Falklands : TRUMPET’S FALKLANDS ARTICLE RESONATES BADLY FOR THE BIBLE
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 08.04.2011 (Article Archived on 22.04.2011)
If Brad Macdonald got his way Deuteronomy 28:52 would answer all of Argentina’s problems in the South – West Atlantic.
TRUMPET’S FALKLANDS ARTICLE RESONATES BADLY FOR THE BIBLE
An Editorial by J. Brock (FINN)
If Brad Macdonald got his way Deuteronomy 28:52 would answer all of Argentina’s problems in the South – West Atlantic. In an article dated 07 April 2011 entitled “Britain’s Falklands Test Is Coming” for the Trumpet, he says, “Twenty-nine years ago Britain defended the Falkland Islands with tremendous ardor and force. Would it do the same today?”
It worries me to discover that all this man appears to know is what he reads in the newspapers. One would think that a “Falklands Expert” would also do research in other publications. Hansard would be a good start, seeing that he says Government Officials haven’t noticed 02 April 2011 as a special day. In truth, it is a day Falkland Islanders would rather forget. He could also read and meditate on Deut.28:52, given his propensity to quote it.
Claiming that “tension is welling in the South Atlantic—well, in a tiny archipelago about 250 miles off the coast of Argentina, to be precise,” he forgets that the Falkland Islands are not the source of that tension but we know what he means. Based on Geography, the U.S. could claim Cuba and Dominica and several other islands within 250 miles of its coast. Now wouldn’t that cause tension?
“Of course,” he says, “the current tension over the Falkland Islands is minute compared to what it was in April 1982. It was 29 years ago this week that Argentina’s ruling military government invaded the Falkland Islands and seized control from the British.” That’s an understatement. Would Mr Macdonald like to relish the day his house was burgled?
He goes on to mention Margaret Thatcher’s resolve in sending the Task force to rescue us but until the invasion in 1982 there was an initiative within the Conservative Government to negotiate the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for Argentina.
“Three decades later, and in spite of Britain’s convincing victory in 1982, the Falklands remain a major point of tension between Britain and Argentina.” This is true but it is Argentine sour grapes and not British ones that are being drunk here. “While this week marks the 29th anniversary of the Falklands War, the actions (or lack thereof) in response to this anniversary are a measure of the importance of the Falklands to both Britain and Argentina.” We would rather remember the victory on 14 June, not 02 April. Mr Macdonald’s article would go better in Argentina where a battle was won on 02 April – not the war.
“For Argentina, the Falkland Islands—or Islas Malvinas as they’re called in Argentina—remain an issue of vital political and strategic importance.” More than likely it is our hydrocarbons reserves that tempt Argentina to keep up the pressure.
“Although Buenos Aires resumed diplomatic relations with Britain in 1992, it continues to ardently oppose British sovereignty over the islands. Just last month, the Argentine Senate unanimously approved a bill created to prevent Argentine companies or people from taking part in exploring for or exploiting hydrocarbons around the waters of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The bill is merely the latest in what appears to be an infinite arsenal of political, legislative and diplomatic weapons to attack British sovereignty over the Falklands.”
“Last weekend, in a major public event marking the 29th anniversary of the war, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner stoked the patriotic ambitions of her people to reclaim the island archipelago.” As previously stated, Falkland Islanders and the United Kingdom would rather remember the day of victory rather than the day we were defeated on one battle. We will have our say on June 14th.
“The ‘Malvinas are Argentine forever,’ Kirchner told the nation, and the government will “never yield in our claim.” Sooner or later, she promised, Argentina will “recover what belongs to us.” However, Mrs Kirchner is up for re-election and anti-Falklands rhetoric goes a long way to persuading Argentines to re-elect her as their president. Statements meant for internal consumption in Argentina do not hold the same weight in the Falkland Islands.
“Argentina’s foreign minister, Hector Timerman, also got in on the anniversary weekend action. He said the Falklands question had become a “regional cause,” and an issue that is serving to unify South American states. Britain has established a “military fortress in the South Atlantic,” he complained, and is a “threat for all the region.” This is not the first time the Argentine Foreign Minister used diplomacy to wrench the Falklands from her people.
“Perhaps even more telling is the fact that the Kirchner government is actively taking the Falklands issue to the international community, particularly the United Nations.” Each year they stake their claim in the Committee of 24 on De-colonisation. So what else is new? Under the United nations’ Charter Falkland Islanders are entitled to self-determination.
Now we come to the threat! “Why would Buenos Aires make an effort to school the international community, especially UN member states, in its claim on the Falklands? Could it be laying the diplomatic groundwork in anticipation of another conflict with Britain?” When the Argentines promised never to use Military Force to “re-take” the Falklands, we believed them. It would not be in their best interest to cause another conflict just now. They couldn’t afford it; and would lose face amongst the very neighbours they irritated in the Beagle Channel – also in 1982. Latin America may be united as far as sovereignty over the Falklands is concerned but change the subject and get another story.
At the following juncture Falkland Islanders are wondering what planet Mr Macdonald is from when he writes, “This is no exaggeration. Neither Prime Minister David Cameron nor his coalition government, nor even a single member of the Conservative Party, has specifically addressed the Falklands War.” All the above mentioned officials have addressed the “Falklands War” in Parliament on the public record but why should we get all hyped up about 02 April year after year after year after year? Perhaps Mr Macdonald, Falklands’ expert that he is, holds the opinion that the 1982 conflict with Argentina was won on 02 April when he wrote: “Of course, it would be unthinkable in this age of political correctness to celebrate Britain’s victory in 1982.” As stated before, our victory happened on 14 June 1982 and not on 02 April 1982.
