Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58
The difference being that Thatcher sent our troops to defend an illegal invasion by the Argentinians upon BRITISH citizens. There was no deception or ambiguity about the reasons for the deployment of our troops, and in fact the Falklands War boosted her popularity to such an extent that she was re-elected in 1983 and 1987.
You have mentioned Resolution 502 but have omitted the full terms:
Resolution 502, which was in the United Kingdom's favour, gave the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing it to claim the right of self-defense. It was supported by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina and by the members of the Commonwealth
So contrary to what you imply the Conservative Government, brilliantly led by Margaret Thatcher, acted properly within UN law. It is no surprise that in 1983 her government was returned with a landslide.
|
The EEC is not the UN, Resolution 502 demanded an end to all hostilities,
Resolution 502 drafted by the UK:
3 April 1982
The Security Council,
Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina,
Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;
2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);
3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Thats the resolution were does it mention defence of British citizens, Article 51 or any other right to retake the FI's by force.
It doesnt. Regardless of the little addendum someone has placed on the Wikipedia entry. It was in Britains favour because Britain drafted the bloody thing.
Legally speaking it was to prevent the Argentinians from hunting down any British forces on the Islands who had not surrendered.
Notice the words "diplomatic solution". That means lets talk a peaceful solution, not as what happened; we talk and we launch half of our armed forces to retake whats ours.