The necessary order conveying the change of rules of engagement was sent from Northwood to HMS Conqueror at 1.30 p.m. In fact, it was not until after 5 p.m. that Conqueror reported that she had received the order. The Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk just before 8 o’clock that evening. Our submarine headed away as quickly as possible. Wrongly believing that they would be the next targets, the Belgrano’s escorts seem to have engaged in anti-submarine activities rather than rescuing its crew, some 321 of whom were lost — though initially the death toll was reported to be much higher. The ship’s poor state of battle readiness greatly increased the casualties. Back in London we knew that the Belgrano had been hit, but it was some hours before we knew that she had sunk.
A large amount of malicious and misleading nonsense was circulated at the time and long afterwards about the reasons why we sank the Belgrano. These allegations have been demonstrated to be without foundation. The decision to sink the Belgrano was taken for strictly military not political reasons: the claim that we were trying to undermine a promising peace initiative from Peru will not bear scrutiny. Those of us who took the decision at Chequers did not at that time know anything about the Peruvian proposals, which in any case closely resembled the Haig plan rejected by the Argentinians only days before. There was a clear military threat which we could not responsibly ignore. Moreover, subsequent events more than justified what was done. As a result of the devastating loss of the Belgrano, the Argentine Navy — above all the carrier — went back to port and stayed there. Thereafter it posed no serious threat to the success of the task force, though of course we were not to know that this would be so at the time. The sinking of the Belgrano turned out to be one of the most decisive military actions of the war.
However, the shocking loss of life caused us many problems because it provided a reason — or in some cases perhaps an excuse — for breaks in the ranks among the less committed of our allies: it also increased pressure on us at the UN. The Irish Government called for an immediate meeting of the Security Council, though after intense pressure from Tony Parsons and some from the UN Secretary-General, they were eventually persuaded to suspend their request — not, however, before the Irish Defence minister had described us as ‘the aggressor’. There was some wavering from the French and rather more from the West Germans, who pressed for a cease-fire and UN negotiations. Moreover, by the time of the sinking of the Belgrano, the diplomatic scene was already becoming more difficult and complicated.
I have already mentioned the peace plan which the President of Peru had put to Al Haig and which he in turn had put to Francis Pym in Washington on 1 and 2 May, though we had no sight of it until later. With the sinking of the Belgrano, Mr Haig was once again bringing pressure to bear, urging on us diplomatic magnanimity and, expressing his belief that whatever the course of the military campaign there must be a negotiated outcome to avoid open-ended hostility and instability. To add to the confusion, the UN Secretary-General was now seeking to launch a peace initiative of his own, much to the irritation of Mr Haig.
WEEK SIX
Both military and diplomatic pressures now mounted. On Tuesday 4 May the destroyer HMS Sheffield was hit by an Argentine Exocet missile with devastating effects. The loss of the Sheffield was the result of a number of mishaps and mistakes, but it was a terrible demonstration of the risks our forces faced. The Sheffield was a relatively old ship, with outdated radar: it was transmitting via satellite to London moments before the missile struck, interfering with its capacity to detect the attack sufficiently in advance to throw up chaff as a decoy. Also the fire doors were open and, as we learnt from the raging fire that followed the missile impact, there was too much aluminium in the structure. Although the ship did not sink at first, it proved impossible due to the rough seas to bring it back home, as I had wished, and eventually she went down. At first I was told that there were 20 casualties: then 40.
It was very difficult to know how to announce this sort of news. We would have liked to inform all next of kin first, and indeed sought to do so. But meanwhile the Argentinians would be putting out statements — some true, some false but all with a deliberate purpose — before we knew the real facts. As a result, wives and families spent some agonizing days and nights. That day we also lost one of our Harriers.
By this stage Francis Pym had returned from the United States. We did not like the US/Peruvian proposals he brought with him and sought to have important changes made, above all to ensure that the wishes of the islanders were respected. Al Haig, however, would not accept our changes or pass them to the Peruvians because he believed that the Argentinians would reject them out of hand. I received a message from President Reagan urging us to make further compromise.
On the morning of Wednesday 5 May I called first the War Cabinet and then the full Cabinet to consider the US/Peruvian proposals. Francis Pym believed that in view of the battle in the South Atlantic it would be damaging to reject what were in effect Al Haig’s proposals. Moreover, as I have noted, the countries of the European Community which had been very strong at first were beginning to weaken in their support. The sanctions which they had agreed were only for a month and there would be difficulty in getting everyone to approve their renewal.
I was deeply unhappy about the US/Peruvian proposals. Cabinet did not like them much either. But we had to make some response. I wanted to ensure that any interim administration would consult the islanders and that their wishes should be respected in the long-term settlement. I also wanted South Georgia and the other Falklands dependencies to be outside the scope of the proposals. Cabinet was firm about these objectives. We agreed to seek changes to meet them and in this we were successful.
