, and the dockyard at Gibraltar that played a part in the adventure has since been closed. It was always the case with "the frocks" in control. :mad:

jonniebgood1

Judgement Day wrote: »

Good point. And as a reward for recovering the Falklands the Royal Navy and British Army bore further cutbacks, and the dockyard at Gibraltar that played a part in the adventure has since been closed. It was always the case with "the frocks" in control. :mad:

Well with the 'empire' gone the need for the best Navy in the world was not as pressing as it once had been. The economic catastrophe for Britain that was WWII is often overlooked also in this context. So Britain post 1960's has no oversea empire (comparative to 1900 say) to protect and no money for a Navy she barely needs.

LordSutch

Firstly I agree with many of the points made in Post #2 and Post #3. I was working in Dublin at the time (1st job) and there was a mixed response. My family, friends, & work colleagues in Dublin's City Centre would have been very pro the Task Force, but there were many Pro Argintina voices too, and any anti-British voice that that could be mustered in Ireland was, led by Sinn Fein of course.



Above is the sinking of the General Belgrano, 300+ Argentine lives lost, what a waste of life on both sides.

LordSutch

Firstly I agree with many of the points made in Post #2 and Post #3. I was working in Dublin at the time (1st job) and there was a mixed response. My family, friends, & work colleagues in Dublin's City Centre would have been very pro the UK Task Force, but there were many Pro Argintina voices too, and any anti-British voice that that could be mustered in Ireland was, led by Sinn Fein of course.

The General Belgrano


Above is the sinking of the General Belgrano, 300+ Argentine lives lost.

Cardinal Richelieu

dubhthach wrote: »

It's interesting how in modern Argentina that the actions Junta is in general condemned, let the invasion of the Falklands is excluded from such condemnation

I always think of the Newsweek cover when it comes to the Falklands war. Great headline!



My fav was Private Eye micky take of the Suns "Gotcha" headline when the Belgrano was sunk.

"KILL AN ARGIE, WIN A METRO!"

Class:D

Judgement Day

As far as I know the General Belgrano aka the "USS Phoenix" was the last surviving in service ship from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Judgement Day

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Well with the 'empire' gone the need for the best Navy in the world was not as pressing as it once had been. The economic catastrophe for Britain that was WWII is often overlooked also in this context. So Britain post 1960's has no oversea empire (comparative to 1900 say) to protect and no money for a Navy she barely needs.

Can't agree with you on this one. The Empire may be well gone but, like it or not, Britain remains a Super Power albeit a minor one. It needs to maintain a strong navy and armed forces as part of its commitment to NATO and its alliance with the USA. In the future who can tell what calls may be made upon it in relation to its relationship with countries such as India, Australia, NZ etc. I know that it's fashionable and PC to deride the UK/Britain but the fact remains that it punches above its weight and needs to maintain a serious military infrastructure - a fact lost on useless politicians who see the services as an easy target for cost cutting.

jonniebgood1

Judgement Day wrote: »

Can't agree with you on this one. The Empire may be well gone but, like it or not, Britain remains a Super Power albeit a minor one. It needs to maintain a strong navy and armed forces as part of its commitment to NATO and its alliance with the USA. In the future who can tell what calls may be made upon it in relation to its relationship with countries such as India, Australia, NZ etc. I know that it's fashionable and PC to deride the UK/Britain but the fact remains that it punches above its weight and needs to maintain a serious military infrastructure - a fact lost on useless politicians who see the services as an easy target for cost cutting.

My point was not intended to appear populist and on review I don't see which part is wrong, I guess that means I agree with recent UK government decisions in this regard :eek: .

