Thirty is a dangerous age
The poster for "Thirty is a Dangerous Age, Cynthia"
Back in 1968, the comedian Dudley Moore starred in a film called “Thirty is a Dangerous Age“, (actually, the full title was “Thirty is a Dangerous Age, Cynthia” but it is generally known without the “Cynthia”).
It’s about a musician, (the Dudley Moore character, Rupert Street), who decides that he will write a musical before his thirtieth birthday … unfortubnately he is going to reach that milestone in six weeks time.
The poster carried the slogan, a quote from the film: “If you haven’t made it by the time you’re thirty, you never will!”
Now, when I went to college, it was a little adfter that, (1971), but it was still doing the circuit of cinema halls and provided us with a certain amount of conversation, especially when the college film club chose it as one of the films that they would show in their monthly screenings. Most of us were, of course, just 18 – well off the “dangerous age” … however, there were a number of “mature students” who were nearer to it and decided to give that particular event a miss. I can’t say that I blame them.
Well, we have reached another thirtieth anniversary and it is proving to be a dangerous time. Thirty years ago, (in the early hours of the morning of 2nd April, 1982), some 600 soldiers of the Argentinian army’s special forces landed on the Falkland Islands, (or, as they call them, the Malvinas), and took them by force.
They were faced by a small force of just 57 British soldiers and sailors supported by about 25 civilians who members of the Falkland Islands Defence force, (some 22 Royal Marines having been dispatched to South Georgia where a few weeks earlier a group of Argentinian workers had occupied the island, raising the Argentinian flag). As it happens, this was more than would normally have been stationed on the islands as the Garrison was in the process of changing, and both the outgoing and replacement troops were present.
The crisis, of course, didn’t come entirely out of the blue … these things never do. Indeed, a day before the invasion the British Governor, Rex Hunt, received a telegram from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which told him “We have apparently reliable evidence that an Argentine task force could be assembling off Stanley at dawn tomorrow.” adding with a sense of understatement, “You will wish to make your dispositions accordingly.”
The small British force prepared its defences and a number of engagements took place, on one of the beaches, at the Moody Barracks where the troops were billeted and at Government House. Although heavily outnumbered the British suffered no casualties whereas on Argentinian soldier was killed and three apparently wounded.
In the face of overwhelming odds, the Governor decided that capitulation was inevitable; “You can’t argue with thousands of troops plus enormous navy support when you are only 1600 strong”, he is supposed to have reported to London. Thus began the Argentinian occupation of the islands which was to be ousted by a British task force just a few moths later that year.
The disputed ownership of the islands goes back a long way and, apart from the “occupation” of South Georgia, (almost 1400 miles to the East of the main islands), there had been other signs that trouble was brewing. In Britain, the general opinion is that President Galtieri used the islands in an attempt to bolster national pride and draw public attention away from a dire economic situation at home. He probably assumed that a recent decision to withdraw and took not replace the Royal Navy’s sole representation in the region, HMS Endurance, as a signal that the British would probably not react and simply shrug their shoulders and say, “What can we do?” … after all, Britain had not reacted to the occupation of South Thule in 1976 and the Islands are some seven and a half thousand miles from Britain, small and with limited significance.
If he thought that, then he had miscalculated. Adopting such an attitude could have cost the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, her job and been a terrible disgrace to the country. One of the main duties of a government is to protect its citizens and Britain’s Government had clearly failed in this duty. The “iron will” of the Iron Lady emerged and just days after the invasion a task force was dispatched to retake the islands.
It was an expensive affair – apart from the financial and the diplomatic costs, the 74 days of the conflict cost some 607 lives: 649 Argentinian and 255 British servicemen were killed – not to mention three civilians, (women from the Falkland Islands who were, ironically, casualties of what is euphemistically called “friendly fire”).
Since then, Britain has built a stronger base on the islands and invested considerable sums in their development.
The arguments in support of the two positions are complex – the Argentinians seem to base their claim on legal, historical and geographical grounds, whilst the British base theirs on competing legal and historical grounds and the principle of self determination – and not exactly clear cut … which is presumably why neither side is willing to submit their claim to international arbitration.
It seems that 30 is, indeed, a dangerous age. As this particular thirtieth anniversary approached, tensions between the two countries have re-emerged, fueled by questions of exploitation of the oil and fish reserves in the area. It’s been extensively covered in the media here and Andrei has been posing lots of questions to me about the situation.
Although I remember the events well, and it is quite an important part of my heritage, to him it’s all very dim and distant – far away in terms of geography and time. He even has difficulty in remembering, and even saying, “Argentina”.
His confusion has proved interesting as it has forced me to address several issues which otherwise, perhaps, I wouldn’t have done.
The dispute over the Falklands goes back more than thirty years – it goes back to their very discovery. Although natives of South America may well have landed on the islands, by the time that the Europeans came onto the scene in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, they were uninhabited. There are conflicting claims as to who first discovered the Falkland Islands with competing Portuguese, Spanish, and British claims – although the first reliable report of a sighting was by a Dutchman in 1600. The British seem to have been the first to land, (in 1690), although by accident more than by design … they were forced to seek a safe harbour by bad weather.
It seems that ever since then, however, a dispute has existed.
In fact, the first settlers to actually establish control over the islands were actually the French, in 1764. The US even controlled the islands at one point.
So how far back do we go? When do we draw a line under the issue and look forward? Why do we stand on our dignity and allow the arguments between our forefathers to interfere and direct our attitudes and relationships instead of making up our own minds and taking responsibility for creating a better world for all?
As I thought about this I couldn’t help thinking about the situation in Kyrgyzstan, especially when I consider the reports about the situation in the South, (where we saw mass disorders between different groups a couple of years ago, which were also expensive in financial and diplomatic terms, as well as costing hundreds of lives).
Commentators not only drew comparisons to the events of 1990, (and before), but blamed the events on tensions that date back that far and haven’t been addressed.
In the words of the old protest song “When will we ever learn?“
Bishkek