I did not like this constant pressure to weaken our stance. I drafted a personal letter to President Reagan that revealed perhaps too much of my frustration, though I toned it down before it was sent. But I took comfort from the fact that I had never believed that the Argentine Junta would be prepared to withdraw on these or any other terms — and indeed the Argentinians turned down the US/Peruvian proposals. Attention now increasingly shifted to the proposals of the UN Secretary-General. The Argentinians sent their Foreign minister to New York. They hoped to capitalize on the sympathy they had gained as a result of the sinking of the Belgrano and their spirits had been lifted by the destruction of the Sheffield. There was no lack of candidates to suggest new ‘initiatives’ — not the least surprising or impractical of which was the suggestion of President López-Portillo that I should have a private meeting with General Galtieri in Mexico. But I was not going to sell out the islanders and I knew that the Argentine Junta could not withdraw and survive. Obviously there was little prospect of a diplomatic ‘breakthrough’, yet still the apparently endless negotiations continued.
Tony Parsons defended Britain’s position at the UN with great force and brilliance. The Argentinians were clearly determined to get the maximum propaganda advantage in the new discussions sponsored by the UN Secretary-General. He warned Sr. Perez de Cuellar of our past experiences of trying to deal with the Junta. The Secretary-General could expect that agreements apparently satisfactory to Argentine representatives would then be disowned by the Junta and that the Argentinians were intent on establishing sovereignty as a precondition of any settlement.
I was not prepared to hold up military progress for negotiations. We were all aware that we were coming to a critical period. If we were to land and repossess the islands it would have to be done some time between 16 and 30 May. We could not leave it later because of the weather. That meant that negotiations at the UN must be completed within ten days or so. If they were successful and our principles and minimum requirements were met, well and good. If not, or they were still dragging on, then — if the Chiefs of Staff so advised — we would have to go ahead.
I had mixed feelings about the negotiations. I shared the desire to avoid a further bloody conflict. I spoke about this to Tony Parsons on the telephone on Saturday 8 May. I asked Tony to tell
the Secretary-General that we would be pleased to welcome him in London. I went on:
In the end you know we might have to go in. I say in the end — time is short. But I just feel deeply … first that our people there were living in self-determination and freedom before this started and one can’t hand them over to anything less. But secondly that it is going to be the most awful waste of young life if we really have to go and take those islands … I will do everything before the final decision has to be taken to see if we can uphold the rule of international law and the liberty and justice, in which I believe passionately for our people, to see if we can stop a final battle.
However, as the negotiations with the Argentinians in Washington continued it became ever more evident that they were not prepared to make the concessions we required. They were determined to include South Georgia and the dependencies. They wanted to deny the islanders any proper means of expressing their views during the interim period. They were pressing for the complete withdrawal of the British task force to its bases in the UK — which, now that the battle for the Falklands had begun, was of course even more unacceptable than it had been before. They also wanted to be able to move in their own people and acquire property so as to change the whole terms of the argument. It was clear that the negotiations would fail. We must ensure that when they did so the Argentinians did not manage to shift the blame on to us. Ideally, we should bring them to a definite conclusion before the landings took place. An ultimatum was obviously necessary.
On Sunday afternoon at Chequers (9 May) our regular meeting reviewed the diplomatic and military scene. We discussed the state of the negotiations and where they might lead. There was also a politically sensitive military matter. Argentine civilian aircraft were flying over our supply lines and doubtless communicating their findings direct to their submarines. We had every right to act to stop this. But could we be sure that if we shot at a civilian aircraft it would turn out to be an Argentine one? The radar characteristics and the typical flight path of an aircraft on surveillance would help to identify those on such reconnaissance missions. But there was an obvious risk that something could go wrong. We also had to consider the possibility of a commando raid against Ascension Island and our forces there — unlikely perhaps, but potentially devastating.
WEEK SEVEN
We now had to stand firm against the pressure for making unacceptable compromises while avoiding the appearance of intransigence. Specific instructions went to Tony Parsons about our position on withdrawal distances, interim administration, the issue of immigration and the acquisition of property during the interim period and to ensure that the Argentinians did not get away with prejudging the issue on sovereignty: that was for the islanders to decide. There were detailed discussions on the constitutional position of a United Nations administration of the islands. Our view was that the UN representative could only administer the law, not change it. If he wished to do so he would have to act through the islands’ Legislative Council. We also continued to press for a United States military guarantee of the security of the islands — but with very limited success. The UN Secretary-General was somewhat taken aback by the firmness of our stance. But Tony Parsons impressed on him the basic facts of the dispute. It was not we who had committed the aggression, though we had made a number of major concessions. Any arrangement which appeared to reward Argentine aggression would simply not be accepted in Britain.
