The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Falklands Fracas

[Tease]

MARGARET THATCHER, British Prime Minister: . . . feel so deeply and strongly that we have to regain the Falklands for British sovereignty.

[Titles]

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher today vowed to regain the Falkland Islands and dispatched the largest British naval force assembled since World War II. At the same time, her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, resigned over the government's failure to prevent the seizure of the islands by an Argentine military force last Friday. Here is the scene as the naval task force sailed from England as described by Nicholas Mitchell of the BBC.

NICHOLAS MITCHELL [voice-over]: Steaming gently at first, but with gathering force, HMS Invincible was the first to put to sea. Lining her decks for this full ceremonial departure, most of her 1,000-strong crew. Somewhere among them, his Royal Highness Prince Andrew. Ashore, thousands gathered to wave and cheer and wish the task force good luck, and indeed to urge it to take whatever action may be necessary. The means of that action stood ready on the flight decks. The Sea Harrier jump jets, one of the most powerful fighter aircraft in the world, and the Sea King helicopters, one of which will be flown by Prince Andrew. After Invincible, with its most modern and sophisticated weaponry, the greatest ship in the Royal Navy, the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes -- at nearly 30,000 tons fully loaded, the vessel which will be the fleet flagship from which the entire operation will be coordinated. It is loaded with still more Harrier jump jets, with naval helicopters which will fly the Royal Marines force in, and with missiles, plus a crew of more than 1,300 men.

MacNEIL: With 8,000 miles to steam, the 36 warships will take some two weeks to reach the Falklands, thus giving British diplomatic efforts more time to work out a peaceful settlement. But Prime Minister Thatcher implied strongly today her determination to use force if necessary.

Prime Min. THATCHER: When you see the Argentines invading the Falklanders, we all feel the same. We all feel they're British there, they owe their allegiance to the crown. And that's why I feel so deeply and strongly that we have to regain the Falklands for British sovereignty. It is still British --

REPORTER: How far are you prepared to go?

Prime Min. THATCHER: -- it is still British, and the people still wish to be British and owe their allegiance to the crown. How far? We are assembling, I think, the biggest fleet that's ever sailed in peacetime. Excellent fleet. Excellent equipment. Superb soldiers and sailors to show our quiet professional determination to retake the Falklands, because we still regard them as sovereign British territory. And the fact that someone else has invaded them does not alter that situation.

REPORTER: And if that fails, what are the political consequences?

Prime Min. THATCHER: I am not talking about failure with the kind of fleet and the kind of people we have assembled. I'm talking, very quietly, about succeeding, in a very quiet, I hope British, way.

MacNEIL: Almost as dramatic as the dispatch of the fleet was the resignation today of Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, who accepted the blame for the government's failure to prevent the seizure.

Lord CARRINGTON, British Foreign Secretary: On this occasion, with all the information at our disposal, it didn't look as if they were going -- it looked as if they were going to take a very much tougher stand on the negotiations, and if they didn't work, take military action at the end of the year. Now, that proved to be wrong. But I don't think that the intelligence was particularly wrong -- I mean, unless you say we should have known what their plans were. What I think has happened is that I was wrong in the assessment of what they did, and therefore I am responsible.

REPORTER: But don't you feel that walking out now, when we are in this position where we might be fighting a war -- and the Prime Minister apparently wanted you to stay -- don't you feel you're rather leaving the country in the lurch?

Lord CARRINGTON: Well, you see, I don't, because, I mean, I don't want to go. And for goodness sake, I mean, who wants to resign from being foreign secretary? I don't think that you can allow something of this character to happen and to just ignore it. I think you've got to take responsibility for it. And it is quite clear -- I mean, if you read the press and the debates in the House of Commons -- that my judgment and my actions have been questioned. Now, if that is the case, I don't quite see how I would be very valuable in the next few weeks if perpetually my judgment is questioned and what I've done is questioned. I think it's much better to get somebody else here who didn't -- wasn't in charge of this policy and start again.

MacNEIL: Argentina, which has already rejected a United Nations Security Council call for withdrawal, today showed no signs of backing down. The Buenos Aires government sent troops to strengthen its occupying force on the Falklands. In Washington, Argentina's foreign minister, Nicanor Costa Mendez, appealed for support from the Organization of American States against what he called "British colonialism." Tonight, will there be war over the Falkland Islands? Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, there's a tendency to report the story of the Falklands with a slight grin on one's face and words. Here are two big nations on the verge of war over some very small islands, islands described in1771 by Samuel Johnson as "thrown aside from human use, stormy in winter, barren in summer." Islands 200 in number; only two inhabited by people, the rest by sheep and penguins. There are 1,800 people on the two main islands; all but a few of English-speaking British stock; all but a few work as herders of the islands' 700,000 sheep owned by absentee landlords back in Britain. Britain claims ownership of the Falklands on the grounds that a British explorer named John Davis was the first man there in 1592. The Argentines say they're theirs because of rights inherited from Spain, which said the first man there was a Spaniard, the famous around-the-world explorer Ferdinand Magellan. And he came in 1520, 72 years before Mr. Davis. The British named them in 1690 after a British viscount named Falkland. There was a skirmish between the British and the Argentines in 1833 over ownership, with the result being full possession by Britain and full anger ever since by Argentina, which even has its own name for them -- the Malvinas Islands. Attempts over the past 150 years to resolve the dispute have proved fruitless, and as a result of that, the rest of the world has now discovered the Falkland, the Malvinas, Islands. First we get an official British view of what's happening from the British ambassador to the United States, Sir Nicholas Henderson.Mr. Ambassador, what diplomatic efforts are under way now to avert war?

