I

On April 30th 1982 British armada of 44 warships, 45 merchant vessels, 3 SSN submarines, 2 troop brigades of 10,000 men, 28 Sea Harriers and 14 RAF GRE Harriers fighter jets onboard 2 aircraft carriers arrived near two rocky islands in the South Atlantic; 13000 km away from Britain, 400 km off the coast of Argentina. Their families, back home, were given fabricated news and carefully planned media campaign that had put a dishonorable spot on the British side of the event. However, the soldiers were fighting for a land that rightfully belongs to Britain; they were liberating British citizens from a foreign invader; they were a democratic nation defending itself, protecting democratic morals, and world peace.

A war between Britain and Argentina had erupted because of the long ongoing dispute over the Falkland Islands, a sheep colony of 1800 habitats which very few people in the world knew about…until the spring of 1982. It was a war of new high tech weaponry, politicians, propaganda, nationalism and stubbornness of both countries; but most importantly it was a war where nearly 2000 people died. British soldiers were slayed while fighting so far from home for two rocks in the sea that they never even heard about. Argentine men were ordered by a crazed fascist dictator to fight and die for causes that could have been resolved diplomatically. It was an unnecessary war. It wasn't worth billions of dollars and hundreds of wrecked lives. War is hell…no war is unpreventable, no war is just, war should be the absolutely last resort. But once the shots are fired and all diplomacy fails, there is no turning back. That is exactly the situation Britain was in on the day British government received news that Argentinean troops invaded British land, captured garrisoned British soldiers, placed British citizens under house arrest and raised Argentinean flag over a last outpost of a forgotten British empire.

This paper will deal with British side of the conflict, since little can be argued about the actions of the dictator Galtieri, who is now under an international arrest warrant. There are many arguments and controversies about the British actions in the Falklands. Many argue that war was just an excuse to restore British pride, to draw attention away from numerous problems at home, to save Margaret Thatcher's career, that it was a big game to test the new equipment. Some of them are certainly true, however there were also reasons far more important and justified than that. They will be discussed below.

II

Are the Falklands British to fight for in the first place? Who has the rightful historical claim on the islands? A brief history below might shed some light on the matter. The whole debate of whether Falkland Islands belong to UK or Argentina dates many decades back, and still remains an open issue. Both countries claim a title because of initial discovery. Argentineans believe that the Islands should belong to them because of closeness to Argentine coast and the fact that the islands are lying on the South American plane and too far from Britain to rule. Great Britain considers the islands as a legally colonized territory, and argues that geographical position of the colony is irrelevant.

Neither GB nor Argentina can claim the islands due to the original discovery or settlement. The British did not discover nor settled the Islands first, and Argentina simply did not exist as a nation until 1816 so up to that time they could not have any legal claims, for they were a dependent Spanish colony without a voice of their own. Dutchman Sebald van Weert is the only one credited with an authenticated discovery of the Falkland Islands. French were the first to settle on the East Falkland in 1764. One year later captain John Byron took the islands in possession for the British crown and settled on the West Falkland, unaware of the French settlement. The French later withdrew their claims to Spain. Spanish troops loyal to the Argentine governor ousted the British in 1770. This action brought Spain and the United Kingdom to the brink of war. The Spanish crown said that the governor was acting on his own initiative and they handed the Falklands back to the British in 1771. The British left the islands three years later but reiterated their claim on the islands. Spanish also left in 1811 but did not repeat their claim. The islands were without sovereign. In 1816 Argentina became and independent country. The first Argentine landing took place in 1820 and Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands was claimed. In 1829 United Kingdom protested Argentine government. In 1832 Argentina appointed a governor to the islands. In 1833 the United Kingdom invaded the Falklands and forced Argentine settlers out at a gunpoint, no shots were fired. This period of continuous British government lasted until the Falkland War of 1982.

From Palmas Island Arbitration (17) "…the effective occupation occurs when a state is capable of offering a minimum to the rights of other states and their nationals, as such it is more important to find state acts displaying sovereignty." The Clipperton Island Arbitration stipulates that effective occupation takes place when: "the state establishes in the territory itself an organization capable of making it's laws respected." British claim on the Falklands meets with both of the above documents. According to the British "Hinterland-doctrine" which stipulates that if a nation has made a settlement it has a title of sovereignty to all vacant adjacent land; French could exercise the effective sovereignty but they withdrew their claims transferring them under the Spanish rule, Spanish lawfully gave Falklands to the British. All that happened before Argentina even appeared on the map as an independent country.

