The remnants of empire

For several decades the British have been rather smug about how smoothly they handled the dismantling of the former Empire, compared to the mess supposedly created by the French and Belgians, among others. It's never really been true.  There's little to choose between the Algerian uprising and the Mau-mau terrorist campaign in Kenya in terms of sheer bloodiness.  In many cases the UK left behind problems that remain intractable to this day: the division of India and Pakistan for example, or the Middle East, though that unholy mess was a kind of joint venture between the UK and France.

Indeed, the unwinding of the Empire isn't even complete.  It's striking to note that of the sixteen territories regarded by the UN as "non self governing" -- i.e., colonies -- ten are still administered by the UK. The full list is to be found on the UN website.   So as the temperature starts to rise ominously in one of those ten, the Falkland Islands, it seems a bit rich for David Cameron to start accusing the government of Argentina of displaying a "colonial" attitude to the islands.

Cameron's justification for using this term is that the people of the islands want to remain under British sovereignty, and so any attempt to deny them that right is a form of colonialism.  That can't possibly be right.  Given that the islanders are all of British descent, what on earth else would you expect them to want?  Not that Argentina's claim to the islands is particularly robust -- heck, they haven't even bothered to come up with their own name for the archipelago. "Malvinas" is a hispanicised version of the islands' former name, "Les Malouines", which reflects the fact that the first European settlers were French sailors from St Malo.

There have been some very sensible letters and columns in the past few weeks in the quality press, by ex-diplomats and such, arguing that the UK should initiate talks with Argentina aimed at securing the rights of the islanders to maintain their "British" way of life, while recognising Argentina's claim to sovereignty. The precedent of the Hong Kong handover back in 1997 has been widely cited, though that comparison is not exact, because the treaty under which the UK leased much the territory from China was reaching its end, so there really wasn't much choice in the matter.

Unfortunately there are few signs that the government is listening to this advice. David Cameron and his foreign secretary, William "the Mekon" Hague, have both taken a belligerent stance, and there are plans to boost the UK military presence on the islands in case the Argentinians try to pull a stunt. But who do you think you are kidding, Mr Cameron?

The tabloid press no doubt has all the "Gotcha" headlines at the ready if war breaks out, but the truth is that the UK is in a massively weaker position now than it was in 1982.  The armed forces are much smaller now, and much more stretched in various flashpoints around the globe. Crucially, the Harrier jump jets that played a big role last time have been grounded, and there is no aircraft carrier in current Royal Navy service.

Most importantly, both the US and the Organisation of American States, which provided covert assistance to the UK thirty years ago, are most unlikely to do the same if conflict breaks out again.  Both have expressed support for Argentina's claim.  It was a close-run thing last time; this time it could be a Suez-style humiliation. As Churchill, not noticeably a pacifist by nature,  once put it, "better jaw-jaw than war-war". Cameron and Hague should pay heed.