How Prosperity Transformed the Falklands
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
> the islands are oddly similar to the Shetlands or the Isle of Skye—the bleak, rocky landscape; the blustery rain; the nearness of the sea—as though a piece of Scotland had broken off into the Atlantic and drifted eight thousand miles south, past Ireland, then Portugal, past Morocco and Mauritania and Senegal, down past the coasts of Brazil and Uruguay, and come to rest just a few hundred miles north of Antarctica.
In short, it takes a mundane detail like the similarity of landscapes and climate between the Falklands and Scotland, and adds an interpreted fantastic explanation of it by simile (landmasses moving across the Atlantic). It can feel excessively twee and almost corny when you identify the technique, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I wonder if readers have identified other notable examples of the New Yorker style from this article or elsewhere.
I really didn't need an enumeration of countries that I can see perfectly well on a map or in my mind's eye. It just adds unnecessary baggage to what was a clever concept.
> The islanders did what they could to undermine the enemy. Reg Silvey, the Cape Pembroke lighthouse keeper and a radio ham, rigged an aerial out of a steel-core washing line and transmitted troop information to the British. Terry Peck, a policeman, concealed a telephoto camera in a drainpipe and walked around taking photographs of Argentine missile sites. A farmer named Trudi McPhee led a caravan of islanders in Land Rovers and tractors through hostile territory at night across East Falkland to Tony and Ailsa’s farmhouse, where British troops needed vehicles to transport weapons. Eric Goss, a manager at Goose Green, convinced Argentine soldiers that the lights of British ships in Falkland Sound were moonlight reflecting off seaweed.
Since British army doctrine is to insert away from the front, they had to march around 55 miles to Port Stanley.
(The US does amphibious assaults near the objective, which is high-risk: either you succeed, or get slaughtered on the beach, as in Italy and a couple of the Normandy landings.)
Assuming Starlink continues to go to plan, it would be a huge boon for remote places like this and probably very transformative to its economy.
There are 3,480 Falklanders. My high-school had 3,900 students.
The weather is pretty bleak. Warm season average high temp in January is 57F. Average low in June is 32F. Mostly cloudy/overcast 60% of the week pretty much year round. I.e., it's never really warm enough to do a lot of outdoor activities other than hiking or maybe horseback riding. Only 20% of days are 'wet' days, so you don't have to worry all that much about rain. Still, it's too cold for swimming or beach-going, not cold enough for skiing. Admittedly, I just skimmed the article, but this caught my eye: "Since the late nineteenth century, islanders had wanted a swimming pool because the sea was too cold to swim in, so nobody knew how, and, when boats capsized, people would drown."
Make no mistake, there are many folks who prefer this climate, and the remoteness and seeming lack of immediacy that is growing in the rest of the world. I imagine you'd stay for the sameness of each day. I could see it as an unplug for a while, but living there would get, for me... dull.
One thing I did wonder, though, what does a Falklander accent sound like:
Yeah, me too. But if you grew up there it would be HOME.
Where your family and everyone you know lives. That's a lot more important than climate for many people.
Glad Britain ended up taking a different route with the Falklands than what they did with Hong Kong.
We get it. It's true. But it's a derail to insert it when it is neither ironic or relevant.
The motivation of the US foreign policy decision in late 50's must be seen in the context of the Cold War. In Argentina at the time, the US saw the alternative government as a communist/marxist regime with Soviet support/presence. How many other communist regime changes in the second half of the 20th century do you recall that did NOT adopt expansionist policies under the banner of "reunification"? We can imagine the US thinking the risk of Argentinian expansion was higher with a communist regime than with the Junta, but likely the US was more concerned about who controlled Cape Horn, the vast territory in South America that Argentina already controlled, the proximity to the US, etc. Plus, there was already significant concern about existing marxist movements taking other SA countries (meaning expansionism probably wasn't a huge concern so much as the development of a bloc of discrete soviet satellite states). Argentina was considered a bulwark to those movements. So the FI, safely under UK's wing, probably wasn't a primary motivator of US policy towards Argentina at the time.
Maybe there's some other unseen connection between the US and the FI invasion that you or other commenter can point out (e.g. did the US actively consider the fate of the FI in the 50's when they decided to prop up the Junta? Did the Carter administration know there were plans to invade when it softened support for Argentina which Reagan then reversed and enabled such an invasion? Those kinds of may make a better case for a connection and irony in the context of the Falklands War but it would be news to me). Seems like a pretty irrelevant and tenuous comment otherwise.
An alt-history counterfactual theory: if the US had not supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan might've joined the Warsaw Pact and then had a peaceful revolution (like almost all the rest) around 1989, with all the attendant advantages for a better version of this century.