I will get back on topic though with the mentioned sinking of the Belgrano. The British legitimised their operations to the UN (as mentioned in OP) as an act of self defense. The sinking of the Belgrano saw this questioned.
The Irish minister for defence at the time was Paddy Power (I will try to avoid betting puns). It led to the most controversial of the Irish comment or link to the conflict in the Falklands. From Noel Dorr, author of a book 'A Small State at the Top Table: Memories of Ireland on the UN security council, 1981-82':

The author describes the initiative taken by Mr Haughey as Taoiseach on May 4th, 1982 and announced in the form of a statement prepared and published entirely without consultation with himself. The statement was issued following a meeting that day between the Taoiseach and officials at his residence in Kinsealy two days after the sinking with the loss of 368 lives of the Argentinian warship the General Belgrano by a British torpedo. Noel Dorr describes the statement and its consequences as “what proved to be the greatest single controversy in Anglo-Irish relations for a generation”. It reads:



The Irish Government will seek an immediate meeting of the security council in order to prepare a new resolution calling for:
1. An immediate cessation of hostilities by both British and Argentinian forces, and
2. The negotiation of a diplomatic settlement under the auspices of the United Nations.
The Irish Government regard the application of economic sanctions as no longer appropriate and will therefore be seeking the withdrawal of these sanctions by the Community.

Noel Dorr goes on to say that the statement “evoked (in Britain) a very hostile reaction from Government, news media and the public and it reverberated like an earthquake shock through all aspects of Anglo-Irish relations. The aftershocks were felt for many years.” http://drb.ie/more_details/12-03-12/Mr_Haughey%E2%80%99s_Dud_Exocet.aspx

This is from a review and it goes on to suggest that it may be overstated but I have read the same in a different source, i.e. that Thatcher never wanted to deal with Haughey after this. With the Irish government giving this protest it was bound to ruffle the British. To look at the wrongs nad rights of it we would need more information on the incident with the Belgrano being sunk in more detail. I do not have that information yet...


EDIT> I came across this recent comment by the son of the then Irish Minister for defence P. Power, It is from a response he sent to the Irish Times to a piece they published:

hortly after word of the sinking of the Belgrano broke, my father, Kildare TD, Paddy Power, minister for defence, attended a Fianna Fáil meeting in the Copper Beech in Edenderry, where he said that the sinking of the Belgrano, outside the British-declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the islands, suggested to him that Britain was now the aggressor in the Falklands war.

The comment appeared in the Irish Independent the following day.

The taoiseach summoned Paddy Power to his office, where he told his Minister of Defence that he wanted him to withdraw his remark.

This Paddy Power refused to do.

He left the taoiseach’s office and returned to his own office in the Phoenix Park and heard no more about the subject.

Meanwhile, support for Paddy Power’s stance continued to grow, both at home and abroad.

I assume that Charlie Haughey, sensing which way the wind was blowing, decided to follow the national consensus. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0131/1224311002864.html

uberalles

That was was a load of BS IMO. It's so far away from britan. How could they justify it? And their heroes left with lost limbs and some dead and for what? A bit of land 1000s miles away.

Judgement Day

jonniebgood1 - sorry no personal swipe at you was intended. I tend to find myself defending the Brits all the time and consequently can come across badly.

jonniebgood1

Judgement Day wrote: »

jonniebgood1 - sorry no personal swipe at you was intended. I tend to find myself defending the Brits all the time and consequently can come across badly.

No problem at all JD- On the contrary we need balance which you are helping to provide.

I am still looking at some of the information regarding the Belgrano and the conflict in general. Being that this was now the media age, albeit early in it there is plenty of the type of more intrusive journalism and a wide set of views are availiable. The BBC seems to say that the Falklands conflict was an important part of the Conservatives being re-elected in 1983.

Thatcher's success in re-taking the Falkland Islands after an invasion by Argentina was a very risky venture, but for the loss of 255 servicemen the islands were re-taken.

This bold, decisive move seemed to have been in step with the times, and the Tories now had a grip on power that would remain unshakeable for years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/basics/4393313.stm

uberalles wrote: »

That was was a load of BS IMO. It's so far away from britan. How could they justify it? And their heroes left with lost limbs and some dead and for what? A bit of land 1000s miles away.