For most of the twentieth century, Argentinean diplomats tried to convince British government in handing Islands over to Argentina, however very little diplomatic action was taken from the British side. Still today both sides firmly believe that islands belong to them. As history shows, Argentinean claim on the Malvinas (Falklands) is far less substantial then that one of United Kingdom who uninterruptedly possessed Malvinas for 160 years, withdrew all other that had expressed a claim, and directed a continuous protests when other infringed the sovereign right of Great Britain.

III

Apart from being a part of British land and bearing British citizens, the Islands are quite valuable to Britain and worth defending for a number of reasons. Even though main industry of the islands is sheep farming, there is a lot more to them then meets the eye. Falklands are strategically important. Ownership of the Falklands gives the UK government a base for the defense of the South Atlantic, which was used in WW I and WW II. It is an excellent base in event of war with the unstable South American countries.

Whoever controls the Falklands has an effective control over the South West Atlantic Ocean and the rich fishing grounds of the Patagonian shelf. That also means jurisdiction over all natural resources such as the rich fishing ground and the oil reserves on the Patagonian shelf. In the early 1980's vast schools of squid were discovered in the Falkland Islands Internal Conservation Zone (FICZ). Squid has a high market value and the subsequent sale of quota licenses to fishing ships made Falklands economically self-sufficient. They are also a jump off point for the exploration of natural resources in Antarctica. Under the ice Antarctica is filled with more natural resources than can be imagined. When they start being excavated, Falklands will prove to be very valuable, and London is already developing plans on exploration of the FICZ natural resources. Falkland Islands are a little piece of land with a lot of potential, and any country would want to keep such promising colony.

Some argue that by sending a nuclear submarine against weak Argentinean Navy, British only proved that whey are in the war only to "show off" that British navy is still strong as ever, to prove that Britain could "rule the waves", that it was completely unnecessary. It is not so, - sending a nuclear submarine made a lot of sense. A nuclear sub can move at twenty knots submerged, so when the need for a quick military presence was required in the South Atlantic, the only vessels that could a) get there; and b) defend themselves were the subs. On top of this, a nuclear sub has no need to surface; it can stay underwater for 6 months without coming up. A more conventional sub is slower and requires to surface periodically for fresh air and to vent the engines. Most people tend to think that nuclear subs are called "nuclear" only because they carry nuclear missiles (which were never intended to be used by British, btw.), nuclear subs have nuclear engines which capable of performing complicated evasive actions - Britain could not afford such a big loss as a conventional submarine would pose. It made a lot of sense to send the three subs that were sent as they were the only effective naval vessels that could have stayed there until the rest of the task force arrived over a month later. Also the Argentinean navy were known to have good anti submarine capabilities so the chance of a sub being found and hunted were not dismissed. Then it was prudent to send the best that the navy had so if it came to a fight they could defend themselves. War is not something that you play at. There are no rules that say war is fair and should be fought with equality. The Argentine navy was far from pathetic. It had an aircraft carrier, a cruiser, subs, and a number of the same type twenty-two frigates that British had. They also had a very well trained airforce that were incredibly brave.

IV

There is a very solid argument against how United Kingdom conducted the war, is the dishonest and unaccredited presentation of the war to the public by the British press. It is true that papers and news showed mostly the good news. It is also true that papers said that one of "our" lives is worth more than one of "theirs". "Their dead" were not to be acknowledged as anything other than "statistics", namely and indication of how well "we" are fighting a war. It is also true that while glamorous post-war parades and ceremonies were held, wounded veterans were forgotten for it could compromise the popularity of the war. "So what have the people at home come to learn of the reality beyond the deeds of derring-do, the medal ceremonies and the victory parades? What do they know of the appalling horror and brutality of war as experienced by men serving in the Falklands campaign? The answer, sadly, is very little. When those who were badly burned of had limbs amputated returned to Britain, the news media for the most part were kept at a distance. For there was another campaign being fought: the campaign of news management" . None of the above is argued against, but the phenomenon of propaganda and media must be examined to prove that neither government nor British people can be blamed for going into war out of blood thirst and loud international headlines. The way a country presents war to the people can determine the price of a war, therefore, the above argument is a very serious one and must be discussed.

