SPECKS OF EMPIRE LORD CHALFONT'S MISSION TO THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31863, 16 December 1968, Page 16

SPECKS OF EMPIRE LORD CHALFONT'S MISSION TO THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

(Reprinted from the ‘'Economist’’ by arrangement)

LONDON, December 7.—Throughout the week the Government has piously denied any intention of handing over the Falkland Islands to Argentina without the islanders’ consent. But the protestations have sounded suspiciously hollow. Lord Chalfont’s assurances in the islands’ capital, Port Stanley, did not stop the islanders thinking that he had beer sent to organise an eventual sell-out, and in view of his past prediction: they were right to be wary.

Lord Chalfont has a bad record of innocence or ignorance when it comes to answering questions about, say, joining Europe or devaluing the pound or whatever. He is not senior enough to have dreamed up the idea of his mission this time himself, but for all his charm and his title be did nothing to justify or excuse the mastermind who was responsible for the fiasco. When Mr Stewart gives his promised explanation to the Commons next week (his assistants having so signally failed to carry conviction) he had better be frank. There is much more to be answered for than Lord Chalfont’s own performance. The whole affair has been another sign of ' sheer governmental incompetence. Argentina’s Claim Argentina claims the islands partly because it is the country closest to them (they are about 300 miles from the coast) and partly because Britain expelled an Argentine colonising party in 1834. The Argentinians also believe they have a claim as Spain’s colonial successor. The one argument that is worth tuppence is the one of contiguity, and it is not worth much more. Should Britain, in another postcolonial arena, give •up the Channel Islands and receive the Faroes? Successive Argentine governments, for entirely understandable reasons, have demanded the Falklands in order to show their energy and panache and, occasionally, to divert attention from troubles at home, just as Guatemala claims Britis'h Honduras and Spain claims Gibraltar. The 2000 inhabitants of the Falklands are British or of British descent and emphatically do not want any change in sovereignty. But the Argentine foreign minister, Dr Costa Mendez, has turned down a plebiscite, saying that "sovereignty cannot depend on the wishes of the inhabitants” and must be settled “on a government-to-govemment basis.” Which is what Generalissimo Franco says. An Agreed Position The present negotiations over the Falklands have now gone on for- tyr® years, and Britain and Argentina may soon publish an “agreed position." This will probably contain a list of points on which they have actually agreed, such as the need for more communications be-

tween Argentina and the Falklands and the decision to continue discussions. After that there may be separate statements in which the two governments set out their views on the matters of disagreement. The Foreign Office has naturally been cagey about what it will say though it insists that the document will reflect the view that no change in sovereignty can take place without the islanders' agreement. For the Argentine Foreign Minister has said that he would only sign a document which recognised Argentine sovereignty. So whether it will really say so is another matter. Life will be much easier for everyone, including the Argentines themselves, if the Government does make this point clear and unmistakable. There is little point in discussing sovereignty at all until the Falkland islanders have freely changed their minds on association with the mainland. To go on nattering will simply lead, at best, to both sides reiterating their positions and, at worst, to the Argentine Government coming to believe that Britain will change its mind under pressure. If the Government fudges its commitment to ensure that both sides sign a document which each takes to mean different things it will ensure that Britain’s commitment is not taken seriously. Imports Cheaper? The professional diplomats whose job is to keep the Argentines as friendly as possible can certainly argue that talks are useful if they do lead to more relaxed relations between Argentina and the Falklands. The islanders might find their imports cheaper if they arrived from a southern Argentine port, rather than from Montevideo, which is about 1000 miles away. But this is likely to be marginal. They would benefit from a regular air service to the mainland—if Argentina subsidised it Better communications with Argentina could perhaps! persuade the next generation I of Falklanders that the future lay with Buenos Aires. 1 But today it is the Argen-! tine Government which [ refuses normal relations with! the Falklands so long as they! are under British rule.! Britain could agree to accept Argentine passports on the! islands without a visa if!

Argentina agreed to let the islanders travel there without impounding their passports. Agreement should not be onesided. Gloomy Envoy i Lord Chalfont was very gloomy about the Falklands’ future when he talked to the islanders. He emphasised the fall in the price of wool on which the islands depend, and did not mention the possibility of a plant to process seaweed, which has just been announced. The unhappy Mr Fred Mulley admitted in the Commons on Tuesday that the Government had known about this “for some months" but had regarded it as “a fairly remote possibility.” He was grateful to the 8.8. C. and the papers for telling him the latest ’ developments. In Whitehall the word is that the Chalfont gloom had , nothing to do with Argen- ; tina’s claim and that he was not trying to persuade the islanders to accept a change 'of sovereignty. If that were ; true, Lord Chalfont had more , sense than his masters who [ sent him. But one doubts it. ’ It has been a very sad week . for the Foreign Office’s , reputation. 1 An Unequal Task [ Why was the exercise ever ! begun? Did the Government ’ really quail at the thought ’ that Argentina might boycott British goods and refuse to export its frozen meat here? There is a short answer to that: supplies could be made i good from home production. : from Ireland and from other : countries which do not even : have Argentina’s endemic ■ problem of foot-and-mouth ■ disease—which is particularly I costly to the British taxpayer : whenever it is exported here. ;As it is, Britain imports i more from Argentina than it , exports in return. It is , Argentina that stands to lose ; more from a serious disi agreement It cannot even be said that the Government wants to save money: it does not noticeably subsidise the Falklands now. If the idea was no more than to nudge the Falki landers closer to their neighbours. so that another gen!eration may come to think differently about their place [in the world, the verdict [must still be that the affair has been bungled. [ Poor Lord Chalfont! It was an unequal task. He should [be kept at home in readiness Ito deny the next devaluation.

In a sub-heading on this article about “Lord Chalfont’* Islands,” the “Economist” comments: "The Foreign Office sent a boy on a boy’s errand—and surprise, surprise, he still got it fouled up.”