Sir NICHOLAS HENDERSON, British Ambassador to the United States: Well, we are ready to discuss the future of the island, but we're not prepared to discuss it so long as the island is invaded after an aggression by the Argentine. Could I just make a point on the historical survey you gave? I think it's very important. There were no Spaniards in the Falkland Islands after 1811, and therefore, when the Argentine became independent, which it did in 1816, and took possession of what had been Spanish territories, there was no such thing as -- the Falkland Islands could not by any stretch of the imagination be called part of their inherited territory. Secondly, the Argentines did occupy it between 1823 and 1831, and used it for fishing and sealing purposes.But America, the United States of America, had to turn out the Argentinians in 1831 because they were causing such trouble with the fishing operations down there. So when we went there in 1832, it was after the Americans had been there, and not after the Argentinians. And we've been there ever since.

LEHRER: But then the British navy removed what Argentines were left and took full possession, correct?

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, we've been in possession there and, as you've said, the population, most of which have been there, are from families that have been there since before 1850. And they are -- and they're not wealthy -- I think the word "colonialists" was used. It couldn't refer to them; in truth they are shepherds, they are sheep farmers, and lead a rigorous life.You may find it surprising they want to live there, but that is their home and that is where they belong. Well, I'm sorry, on this --

LEHRER: Sure. On the -- moving from history to the present.

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, from history to the present, as I say, we are ready to talk, we've been ready to negotiate. We wanted to talk for years now, but the Argentines insist on saying they will only talk on the basis of a transfer of the sovereignty of the island to the Argentine, which is what the inhabitants don't want. And our principle -- and incidentally, it's the American principle of international relations, which you have in a sense pioneered and promoted throughout the world -- that the only basis for relationships between countries is that of self-determination. You cannot tell another country what must happen to it; that decision must rest upon the wishes of the people who live there.

LEHRER: President Reagan today offered his good offices as a mediator between your country and Argentina.Has that offer been accepted by Great Britain?

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, I don't know that we have received any particular offer. The President has been extremely helpful and tried to stop the Argentinians invading. He was on the telephone for 50 minutes to the Argentine president last Thursday evening, and then when the Argentines invaded, the American government issued a very tough statement condemning the invasion and calling for them to withdraw. Likewise in the Security Council, that was the view of the American representative.But we will be ready to listen to anything, but we cannot assume, we cannot act on the assumption that a military invasion against the wishes of the inhabitants is something which we can tolerate, because the inhabitants cannot tolerate it, and it's for them that we are speaking and acting.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, we'll be back in just a moment, but first we want to now get the view from Argentina. The Argentines declined to send an official to join us tonight, but we do have an extended tape excerpt from this afternoon's OAS session and the statement made by the Argentine foreign minister, Nicanor Costa Mendez. The simultaneous translation, as you will see, was not technically perfect, but the message is clear.

NICANOR COSTA MENDEZ, Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs [through translator]: . . . that Argentina is willing to comply fully with the resolutions of the General Assembly and to satisfy the interests of the inhabitants of that island in the fullest manner without reticence, without limitations of any kind. However, it is justified to quote here once again what was stated by the president of the republic of Argentina. I quote -- on April 2. "The Argentine position does not represent any type of aggression toward the present inhabitants of the islands, whose rights and life shall be respected with the same gentlemanliness with which the liberated people were respected when we obtained our freedom. Our forces will act only within the strictly necessary measures. They will not disturb in any way the life of the inhabitants of the islands, but quite the opposite -- will protect the institutions and the persons who will coexist with us."

The Argentine government wrote the British government in advance at the beginning of the month of February of this year a series of specific proposals with the express intention of developing the negotiations so that there will be a pre-fixed rhythm of negotiations. This was done with the explicit request for the government of Great Britain to obtain a definite reply over the proposals during the meeting that I just mentioned and which took place on February 26 and 27. Those proposals, with a pre-established agenda, had the object to speed up the negotiations on recognition of Argentine sovereignty under the Malvinas Islands, the Georgias of the south, of the Sandwich's of the south -- did not from that date henceforth receive any reply whatsoever from the United Kingdom. We had requested a reply by the month of March. March went by and nothing happened. And as I repeat, we still do not have any reply to date. The government of Argentina was then convinced that 149 years of claims and 15 years of negotiations had not had any useful purpose whatsoever and took us nowhere.