As an argument against war there are points to be made. The sinking itself seems to have been widely questioned. Thatcher was questioned on live TV about it by Diana Gould:

Diana Gould, a teacher from Cirencester in Gloucestershire, challenged the Prime Minister on the current affairs television programme Nationwide in May 1983, during the election campaign of that year . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8944544/Diana-Gould.html

Diana Goulds questions:

Gould: Mrs Thatcher, why, when the Belgrano, the Argentinian battleship, [the Belgrano was in fact a cruiser] was outside the exclusion zone and actually sailing away from the Falklands, why did you give the orders to sink it?
Thatcher: But it was not sailing away from the Falklands — It was in an area which was a danger to our ships, and to our people on them.
Lawley: Outside the exclusion zone, though.
Thatcher: It was in an area which we had warned, at the end of April, we had given warnings that all ships in those areas, if they represented a danger to our ships, were vulnerable. When it was sunk, that ship which we had found, was a danger to our ships. My duty was to look after our troops, our ships, our Navy, and my goodness me, I live with many, many anxious days and nights.
Gould: But Mrs Thatcher, you started your answer by saying it was not sailing away from the Falklands. It was on a bearing of 280 and it was already west of the Falklands, so I'm sorry, but I cannot see how you can say it was not sailing away from the Falklands.
Thatcher: When it was sunk ..
Gould: When it was sunk.
Thatcher: .. it was a danger to our ships.
Gould: No, but you have just said at the beginning of your answer that it was not sailing away from the Falklands, and I am asking you to correct that statement.
Thatcher: But it's within an area outside the exclusion zone, which I think is what you are saying is sailing away ..
Gould: No, I am not, Mrs Thatcher.
Sue Lawley: I think we are not arguing about which way it was facing at the time.
Gould: Mrs Thatcher, I am saying that it was on a bearing 280, which is a bearing just North of West. It was already west of the Falklands, and therefore nobody with any imagination can put it sailing other than away from the Falklands.
Thatcher: Mrs - I'm sorry, I forgot your name.
Lawley: Mrs Gould.
Thatcher: Mrs Gould, when the orders were given to sink it, when it was sunk, it was in an area which was a danger to our ships. Now, you accept that, do you?
Gould: No, I don't.
Thatcher: I am sorry, it was. You must accept ..
Gould: No, Mrs Thatcher.
Thatcher: .. that when we gave the order, when we changed the rules which enabled them to sink the Belgrano, the change of rules had been notified at the end of April. It was all published, that any ships that were are a danger to ours within a certain zone wider than the Falklands were likely to be sunk, and again, I do say to you, my duty, and I am very proud that we put it this way and adhered to it, was to protect the lives of the people in our ships, and the enormous numbers of troops that we had down there waiting for landings. I put that duty first. When the Belgrano was sunk, when the Belgrano was sunk, and I ask you to accept this, she was in a position which was a danger to our Navy.
Lawley: Let me ask you this, Mrs Gould. What motive are you seeking to attach to Mrs Thatcher and her government in this? Is it inefficiency, lack of communication, or is it a desire for action, a desire for war?
Gould: It is a desire for action, and a lack of communications because, on giving those orders to sink the Belgrano when it was actually sailing away from our fleet and away from the Falklands, was in effect sabotaging any possibility of any peace plan succeeding, and Mrs Thatcher had 14 hours in which to consider the Peruvian peace plan that was being put forward to her. In which those fourteen hours those orders could have been rescinded.
Thatcher: One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published.
Gould: That is not good enough, Mrs Thatcher. We need ..
Thatcher: Would you please let me answer? I lived with the responsibility for a very long time. I answered the question giving the facts, not anyone's opinions, but the facts. Those Peruvian peace proposals, which were only in outline, did not reach London until after the attack on the Belgrano—that is fact. I am sorry, that is fact, and I am going to finish—did not reach London until after the attack on the Belgrano. Moreover, we went on negotiating for another fortnight after that attack. I think it could only be in Britain that a Prime Minister was accused of sinking an enemy ship that was a danger to our Navy, when my main motive was to protect the boys in our Navy. That was my main motive, and I am very proud of it. One day all the facts will be revealed, and they will indicate as I have said.

jonniebgood1

The interview is on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O184yGKknSQ

mike65

uberalles wrote: »

That was was a load of BS IMO. It's so far away from britan. How could they justify it? And their heroes left with lost limbs and some dead and for what? A bit of land 1000s miles away.