The media industry is about one thing and one thing only. Its not about truth or justice, no, its money. That's all they do it for. You sell papers and advertising space on TV and radio to make money. The way to get people to buy your paper, watch your TV channel or listen to your radio is to print and broadcast material that will sell. The Falklands war was a typical example of a nation going collectively manic over something that for most people didn't touch them on a personal level and that the media cashed in on. Some papers tried just to report the news, others saw it as a chance to sell papers and the bigger the headline the more copies that were sold. The Sun front-page of "Gotcha" that was published after the sinking of the Belgrano was a national disgrace as over 400 young men died when she was sunk. If the war had gone on longer, the casualties heavier or Britain had lost then the British press would have turned on the British government and torn it to shreds. The conduct of the American media, for instance, in Vietnam is a classic example of what would have happened and what did happen in Argentina. First of all the media goes all out to "support our boys" and be seen to be torch bearer of public opinion, even more so when the cause is seen to be just as it was in 1982. Then as the war unfolds each part of the media does its best to report the latest developments in more detail before anybody else. If they can't get hold of the facts then, more often than not, they repeat what they have heard, invent rumors, or just make things up. If things start to go wrong then the papers that are not pro government of the time will start to voice doubts. As things go more and more seriously wrong then the middle of the road media joins in. The Falklands war did not last long enough for the media to go through this process though. In 32 days the Argentines where defeated. If they had taken longer than that then the South Atlantic winter would have closed in and the fighting would had stopped. The weather down there was appalling and supplying the troops with enough food and clothing to live outdoors for the duration of the winter would have proven to be very tough. British would have suffered badly and probably been forced to retreat. The British media will back a winner because it makes sound financial sense, however they are like a pack of hounds and will tear a government apart if they smell blood. Especially if the "our boys" (whose parents, friends etc read these papers) are involved. In Argentina the press fully supported the troops and even reported on propaganda issued by the Junta. As for showing dead corpses lying in a puddle and eighteen-year-olds with their legs blown off, they did. There is a very memorable film of the bombing of the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristan in which over fifty Welsh guards where killed. The clip shows a young British soldier on a stretcher being rushed to a helicopter and he has his leg in the air. However he has no leg from the knee downwards, all that remains is loose flapping skin and bits of material from his combat trousers. These images where shown to the people at the time along with shots of British sinking ships, wounded sailors, paras being buried etc. They hardened the public's opinion because of these scenes they received the support they did when they got back. It was seen to be a war that was between soldiers and therefore, it was a war that could be supported. In Vietnam the media showed the US bombing villages with napalm and little kids running down the road covered in burns. It didn't happen like that in the Falklands, it was seen to be a clean war in which soldiers killed soldiers and civilians were kept out of the way and never deliberately targeted. The public saw that their boys suffered and that it was no picnic, however it was a clean war so they could support it. Most of the reporting though was poor quality due to the fact that the reporters were not allowed good access to the combat areas (getting around was difficult for everyone) and that the methods of communication back to the UK were limited.

The Falklands war was an enigma. Two civilized countries fighting over something that was not worth the fight. As one commentator said at the time, "like two bald men fighting over a comb". Media were just a reflection of the nation's mood; confident, brash, misinformed and hysterical. The wounded were an embarrassment and soon forgotten. But is that any different from any other war? There was nothing unique about the Falklands in that respect. The media wouldn't report on the wounded because it wouldn't sell papers, it's yesterday news unless there was a particular point of human interest that might make them a few dollars.

