Self-interest is the motive in Falklands, not ‘self-determination’….
One thing that we have to do as a Party is resolve to stop involving this country in pointless and costly conflicts. Strutting around the global stage like an over excited imperial peacock really isn’t that impressive and it also costs lives and does long-term damage in terms of global geopolitics.
So, with that in mind Harriet Harman’s comments that the Falklands will be ‘fully defended’ border on the sublime. Not only does the already overstretched British military not have the capacity but the Exchequer doesn’t have the money and Britain’s position isn’t even supported by the United States (how’s that for gratitude?). No doubt all these considerations weighed heavily in the Argentine decision to rattle Britain’s bars; that, and the allure of massive oil profit doubtless proved too much to resist.
It strikes me that for all Harman’s bleating about ‘self-determination’ these profits are going to be leeched by the Treasury. A deal is being struck which could see ‘up to half’ being given to Britain. Supporters of this deal point to ‘multi-million support given to the Island’ however;
the yield from corporation taxes and royalties in the fields north of the islands alone could be more than £100bn.
Anybody else notice the disparity in figures? Ms Harman obviously does not understand the meaning of ‘self-determination’. Let me help. Self-determinations is:
determination of one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion
How did it ever come to this? A Labour government engaged in a grubby scramble over oil riches. The chief culprit is the poisonous creed of liberal interventionism that the Party has had rammed down its collective throat under the aegis of Tony Blair. This creed has taken peoples best intentions and good hearts and formed them into deadly weapons of war; without a sense of historic irony (just about every empire since the time of Rome and before has justified itself by saying its ‘civilising at the point of the sword’) it claims to be new but is in fact as old as the hills.
It is ultimately up the Islanders themselves how they want to be governed and neither Britain nor Argentina should be allowed to change that; however, if I was them I would look seriously at how high the price Britain is asking to defend ‘self-determination’ is and question whether it is getting a fair deal.