To protect sovereignty of people who are British and do not want to be Argentinian. Something the Irish should understand.

Fratton Fred

The British had communicated to the Argentines that they would take action against any Argentine forces they considered a threat to its objectives of retaking the Falklands. The Belgrano was the most powerful ship Argentina had and although outside the exclusion zone (which a warning to non belligerent countries, that is all) it was part of a pincer movement intended to threaten the task force. The Argentine military did not see it as controversial.

Mongfinder General

My girlfriend's cousin died in that war. (He was on the Argentinian side). Make no mistake about it, the junta were a vicious regime who came to power showing little mercy to so called "enemies of the state". The dirty war saw thousands vanish and the contempt shown by the junta towards its own people should have been warning enough to the outside world. They sent a bunch of kids to fight in that war, 18 and 19 years old, knowing full well they had little chance against a well trained deployment from the U.K. My girlfriend who was a child at the time would walk to school and see names painted on the footpath. Names of "the disappeared" in the last place where they were last seen. She was asked to write letters of support to the soldiers in the malvinas.

Maggie had big problems back home and was losing the battle economically (policies like constriction were not working). Politically, it was still in the balance, the next election was no foregone conclusion. So a dose of patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel, was rendered. It was the biggest shot in the arm the tories got in their first term and the facile victory engendered massive populist support buttressed by red top hyperbole. The sinking of the Belgrano summed it all up. Fish in a barrel.

Could it happen again? Absolutely. It astounds me how gingoism just blinds whole nations into believing they can be masters of the universe. Very depressing to think both sides, even with the benefit of hindsight, still maintain a level of thinking that caused the mess in the first place.

Fratton Fred

Mongfinder General wrote: »

My girlfriend's cousin died in that war. (He was on the Argentinian side). Make no mistake about it, the junta were a vicious regime who came to power showing little mercy to so called "enemies of the state". The dirty war saw thousands vanish and the contempt shown by the junta towards its own people should have been warning enough to the outside world. They sent a bunch of kids to fight in that war, 18 and 19 years old, knowing full well they had little chance against a well trained deployment from the U.K. My girlfriend who was a child at the time would walk to school and see names painted on the footpath. Names of "the disappeared" in the last place where they were last seen. She was asked to write letters of support to the soldiers in the malvinas.

Maggie had big problems back home and was losing the battle economically (policies like constriction were not working). Politically, it was still in the balance, the next election was no foregone conclusion. So a dose of patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel, was rendered. It was the biggest shot in the arm the tories got in their first term and the facile victory engendered massive populist support buttressed by red top hyperbole. The sinking of the Belgrano summed it all up. Fish in a barrel.

Could it happen again? Absolutely. It astounds me how gingoism just blinds whole nations into believing they can be masters of the universe. Very depressing to think both sides, even with the benefit of hindsight, still maintain a level of thinking that caused the mess in the first place.

It's the Falklands, not the Malvinas.

You accuse both sides of jingoism, but post a load if linguistic crap.

There were 18 & 19 year olds on both sides, just as there were highly trained soldiers, marines, special forces and pilots. The Argentinians just had a lot more of them. As for fish in a barrel, the Belgrano was a 17,000 tonne warship accompanied by two modern destroyers, it wasn't exactly a harmless ship out for a bit of penguin spotting.

Thatcher did not start the war, but she is often blamed for it. What were her alternatives? The people of the falklands are not Argentinians and they do not wish to be Argentinians.

tvc15

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's the Falklands, not the Malvinas.

You accuse both sides of jingoism, but post a load if linguistic crap.