On various occasions the peace and security of the region have been threatened by the persistence of this colonial presence. In 1976 the activities of a British ship, the Shackleton, with the protection of an armed warship of that country, Endurance, caused a tense situation.

During this year an Argentine firm contracted with a British firm the breakdown of some old whaling factories situated on the Georgia Island and abandoned 40 years ago. The contracts were entered into in Great Britain and the Argentine operator contracted with the merchant ship of the transportation of necessary equipment. Personnel had the travel document called Documento Provisorio to travel to the islands and for the inhabitants of the island to travel to Argentina. The details of this operation was well known to the British Embassy in Buenos Aires. The ship took the workers to the Georgia Islands and somewhat later the ship Bahia Buen Suceso left, leaving on the island a squad of workers to go on with the project. This simple commercial operation, which had been duly contracted, which was known to the government of Great Britain, provoked the ire of the British government.

There is an instrument within this system which is very delicate which should be used with great prudence, but which is and has been a fundamental element of that system.I refer, of course, to the Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance Treaty, and Article IV of the treaty defines that America should be defined or understood for the terms of this treaty as the geographic zone within which the high contracting parties agree that an armed attack by any state against an American state shall be considered as an attack against all the American states, is come before you to refer to something which at this stage in history and development would seem incredible. I have come to speak to you of European home countries, of colonies, of imperial navies, because there has just been a resurgence in our hemisphere, in all its crudeness and in its most classic form, of the old colonial theme which we thought had been finally superseded.

MacNEIL: Mr. Ambassador in Washington, how do you react to that charge that this is just old-fashioned British colonialism reappearing, as the foreign minister just said?

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, as he knows, it doesn't correspond remotely with any of the facts. They're not -- they are people who govern themselves; they have their own parliament, they have their own executive. They choose to be there. But I would just like to make one or two points on that. And we -- you've heard the foreign minister refer to discussions we had in New York in February. Those ended with a joint communique saying that the two governments will continue discussions in cordial spirit and on amicable terms to try to resolve this question. This communique was never published in the Argentine. We have been ready ever since to continue those conversations and are still waiting for the Argentines to do so.

MacNEIL: But he also said earlier in that excerpt that Argentina earlier this year had come forward with new proposals for serious negotiations and that Britain had not replied to those proposals.

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, we had these talks at the end of February. We had talks in New York. Our minister, one of the ones who has just resigned, took part in that. They didn't reach agreement, but they both at the time agreed to continue the talks; they thought they'd been useful, constructive, and we wanted to continue them. The next thing is, this reference to the whaling. The people who came there to dismantle a whaling station did not in fact have any permits; they had no passes or any kind. And we said they should either leave or they should get those passes, and we should make every conceivable help for them to get these documentations to allow them to be in South Georgia. That was rejected, upon which we said, "Would you like us to try and -- if you are really so concerned about this as an infringement of something you think right, we are prepared to send a special envoy to Buenos Aires from London to try to resolve it," and that was completely turned down. The third point, I must just say, this reference to this treaty effecting the relationship between the countries of America, of Latin America -- the first article of that treaty says: "Disputes in the area of the Americas should be setted by peaceful means and never by force.?

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, why does Britain care this much about a group of islands that are 8,000 miles away from your homeland?

Amb. HENDERSON: It is the responsibility, as the Prime Minister said, for people who have decided that that is how they want to live and by whom they want to be governed, and we believe the only basis and principle by which international affairs can be conducted is that of self-determination. You have just the same thing -- you couldn't have a piece of your territory taken over by aggression and just annexed by another country if the people wanted to remain American.

LEHRER: But is Great Britain truly ready to go to war over this issue?

Amb. HENDERSON: We would like to settle this issue, to resolve this problem, but we cannot do so as long as the Argentinians continue an occupation by force against the wishes of the inhabitants. And we will resolve it by whatever means are necessary. Of course we don't want to go to war -- nobody could possibly pretend we want to go to war.

LEHRER: Is it boiling down, sir, to just a question of national honor, what we would call in the United States a "macho issue" between Argentina and your country now?

Amb. HENDERSON: I don't think we have any reason to have a macho issue with the Argentine. It is simply the issue of, these people have been British, belonged to the British Commonwealth for 150 years; they want to go on being so; they do not want to be governed by a country that's run by a military dictatorship that denies all liberty and freedom.Nor would the Americans.

