George Galloway has been vocal for some time on the topic on the Falkland Islands and the the dispute over ownership of the islands between Great Britain and Argentina. This occasion is no different when he went on RT news to once again lay down his position.
First of all he talks about it being related to British colonialism. That may have been how Britain first obtained the islands but it certainly isn’t relevant now. It should also be noted that for all the talk of British colonialism spoken by Argentina, it itself was colonised by Spain. So should all the Argies go back to Spain?
Mr Galloway then mentions the posting of Prince William to the islands as well as one of Britain’s Nuclear submarines. He speaks as if it too is an act and measure of British colonialism when in fact both can be explained quite simply. Prince William in an officer in the British Royal Air Force. He is a lieutenant in search and rescue. Because he is the heir to the throne after Prince Charles it is almost certain that he will never go into combat. With that said he cannot stay within the UK for the entire time that he is in the military. I am far from an expert but I assume that everyone should at least have one foreign posting to their name during their service.
There may have been some reason behind it however I very much doubt it was meant as a political snub nor a diplomatic snub, nor do I believe it was meant as some sort of colonial or post colonial gesture.
The posting of the nuclear submarine to those islands or that region could be one of many reasons. Firstly it could merely be a precaution, secondly it could be part of the routine patrol route our submarines take these days since the Falklands war, or thirdly it could indeed have been meant as a gesture or a message towards Argentina. Of those three I would certainly lean towards the second of those.
He speaks about the islanders having rights, which they do but he then says:
“the territory very obviously belongs to Argentina.”
However he doesn’t actually elaborate. Instead he goes into a superfluous and irrelevant analogy about how if a Martian came down to earth and looked upon it he would clearly see the distance between the Falklands and Great Britain and laugh once he/she/it was told that the country furthest away of the two actually owns the islands and not the country closest to the disputed islands. I fail to see how such an argument is valid. Furthermore the geographical location of the islands are irrelevant when it comes to ownership. Should geographical positioning take precedence over history? Should the fact that according to history Great Britain has more of a claim to the islands than Argentina be negated by the fact that Argentina happens to be closer to the islands than Great Britain? No, of course not. It is a ridiculous argument.
Following on from that he says:
“We’re not laughing here in Britain because we’re continuing to fit the bill.”
Well apart from most people in the UK supporting the idea of Britain keeping the Falklands the only part the UK taxpayers is really paying for is the military on the island. Apart from that the Falklands is it’s own little community with it’s own little economy. I assume also that when he talks about “footing the bill” he also is talking about the protection of the islands but actually protecting the islands which are still British territory goes onto the same bill as protecting any other part of British territory.
George Galloway has fallen flat with his ridiculous argument. It is incorrect, it is weak, and it lacks substance. Complete fail!