The Argentinians could not be trusted. For example, on the issue of not prejudging sovereignty, their representative said one thing to the Secretary-General while their Foreign minister said quite the opposite in his public statements. Who was to be believed? The information we were receiving from the Americans about the attitude of the Argentine Junta confirmed our worst predictions. They were apparently not able to give way on sovereignty, even if they had wished, because of the political situation in which they now found themselves. This, however, was their problem not ours. My own views at this time were hardening because I was convinced that if anything we had already gone too far in making concessions. My feelings were echoed in the House of Commons. In the debate on Thursday 13 May Conservative back-benchers showed evidence of restlessness about our negotiations. Francis Pym continued to pursue a weaker line than I did and it was not liked.
Al Haig was now in Europe and his absence apparently gave those in the Administration who were favourable to the Argentinians an opportunity to persuade President Reagan that it was we who were being inflexible. President Reagan telephoned me at 6.40 that evening. He had gained the impression that the Argentinians and ourselves were now quite close in our negotiating positions. I had to tell him that unfortunately this was not the case. Major obstacles remained. As regards the interim arrangements, Argentina wanted greater Argentine participation than we could accept and there were substantial difficulties about ownership of property and freedom of movement. Secondly, there was the difficulty of South Georgia where our title was completely different and we were in possession. There was the added problem that we just did not know with whom we were really negotiating. The Argentinians were trying to arrange an interim administration which would lead inevitably to Argentine sovereignty. Finally, there was no guarantee that at a later stage they might not invade the islands again.
President Reagan had been talking to the President of Brazil who had been visiting Washington. There was some concern (entirely misplaced) that we were preparing an attack on the Argentine mainland: whether or not such attacks would have made any military sense, we saw from the beginning that they would cause too much political damage to our position to be anything but counter-productive. President Reagan wanted us to hold off military action. I said that Argentina had attacked our ships only yesterday. We could not delay military options simply because of negotiations. The truth was that it was only our military measures which had produced a diplomatic response, highly unsatisfactory as this was.
President Reagan was also concerned that the struggle was being portrayed as one between David and Goliath — in which the United Kingdom was cast as Goliath. I pointed out that this could hardly be true at a distance of 8000 miles. I reminded the President that he would not wish his people to live under the sort of regime offered by the military Junta and also of the length of time that many of the islanders had lived there and the strategic significance of the Falkland Islands if, for example, the Panama Canal were ever closed. I finished by seeking to persuade him — I believe successfully — that he had been misinformed about the Argentinians’ alleged concessions. It was a difficult conversation but on balance probably a useful one. The fact that even our closest ally — and someone who had already proved himself one of my closest political friends — could look at things in this way demonstrated the difficulties we faced.
On the morning of Friday 14 May there were two separate meetings of the War Cabinet. One consisted of a detailed assessment of the military position and options. The other was taken up with the diplomatic situation. We decided to prepare our own terms to put to the Argentinians as an ultimatum and Tony Parsons and Nico Henderson were summoned back from the United States to Chequers to discuss these for the weekend.
Two events that day and the next gave a great boost to my morale. First, there was the welcome I received from the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Perth — an occasion which, as I have said before, I always enjoyed. In my speech I set out precisely what we were fighting for and why. I also said:
The Government wants a peaceful settlement. But we totally reject a peaceful sell-out.
The Leader of the Liberal Party, David Steel, accused me of ‘jingoism’. How remote politicians can seem at these times of crisis: neither the audience nor the nation would fall into the same trap of characterizing determination to secure justice and the country’s honour in terms like that.
Secondly, I also learned of the successful raid under cover of darkness by our SAS and Special Boat Service men on Pebble Island off the north of West Falkland, dest
roying all eleven Argentinian aircraft at the air strip. It was a daring venture and a significant, though unheeded, warning to the Argentinians of the professionalism of our forces.
That Sunday at Chequers was mainly spent in drafting our own final proposals, to be put to the Argentinians by the UN Secretary-General. The vital consideration was that we bring the negotiating process to an end — ideally, before the landings — but in such a way as to avoid appearing intransigent. It became clear that we would have to make a very reasonable offer. I accepted this because I was convinced that the Argentinians would reject it, and strictly on a take-it-or-leave-it basis: the Argentinians must accept the offer as a whole, or not at all, and once rejected, it would be withdrawn. We would set a time limit for their response.
Tony Parsons and Nico Henderson were both closely involved in the drafting. We went over every point in detail, working as usual around the oblong table in the Great Parlour upstairs, remodelling the draft clause by clause. At hand were voluminous reference sources on the UN and the law relating to the administration of the Falklands. We hardened our terms in respect of interim administration, ensuring something close to self-government for the islanders and denying any role to the Argentine Government. We excluded South Georgia and the other dependencies from the proposals altogether: South Georgia was back under British control and there could be no question any longer of including it in the negotiations. We made reference to Article 73 of the UN Charter, which implies self-determination, to make it clear that the wishes of the islanders would be paramount in long-term negotiations. The Argentine Government was required to give a response within 48 hours and there was to be no negotiation of the terms. This exercise also allowed me subsequently to explain each phrase to the House of Commons to allay their understandable fears that we might be prepared to yield too much.
The Downing Street Years Page 29