LEHRER: So the statement from the president of Argentina, repeated now by the foreign minister, that they would not infringe on the rights of the people who live there and the institutions -- you just don't believe that?

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, you can't regard it as evidence of somebody's readiness to not infringe their rights. It's occupying by force with an enormous navy against the will of the inhabitants. That isn't a manifestation of a wish to rule them by peaceful means or do what they want.

MacNEIL: Mr. Ambassador, in practical terms, is there any way the British could retake those islands by force without gravely endangering the inhabitants of the islands?

Amb. HENDERSON: We're quite convinced that we have the right and the capability to restore the administration that we had there before this Argentine invasion. How we do this, the methods by which this is conducted -- of course, it's not for me to say. And I must repeat, we have no wish to resort to force to achieve this obligation -- which falls to us under the United Nations charter, by the way.

MacNEIL: I wonder if the Argentinians there, the occupying force, have not in effect taken the inhabitants hostage, which would make it very difficult in practical terms for Britain to take it over again by force?

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, you remember when you had 100-odd hostages what the feeling it aroused in this country for 15 months. That would be 1,800 hostages, and far from this being an act of -- in compliance with the spirit of self-determination which governs your relations with other Latin American countries, it would be an act of outside imposition.

MacNEIL: What do you feel about countries like Japan, which have said they support Britain's position so far as Britain does not use force?

Amb. HENDERSON: We take the view that we do not want to use force; we've no intention of using force unless there is no other method by which this right can be resolved. But we're not -- we simply can't have, and nor would the United States in a similar position, you can't have aggression condoned. There are very few countries in this American hemisphere which are not subject to some claim by another one, by some territorial claim. If one country thinks it can settle these disputes in territorial claims simply by aggression, it's anarchy and continual warfare in the American hemisphere. It's not the thing that the United States can possibly tolerate or condone. It's not, therefore, just a British problem; it's a problem of the law and order of the American hemisphere.

MacNEIL: Is the thinking behind taking several days to amass such an unusually large naval force the idea that by going in such great strength and having that fleet take two weeks to get there and getting closer every day, that the Argentinians will just simply get scared off and go away because they don't want to fight such a huge force? Is that --

Amb. HENDERSON: I don't know what the Argentines intend to do, but I know what we intend to do, which is to -- we hope this can be resolved peacefully, but we will resolve it one way or another.

LEHRER: The Argentine foreign minister made it very clear in his speech this afternoon that if that British naval force does anything, apparently, down there, that that will be considered by Argentina an act of force. And he called on his fellow OAS members today to consider that also an invasion of their land, their property. Have you had any early indications as to whether or not the other Latin American countries are going to respond to that claim?

Amb. HENDERSON: No, but as I say, the principal article, both of the Rio treaty and of the Organization of American States treaty -- the principal article in both those documents is that disputes in the American hemisphere should be settled not by force but by peaceful means.

LEHRER: But Argentina is clearly trying to make this an issue, a Latin American issue. Do you think they're going to be successful?

Amb. HENDERSON: I'm sure they'll try -- sure they'll try and do it by appealing to out of date and irrelevant references to colonialism, which is totally inappropriate. We're now talking about people who have decided in repeated elections that have been in the Falklands -- which have not been, incidentally, in the Argentine -- to remain as they are, ministered by Britain, by themselves under their own control.

LEHRER: If there is an escalation in any way of armed conflict here, what position would you expect the United States to take?

Amb. HENDERSON: We don't expect the United States to take sides, to take part in an age-long dispute about the sovereignty of those islands. But we do expect them to realize that aggression to settle a difference of opinion -- and there is a difference of opinion -- to use aggression to do that in this day and age is not tolerable. And the United States has already tried to stop the aggression by your president trying to intervene, by their condemnation two days ago in a very resolute statement, and by their support of a resolution in New York condemning the Argentines and calling upon them to withdraw from the Falkland Islands.

LEHRER: But, Mr. Ambassador, your position, the British position is that those islands belong to Great Britain. The Argentine position is that those islands belong to Argentina.Where are the grounds for negotiations?

Amb. HENDERSON: Well, you can negotiate, you can talk -- I mean, we don't think that they -- whatever the grounds, whatever the grounds or the basis for negotiation, it is not -- the way of doing it is not by force. We can discuss, we're ready to discuss.We're ready to consult the wishes and the intentions and the future wishes of the inhabitants. What we can't do is that this should be a --

LEHRER: But the inhabitants are British and they're going to want --

Amb. HENDERSON: But they have every right --

LEHRER: And that [unintelligible] the question.

Amb. HENDERSON: But they have every right, they have every right. The people of Arizona, the people of Texas, the people of California originally belonged to another country -- they want to be American. You don't think they should go to another country or be forced to do so -- they want to be American. They've been American less time than the Falklands have been British, I may tell you.

LEHRER: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Ambassador. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.