“But Downing Street didn’t even speak out on the anniversary to simply affirm Britain’s commitment to the Falklands. The media has been equally silent.” Perhaps Mr Macdonald will have better luck on 14 June. “Except for a handful of articles in a couple of conservative papers, very little has been written of the anniversary.” On 02 April – you are 74 days too early, Mr Macdonald.
“There hasn’t even been a token article or speech paying homage to the admirable leadership of Lady Thatcher! Contrast that with the actions of Argentina’s president, who in addition to publicly voicing her commitment to the Falklands last weekend, made it mandatory that all school children read a letter written by a school teacher who volunteered to fight in the Falklands War!” Are you a closet Argentine, Mr Macdonald? Would you force us to read John Smith’s very wonderful book entitled “74 Days” each year on 02 April to retaliate?
“Although Downing Street and Fleet Street appear to have forgotten about the Falklands, bankers and finance gurus in London have not.” Now we get to the oil! “Two weeks ago, Rockhopper Exploration, a British energy company, announced that it had discovered a significant column of oil in the seabed adjacent to the Falklands. After the announcement, the company’s shares jumped 32 percent. This week, Rockhopper revised its estimates upward for the volume of oil potentially available. It’s too early to tell how much oil lies beneath the seabed around the Falklands, but Western energy companies under the sanction of the British government are investing a great deal of time, money and hardware searching for oil in the Falklands.”
As for Argentina, they have been simmering on the back burner ever since we began looking for hydrocarbons. “Of course, Argentina boils with anger at the possibility of the Falklands becoming an energy source for Britain.” Oil is the real issue here. If we found little, rhetoric about it would tone down significantly. “Watch this issue: If Britain sanctions large-scale drilling of oil in the Falklands, it could provoke a dramatic response from Argentina.” I have news for you Mr Macdonald; it is in the remit of the Falkland Islands Government to license exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons reserves around the Islands. At the end of the day Argentina comes down on the Falklands and not Britain. That doesn’t make them a stalwart against bullying, does it?
“If such a moment comes, one wonders how Britain would react, should Argentina make a significant play on the Falklands.” No matter whether we have a Labour or Conservative Government, Britain will react the same way she did in 1982. We also believe that promise.
“The archipelago has been a vital strategic asset of Britain’s since the early 19th century, giving the British an important outpost in Drake Passage, the sea-lane that connects the South Atlantic and South Pacific oceans.” This may have been true until 1912 when the Panama Canal opened and diverted most shipping traffic away from the Drake Passage. It didn’t do the Falklands’ economy any good at that time.
Clearly Mr Macdonald was thinking for himself when he wrote: “Prime Minister Thatcher was aware of the strategic and symbolic importance of the Falklands to Britain, which is why she responded with terrific force when they were threatened.” There were other, more important factors, like the invasion of sovereign British territory, to take into account.
At the end of each year, the Prime Minister, whether Conservative or Labour, reads a seasonal message in which he or she states that sovereignty over the Falklands is not negotiable and the wishes of the Islands’ people are paramount. “Thirty years later, Britain’s commitment to the Falklands has clearly diminished,” comes from cloud coo-coo land.
“Be assured, Argentina sees this—and sooner or later will once again test Britain! When this test comes, Bible prophecy says Britain will lose control of this strategic asset (Deuteronomy 28:52).”
Here’s what he is talking about:
“They shall besiege you at your gates until your high fortified walls, in which you trust, come down throughout all your land; and they shall besiege you throughout all your gates throughout your land which the Lord your God has given you.”
(Nelson’s New King James version of the Bible)
The same can be gleaned from the New Jerusalem Bible, the Collins NIV Bible, the Revised Standard Bible, the Good News Bible and even the TORAH – from which all Bibles mentioned - and even more - have pinched this chapter and verse.
Good God, this could be true of Cuba, Gaza, Iran or of any other place that is being blockaded by another country or countries.
It might interest you to know that Deuteronomy 28 is a chapter of blessings and curses meant for the people of Israel. It doesn’t dispute the fact that God himself gave Israel to its people. The blessings come when they obey God’s law and the curses come when His law is disobeyed. This is a book of decision intended for Israel and not Argentina, Britain or the Falkland Islands.
Countless assertions that this Book of the TORAH was meant as prophesy, instituting Argentine Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is wholly wrong and smacks of using the Bible as a handy dandy book of tricks.
“If a crisis does erupt, one development to watch for will be the emergence of Europe as a key player in the conflict.” The Falkland Islands are an EU Overseas Territory.
“While British politicians appear disinterested, their counterparts in Brussels have made it clear that the European Union will have a say in the future of the Falklands.” Yes but they are on the Falklands’ side.
“In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if these islands eventually fall, either directly or indirectly, under the influence of Europe—especially if they emerge as a source for energy!” The Falklands get European Union money and have done so for years. So what’s the objection?
“Whatever happens, keep an eye on the South Atlantic: Britain’s Falklands test is coming!” It seems to me that the inspiration for this article didn’t come from Deut. 28:52.