There were 18 & 19 year olds on both sides, just as there were highly trained soldiers, marines, special forces and pilots. The Argentinians just had a lot more of them. As for fish in a barrel, the Belgrano was a 17,000 tonne warship accompanied by two modern destroyers, it wasn't exactly a harmless ship out for a bit of penguin spotting.

Thatcher did not start the war, but she is often blamed for it. What were her alternatives? The people of the falklands are not Argentinians and they do not wish to be Argentinians.

I assume that Argentine position would be that the people living there could go back to the UK and didn't have to become Argentinian (naive of course)

As for the semantics of the name, why is it a sore point? People from Spanish speaking countries don't use the word 'England' either, there are local names for most places

Judgement Day

Nothing to do with Irish policy on the Falklands but more the cause of the war often overlooked in the discussion. From wikipedia.



A usual incompetent, penny pinching politicians can be found at the root cause of Britain's problems.

dubhthach

Personally the Belgrano was a warship sunk during wartime. That's par for the course if you ask me. Of course if you read some of the reports released over last couple years (released under 30 year rule) it would appear that the Belgrano had actually been given a grid reference to sail to within the exclusion zone (picked up via Sigint -- Signals intellgience)

Manach

Is there be a definite history of the Falklands conflict that people would recommend?

thecommietommy

Judgement Day wrote: »

Can't agree with you on this one. The Empire may be well gone but, like it or not, Britain remains a Super Power albeit a minor one. It needs to maintain a strong navy and armed forces as part of its commitment to NATO and its alliance with the USA. In the future who can tell what calls may be made upon it in relation to its relationship with countries such as India, Australia, NZ etc. I know that it's fashionable and PC to deride the UK/Britain but the fact remains that it punches above its weight and needs to maintain a serious military infrastructure - a fact lost on useless politicians who see the services as an easy target for cost cutting.

How the Brits can be a super power and a minor one at the same time is beyond me As for their relationship with America, the Yanks consider them little more than expendable sandbags. To quote a guy from the military forum - " the relationship works like this: the Yanks tell the Brits what to do, and the Brits get to take what scraps fall from the table. "

Fratton Fred

tvc15 wrote: »

I assume that Argentine position would be that the people living there could go back to the UK and didn't have to become Argentinian (naive of course)

As for the semantics of the name, why is it a sore point? People from Spanish speaking countries don't use the word 'England' either, there are local names for most places

So is that the solution for the north, all the nationalists should stop moaning and move to Leitrim?

There are local names for places, in English, the language we are speaking they are called the Falklands. In Spanish it is Las Malvinas, it is bad diction to chop and change. If you refer to Britain and Argentina in their Spanish names, then fine, but using English and referring to the Malvinas just comes across as trying to be smart.

Cardinal Richelieu

Judgement Day wrote: »

Nothing to do with Irish policy on the Falklands but more the cause of the war often overlooked in the discussion. From wikipedia.



A usual incompetent, penny pinching politicians can be found at the root cause of Britain's problems.

Always the nuclear option this time round. Teach the Argies a good lesson and help the Irish Beef trade.

Drake66

Judgement Day wrote: »

Can't agree with you on this one. The Empire may be well gone but, like it or not, Britain remains a Super Power albeit a minor one. It needs to maintain a strong navy and armed forces as part of its commitment to NATO and its alliance with the USA. In the future who can tell what calls may be made upon it in relation to its relationship with countries such as India, Australia, NZ etc. I know that it's fashionable and PC to deride the UK/Britain but the fact remains that it punches above its weight and needs to maintain a serious military infrastructure - a fact lost on useless politicians who see the services as an easy target for cost cutting.

When the "useless politicians" wish to raise taxes to support such spending the Telegraph set are the first to complain.

ejmaztec

The son of one of my Kerry uncle's neighbours was sent there as groundcrew with the RAF to assit in setting up defence systems around landing zones etc., and I wouldn't imagine that he was the only Irish person involved in the action.

His family and the families of the other Irish servicemen obviously had a vested interest in the success of the operation.