The following claims to be 1980's afghanistan, but I can't tell if the Boney M soundtrack was original or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZRZLwLXU3E (Boney M was apparently popular in Afghanistan, but other videos with the same dancer are to more indigenous tunes)
maybe better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrxgwM8h7ek&t=30
(To be fair, the UK's defense of the Falklands was also hugely expensive, caused significant loss of life and may eventually have proved unnecessary, but at least it was a valid position under international law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
(to this day https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas doesn't explicitly mention that the victors called it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War )
1) The US ceased their support of the Junta when the invasion happened.
2) The US attempted to broker a diplomatic solution
3) The US loaded out the UK Harriers with sidewinder missiles, and provided their troops with stinger missiles
4) The US, at UK's request, had the USS Iwo Jima ready to go for operation in theater along with a bevy of American military contractors/advisors.
5) The US had also readied the USS Guam to be ready for assistance even though the UK hadn't requested it.
6) The US repositioned a spy satellite from the Northern Hemi to the Southern to assist the UK with intelligence
7) The US diverted 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel to the theater to support UK's air campaign. The Americans moved a supertanker into the theater to support ship operations. Major Julian Thompson, commander of the Royal Marines assault force stated that the HMS Fearless didn't have enough fuel to even dock when it arrived in theater, and US-supplied fuel made it happen.
8) the US supplied mortar shells, airfield matting and other equipment to the UK for the operation
The Washington Post said in 1984, of the Falklands War, "American intelligence information...probably made the key difference between winning and losing...."
The Economist in 1984 stated that the war "could not have been mounted, let alone won, without American help".
The Guardian in 2002 quoted an advisor to Thatcher as saying that "[Britain] would have lost the [war] in 1982 if America had failed to provide crucial missles...."
Declassified CIA docs show that Sec. of State Al Haig visited London delivering the message, "“We are not impartial. We face a common problem. We must do all we can to strengthen you and your government.”
reading material:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/u...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cia-files-reveal-how-u...
That a population of a tiny island much closer to a single country than to any other landmass nearby would prefer to stay effectively isolated and dependent on a "foreign" power, says for to the appeal of being part of Argentina than to whatever deal the UK has been offering to the Islanders.
Nothing like HK at all where majority of population actually doesn't mind (accepts) mainland rule
Plus, there is a great quote about the US vs the UK regarding nuclear weapons:
- Everyone respects the US because they were the biggest NATO military and had nuclear weapons
- Everyone feared the UK because due to their island mentality, if push came to shove they wouldn't hesitate to use those nuclear weapons whereas the US was seen as forever hesitant to use them again.
I don't know about "super", but they're one of maybe four countries with a credible second-strike nuclear capability, one of six that operate full-size aircraft carriers, maybe sixth on the list of global reserve currencies, G7 member...
(I will start taking scots' independence noises seriously after someone puts forth a concrete proposal about what to do with HMNB Clyde.)
The big problem is the nuclear material, but getting rid of that has long been an undercurrent of independence anyway. I suspect what would most likely be negotiated would be some kind of "treaty port" arrangement for non-nuclear vessels. Scotland would likely not be an Ireland-style neutral.
The aircraft carriers are .. very much a "power projection" thing, like Trident, Britain buying itself international hard man status like a knuckle tattoo. On the other hand, there's no proven alternative to carriers for achieving air superiority away from land bases.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG?most_rec...
AFAIK, most want to be under UK control.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereig...
Hong Kong can not be defended against China.
Barely. The Falklands was touch and go, Britain was only one or two Exocets away from losing. To bomb the runway at Port Stanley, the Vulcan bombers required in flight refuelling 4 times. And the tankers that refuelled them had to be in flight refuelled themselves. The whole thing was cobbled together with string and duct tape and it only just worked.
At its height the British Empire covered a quarter of the land on Earth and claimed dominion over a fifth of humanity; the saying was that the sun never set on the British Empire. Turns out, thanks to these various islands, it still doesn't: https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/
The fact that Spain would like it has no standing under international law.
And about the comment of “its professional class gradually became an entrenched bureaucracy”, I don’t know where you get that conclusion, but is far from the historical facts.
Argentina had a good economic situation at the beginning of the 20 century. But it also had a lot of inequality. That inequality created a lot of political instability. That instability led to violence: when the people that was “out” of the elite took the power, people at the elite did strike back... it continued for years in cycles of stability and violence, and a cruel dictatorship (google for Dirty War).
Related to the Malvinas/Falklands war... that war was the last resort from the military dictatorship to gain popularity, but they were very stupid and blind... and sent many young unprepared soldiers to die.
A good outcome from the war, was the debilitation of the dictatorship and the return of democracy in 82.
So what this has to do with the economy? After these cycles the country ended with tons of debt. Also our economy relies a lot in the agricultural export. During the turmoil of the 60s/70s many industries (and scientific research) died and the recovery took years.
Since the return of the democracy we went through two big crises (89 and 2001). Our economy still relies in agricultural exports. The professional and worker class pays the debt every day in the form of high inflation, high interest rates, and low credit availability.