The Falklands...The Malvinas...Spot the difference.

As the Falklands War approaches its 25th Anniversary I believe it is important to look back on a truly noble cause and a point of pride in Britain's history. When Argentina invaded the Falklands 25 years ago on Monday many around the world questioned whether Britain would bother embarking on an expedition 8000 miles around the world to recapture a small remance of the by-gone days of Empire. This is what the Argentines and much of the world were banking on...they weren't banking on Mrs Thatcher. The significance of the Falklands War was enormous, both for Britain's self-confidence and for its standing on the world stage. Since the Suez fiasco in 1956, British foreign policy had been one long retreat. The tacit assumption made by British and foreign governments alike was that our world role was doomed steadily to diminish. We had come to be seen by both allies and enemies as a nation which lacked the will and the capability to defend its interests in peace, let alone in war. Victory in the Falklands changed that assumption and set the tone for a new Thatcherite era of British politics that has prevailed to the present day.

Thatcher inspired an uninspired nation and ultimately moulded her name as the Iron Lady further securing her place in Britains corridors of power for the remainder of the decade. For her, and for the British, the Falklands war was not a war for the reclaiming of the last remnants of by-gone Empire it was a war of principle and of liberty. In many ways it set the tone of the Gulf War in 1990,in the sense that a dictatoral regime cannot invade a sovereign nation and impose its will on those who do not need nor desire it. Argentina's claim to the Falklands in my view is a pathetic attempt to reassert their crumbling world authority and inspire some kind of national pride. Britain's legal claim to the Falklands rests on that fact, and on the desire of the settled population - which is entirely of British stock - to remain British. The principle of "self-determination" and "individual liberty" has become a fundamental component of international law, and is enshrined in the UN Charter. Britains claim to sovereignity in the Falklands has strong legal foundations, and the Argentinians know it but still refuse to accept it.

Argentina claims the Falklands are theirs we say they are ours, the world says they are ours and most importantly the Falklanders say they are ours...therefore who is right? If anyone, in my view, has the right to complain and contest sovereignity it is the Spanish. Gibraltar is actually ON the Spanish mainland the Falklands are OFF the coast of Argentina but just because they are closer to them they believe it is their right to own them. The fundamental difference between the two is the Spanish realise one cannot just act unilatterally and annex a sovereign state, one must persue diplomatic means to secure ones aims or ambitions, this evades the Argentinians. The fact of the matter remains the same The Falklands or "Malvinas" as they are known to the Argentinians, have the right to determine their own future and they have determined that future. They want a future with Britain...they are British...and they shall remain British for aslong as they desire and Argentina can lump it. This June I hope Britian looks back on a truly great cause and pays its respects to the truly great leader that led us to such a victory. One can't help but wonder, if the Argentines invaded again in a day or two, how the British would react when we can't even assert our authority in the kidnap of 15 of our own sailors.