V

The reason to dispatch such a powerful task force was to send a message to all extremist aggressors and dictators around the world. Britain also saved herself from falling down further in the eyes of the world. Britain has a very special relationship with the US and this is something that Thatcher was very keen to keep going. Britain is no longer the super power that she used to be and the only way she can keep a high profile on the world stage is to stand up for democracy. Such examples as Bosnia, the Gulf war, terrorism and the Lebanon show that British armed forces are some of the first to be deployed, even though they are one of the smallest armies in the Western world (150,000). If Britain had done nothing then she would have appeared weak and ineffective. This would mean that the world's superpowers would be less likely to look to Britain as being in the "big league" as far as keeping peace is concerned. The nation's popular self-image of the two World Wars was joyously resurrected, so that in opposing the fascist junta of Argentina the British were simply fulfilling their role as defenders of freedom, the world over. As the MP, Mr. English declared to the Commons; "…The most important thing we are defending, is the rule of the law in the world…We are defending civilization against barbarians as our ancestors did centuries ago elsewhere. That is what we are doing. That is what I hope we shall continue to do for the sake of the world." Prime Minister said; "…if we the third naval power in the world…are unable to protect…our possession of the Falkland Islands…we had better resign any notion that we might have had of being able to defend ourselves in our island home in the North Atlantic."

"…Our whole experience with dictators has taught us that if you appease them, in the end you have to pay the greater price." "We cannot allow aggression to prosper in the world and keep our honor"

"...The first duty of any British Government… to safeguard our people in peace and freedom"

"…If actions like this were allowed to stand, there would be many territories the world over where people would fear the invader."

"…Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands is as perfect an example of unprovoked aggression an military expansionism as the world had to witness since the end of Adolf Hitler"

At the time of the conflict, Argentina was not a democratic country, in that case the matter could have been trashed out in a civilized way, - Argentina was under a Fascist, corrupt and cruel regime. That regime was responsible for major human right violations throughout 1970's and 1980's including widespread torture and the use of death squads to silence 'subversives'. "In Argentina, thousands of people have been abducted by security forces and taken to secret camps throughout the country where they are usually tortured" Argentinean government could not be reasoned with and Britain was left with no other options.

VI

The number one concern of every civilized government is to protect its people. No democratic country can permit an aggressor to invade territory that is the responsibility of the mother country to protect, unanswered. We can all predict how would US react if Russia invaded Alaska and placed its citizens under gunpoint and house arrest.

Falklanders are British. They lead British way of life and it were islander's wishes and more importantly their Britishness that marked them out as worthy of sending an entire task force 8000 miles to save them from the fascist invaders. Thatcher said "when he...(the former governor of the Islands, Rex hunt) left the Falklands he said that people were in tears. They do not want to be Argentinean. He said that the islanders are still tremendously British." Official census of December 1 1980 testifies eloquently to the "Britishness" of the people: 95.04% were British nationals. More than half the population of the islanders... a total 932... have lived on the islands for more than twenty years. According to the Falklands Office in London almost all the British subjects are of Scottish, Irish or Welsh descent and many families have been islanders for six or seven generations. The predominant denomination is still Church of England. Rex Hunt, who had a primary role as a spokesman for the islanders, reported that some islanders are ready to change flag if troops do not withdraw. 90% of the islanders would stay despite the risks and get rid of the Argentineans, rather then risk loosing the island. "Vast majority of islanders are prepared to suffer loss of property or even loss of life if that's the only way of getting rid of Argentineans." Brave islanders on the Falklands wanted the Argentineans kicked out- even if it means the peril of a British counter-invasion. An American mechanic evacuated from the islands said, "...friends I left behind are determined to stay British no matter what." Islanders were frightened and they would have preferred a peaceful settlement if possible but they thought Britain should use force if necessary. Defiant Falklanders sang Land of Hope and Glory to music played on the local radio station as Argentina's invasion force drew near. Every one of 1800 islanders was ready to rally round the British flag. They even composed a new song "Don't try it here Argentina". In the Sun of 3/4/82 under the sign "British Bulldogs" the islanders can be seen waving the union jack in the face of Argentinean aggression. Defiant Falklanders refused to knuckle under the Argentinean invasion forces. Silently and secretly they have mounted a massive campaign of civil disobedience to harass and confuse the invaders. Every night the islanders brought out forbidden radio transmitters and tuned into frequencies they knew Argentineans would hear. Then they sang Rule Britania into their microphones. Islanders resisted as they could. They even painted arrows on the "wrong" side of the road after being ordered to drive on the right and refused offers of cheap color televisions. Kelpers lined up tractors, barrels and lumber on the local airstrip to prevent the Argentines from landing there.

