Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina
Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of "serious" errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory.
By Jasper Copping
The critics say that several apparent statements of fact in the book are "nonsense" and "seriously defective", making Buenos Aires's historical claim to the South Atlantic archipelago "appear stronger than it actually is".
The legislative assembly on the islands has written to the Cabinet Office, which commissioned the work, to complain and to ask for the errors to be corrected.
Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, the book's author and also a member of the Chilcot Inquiry panel which is investigating the 2003 Iraq war, said he was "happy to accept the corrections".
The episode comes as Argentina is stepping up diplomatic pressure over its claim for sovereignty, after a British oil rig arrived in the territory's waters last week.
The factual mistakes contained within the book, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, have been detailed by historians writing in the latest newsletter of the Falkland Islands Association, a British-based group set up to support the islanders.
Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper say the errors are contained in the first chapter of the book, covering the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
They say the work misrepresents treaties between Spain and Britain and repeats a false claim that the Argentines established a penal colony on the islands.
They say the book gives a "seriously misleading" account of events in the 1820s and 1830s, when the islands were first claimed in the name of Argentina. The events of that era are central to the South American country's current claim to the islands.
Mr Pepper said: "This work has the stamp of official history. That is the problem. If it was just another history book, then it wouldn't really matter. We wanted to put the record straight."
Mike Summers, spokesman for the Islands' legislative assembly, said: "If this was a normal history book it might just be part of a healthy historical debate, but being an official history gives it a certain prominence that it wouldn't otherwise have.
"We have contacted the Cabinet Office pointing out there were inaccuracies and suggesting it should be amended.
"Given who [the author] is and given that it was supposed to be an official history of the war you wouldn't want inaccuracies to have gone unchallenged."
Colin Wright, honorary secretary of the Falkland Islands Association, said: "There are a number of errors which the Argentine government would be able to look at and which could be all part of undermining and chipping away the status of the islands and in strengthening their own claims."
Prof Freedman's account of the 1982 war itself is not contested and both editions have otherwise been generally well received.
Two volumes have been published. Volume one, containing the contentious chapter, was first published in 2005 and was reprinted in 2007, when the errors were repeated.
The full response from Dr Pascoe and Mr Pepper has only now been published, in the Falkland Islands Newsletter, in the form of a pull-out errata slip to be inserted into copies of the book.
Prof Freedman, a vice principal at King's College, London, also writes on the errata slip.
He said: "It was not a part of my remit to do a lot of original research into the eighteenth century.
"I was trying to explain the nature of the arguments. I was not looking at any primary sources. I couldn't claim to be a historian of that period. My remit was to write about 1982.
"At no point do I give any indication of support for the Argentine claim on sovereignty.
"It is a question about history rather than support for Argentina. It happens. It is the nature of the job. I don't feel I have been caught out in a fundamental misdeed.
"There is interesting new research that has been done that has shed new light on the issue."
The Cabinet Office declined to comment.
Some of the errors
Official history: When Spain returned the settlement of Port Egmont, on the islands, to Britain in 1771, the Spaniards made a declaration in the treaty with Britain in which "it reserved its position on sovereignty".
Correction: This claim was not made in the treaty's final text.
Official history: Another treaty between Spain and Britain "clearly prevented Britain from occupying the Falklands".
Correction: The treaty allowed the establishment of a settlement if another power (such as Argentina), made such a settlement.
Official history: When a British sailor Captain Onslow of HMS Clio arrived on the islands in 1833, he told the captain of an Argentine warship there that "the Islands belonged to no one".
Correction: The whole point of Onslow's voyage was to sustain Britain's claim, which dated from their base on the islands 60 years earlier. He told the Argentine commander as much.
Official history: After Onslow's arrival, convicts from an Argentine penal colony which had been established on the islands were forced to leave.
Correction: There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine garrison to leave but asked civilians to stay, as most of them did.
Re: Falklands
Originally Posted by Beskar
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks