Anthony Barnett: Iron Britannia, Allison & Busby, £2.95.
Anthony has set himself the task of explaining why Britain became enmeshed in an 'unnecessary' war and why there was so little serious political opposition to the adventure. He has not added to the literature about the fighting that breathlessly relates how our boys bashed the Argies, whilst modest asides, as if from Jilly Cooper in khaki, reveal that our media men were dreadfully brave and super too. Anthony Barnett has a more serious and honourable aim: to explore the political culture that generated the war and to encourage us to make any repetition more difficult.
How well has he carried out this task? One of the strengths of the book — its coverage of parliament — is also its weakness. The subtitle of the book is 'Why Parliament waged its Falklands war' and the emphasis on the House itself and, in particular, the hysteria of the 3 April debate does show the political degeneracy of the leaderships of all parties.
The essential weakness of Anthony's book is that he does not adequately explain the war. Was it all irrational nostalgia for Empire? Well, certainly there are limits to a rationality that allowed Foreign Office officials to make further progress in negotiations with Argentina as late as 27 February 1982 and which were then rejected by Thatcher. But what of the international context? Barnett makes great play of establishing a pattern within which to situate the Falklands conflict: Cambodia v Vietnam; Uganda v Tanzania; Iraq v Iran... etc. It is the most terrible old ragbag of nonsense. The missing component is to consider the overall needs of imperialism, with all the contradictions in that dimension.
Anthony explains the feverishness of the 'crackpot' parliament in terms of Churchillism. 'All of the essential symbols were there; an island people, the cruel sea, a British defeat, Anglo-Saxon democracy challenged by a dictator ...' The essence of Churchillism is explained as an alliance across parties with an anti-fascist rhetoric and a firm belief in entente with the USA to make Britain great again. It is based upon a coalition of Tory imperialists and Labour reformism. There is an element of truth in this analysis. Thatcher, Foot, Callaghan, Owen and Powell all queued up to do their Churchill impersonations in an horrific parody of amateur talent night at the social club. But why just Churchillism? Were not the political components of the coalition not part and parcel of Lloyd Georgeism, or Joe Chamberlainism, or even the social imperialism of the 1880s when a section of Tories packaged together immigration laws, imperial [illegible] abroad and social welfare at home to produce straight young soldiers? The link through all these is imperialism, and this need not be a nostalgic atavistic spasm in the late 20th century.
Barnett does make some points. The response of Eric Heffer shows the weakness of what passes for anti-fascism in the Left when his response to Argentina was seen in terms of not letting fascist thugs get away with it. Barnett realises the weakness involved in trying to outbid the 'patriotism' of the Tories. Anthony then gets worried he has gone too far and genuflects gently: 'This is not said to denigrate either the revolutionaries or the imperialists of the World War. Their struggle against fascism was made a mockery of in parliament 3 April.' What the 3 April revealed was the total bankruptcy of popular frontism that EP Thompson and Marxism Today wish to portray not just as a beacon from the past but the sole reliable light to the future.
Anthony touches on a number of themes that are valuable. The obscene 'deeds not words' speech of Foot ensured that the Task Force sailed. An obdurate opposition could have stopped the entire adventure. The strength of the Falklands Factor is examined it was there. The Mitcham and Morden election registered a miraculous Tory win. Thatcher did gain in public support and did turn the 'spirit of the South Atlantic' against the unions. But Anthony correctly stresses the limitations of this process. The Easter CND demonstration was massive. Ignore for a moment the joy of relatives getting their loved ones back safe or Union Jacks in pubs. Where were the organised political demonstrations in favour of the war? The St Pauls service indicated that the Church was closer to the popular mood than the blood lust of the Tory Right.
The weakness of the Left in Britain was not to deal with the issue of imperialism. From Socialist Organiser rightwards, there were confusions on this. The 'ecumenical' teach-in against the war run by the Socialist Society that Anthony refers to was broad enough to involve Peter Jenkins of the SDP, but felt that the anti-imperialism of Tariq Ali might go too far and alarm those of a timid disposition. So certainly the 'patriotism' of the Labour Front Bench, the 'irrationality' of Thatcher, the need for a foreign diversion from domestic strife and the consequent unifying tendency, the Navy lobby and the Falklands lobby all played their squalid part. But so too did the need, in a post-Vietnam world, of British imperialism as a whole to reassert its capacity to wage foreign wars. And the battle fields of the future are not to be Gibraltar or Hong Kong, but the Gulf and Central America.