It was a reign of fear for the islanders as Argentina's army of occupation put all under the 24-hour house arrest. Jail was the punishment for breaking curfew and anybody who shows disrespect to the invaders faced up to 60 days in jail. The instructions were issued, despite previous assurances that islanders' rights would be respected. Obviously, the occupying force had no intentions of treating them other than as a conquered population.

"…a man who wears upon his chest the medals he has won repressing his own people. When he says to us that he will respect the rights…and freedom of our people, we have a right to wonder whether that is true in view of what he does to his own people"

"Argentinean invaders went on an orgy of looting and bullying as soon as they took over."

"The civilians rejoiced freely in the British triumph, 'Never for a moment did we doubt that British forces would come' Mrs. Desmond Kind said"

By acting against the will of the people of the Falkland Islands, Argentinean government run against the non binding statements of the United Nations Charter and the General Assembly. Geographical location of the Falklands was irrelevant to the British government. No matter where they are, the fact remains that there were British people occupied on their land and desperate to be liberated. Britain did exactly what any other country that cares for its people would do. It cannot be blamed for that but only credited for it is a good example to all countries of how to protect its people and their rights.

VII

Many argue that Britain got involved in armed conflict only to restore it's forgotten pride, to bring back the once "rulers of the waves" title and nationalism. Pride had a lot to do with it, no doubt, but what self-respecting country wouldn't go to war with pride and patriotism? Yes, British did suffer low nationalism and Margaret Thatcher even said while addressing the nation prior to the crisis: " How many of you woke up this morning with pride to be British!?" and, yes, British pride was surely restored when thousands of union jacks were waving to the sea bound ships and when dozens of thousands were waving when these ships returned home. But it was an aftermath, not the cause. Britain can not be blamed for that.

The British Empire was made up of countries that had been invaded or colonized. The former colonies (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) were granted independence when they requested it, some took it by force (USA) others by a mixture of both (India). However the Falklands have never been Argentinean and the Falkland islanders themselves have never asked for their independence or requested that the Islands be given away. If they did, they that would surely be granted. In fact, a legislative Council is present on the islands, it consists of ten members, of who eight are elected by universal suffrage. The Constitution states that the people of the Falkland Islands can freely determine their political status and seek economic, social and cultural development as they wish. So far, all they wished for is to remain under Britain.

Some people think that Britain wanted that war and went to it gladly. Far from it. Even when Argentina raised its flag over British territory, Britain responded initially with diplomatic protests. Only after Galtieri could not be reasoned with, a group of marines was sent to the Falklands in hope to settle the matter without violence. When Argentinean Junta captured those marines - Britain entered an official war. Thatcher's government considered it a great risk, but cries for freedom of the Falklanders could not be left unanswered, British land had to be liberated, democracy defended, and fascist dictatorship could not be allowed such actions for the sake of the world. While media was, and will always do what it does best not tell the truth but best sell what will sell. Soldiers were fighting for what they believed in, and no one questioned that what they were doing was right.

"It was cold and wet. In my mind I still hear the screams of the wounded guardsman who had his led blown off…"My leg!!! My leg!!! I can't find my leg!" and the desperate yells of an officer: "For fuck's sake shut him up before he scares the shit out of us all !" And the looks of the young lads around me thinking "who next?" I still see the dead bodies blasted and cut in half. The pathetic sight of the wounded in deep shock. The smell of blood and cordite. The after effects of 14 hours running on adrenaline. The scream of shells around me and ground shaking impact. Then hearing one which you know is going to land close to you and you through yourself to the ground just as it lands and you get converted in all sorts of crap thinking " that could have been it." The sounds of bullets zipping through the air around you knowing that each time you are escaping death and mutilation by inches.Not for a second I questioned my orders. I felt proud to serve my country and I didn't want to let my people down. I felt that I was fighting for the right cause and had no desire to know otherwise. I was there because I was a soldier serving Britain, I wanted to be there."

24531181 Lance Corporal Steve Cocks. Eighteen years old at the time of the conflict, served with Right Flank 2nd Battalion Scots Guards, 5th Brigade.

I