Don't send a Gunboat - HMS CLYDE and the threat that never was...

This week it was revealed that an Argentine survey vessel had been reported near the Falkland Islands, and that the local patrol ship HMS CLYDE had reportedly been sent to investigate. This simple story led to a barrage of negative news suggesting that the RN had ‘confronted’ the vessel which was apparently looking for oil.

One of the greatest success stories in the last few years for British foreign policy has been the way a formerly tense and difficult relationship with Argentina has so rapidly been reset to become a genuinely productive one. Under the Kirchner regime, which used foreign policy gripes as a means of distracting attention from domestic woes, the relationship between Argentina and the UK was far less productive and strong than it could, or should, have been.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

The Macri led Government has led to a real change in this dynamic, with productive engagement occurring across the full breadth of the relationship. The focus is now on improving our links and working together to focus on the future, particularly our shared economic, scientific and wider political interests than it is in worrying about a dispute over the sovereignty of the Islands.

One of the key parts played in enhancing this relationship was the manner that the UK responded to the tragic loss of the ARA SAN JUAN last year. The full range of UK military assets in the region, including HMS PROTECTOR and HMS CLYDE, supported by maritime patrol and submarine rescue assets (delivered direct to Argentina by the RAF conducting its longest peacetime flight ever apparently) were deployed to try to find and rescue the crew of the submarine.

This incident helped revitalise relationships between the two militaries and rebuild at working level the strong bonds of friendship that remind us of how much our two nations share. It was particularly encouraging to see that after this visit HMS PROTECTOR was able to visit Argentina and begin port visits again, something that had not happened for many years. If one thing came from this tragedy, it was the opportunity to reset positively our relations with Argentina.  

It is therefore immensely depressing to see some utter rubbish being spouted in the newspapers about what may or may not have happened off the Falkland Islands. The reality is far more simple than is being reported – the vessel in question was a scientific research ship conducting operations near the Burwood bank. Extremely bad weather forced a course change, which brought the vessel closer than planned to the Falkland Islands. (Full source can be found HERE).

The UK and Argentina operate a sensible arrangement to notify each other of movements in certain areas to reduce concerns and maintain effective communications. This agreement means that both nations provide 48hrs notice when a naval vessel will be within 15nm of the others coast line (noting territorial waters usually extend out to 12nm). Usually vessel movements and operational plans are known well in advance, and it is possible to communicate this in a timely fashion. Sometimes though, this doesn’t always go to plan – for instance when a vessel is changing course unexpectedly due to the weather.

On this occasion, it appears to have been the case that the Argentine authorities notified the UK of the vessels course and presence as soon as they were aware of its situation. The vessel herself is not one that is normally covered by these notification arrangements anyway (being a civilian research vessel).

What may have happened is that the UK may have identified an unknown vessel in the local area that they were not expecting to see (noting these waters are reasonably quiet) and began the process of sending HMS CLYDE to investigate. As soon as it was clear that in fact this was an entirely legitimate presence, she returned to her normal duties. It is not even clear that HMS CLYDE sailed, let alone went close to the Argentine vessel.  As the Argentines themselves made clear, no overflight or challenge was made, and normal business continued as the weather improved.

The wider story is perhaps the value of the OPV presence in the region that confirms that maintaining a small ship with significant capabilities is by far the most effective way to protect our national interests in this region. While some may call for a destroyer or frigate to be sent to the region, if the most challenging ‘threat’ that is likely to be encountered at present is a research ship sailing nearby, then it’s a valuable reminder that not all problems require the UK to ‘send a gunboat’ to monitor the issue. 

What is most frustrating about these incidents is that there is literally nothing of interest or concern here. The presence of an unarmed civilian research ship poses no threat to the region, and any military interest is likely to be as much from a safety of life perspective (e.g. is the ship okay, is anyone hurt onboard) as it is about understand who is in the area.

The level of paranoia from some journalists, stoking up sensationalist fears that the end is nigh (the Daily Express google result below uses the phrase WW3!) is frankly grossly irresponsible gutter journalism. It is doubtful that had the truth been reported (Argentine research ship changes course to avoid weather, UK notified it will be nearby, nothing happened), then it would have gotten column inches.

It is deeply frustrating to think that this is being used to shape the public perception of the Anglo-Argentine relationship and not the much more positive story of co-operation, friendship and trust building that has gone on quietly in the background over the last year. You only need look at the reciprocal visits by British and Argentine senior Ministers to London and Buenos Ares, including by the Foreign Secretary, and the wider engagement in G20 issues to realise this is an absolute non-story.

It is right to record the news, and it is right to state what is going on in the world. But what is wrong is to report patently false news, that is completely made up, bears no resemblance to actual events and then convince the British public that something is going on that isn’t really happening. This sort of gutter journalism and lies is dangerous because it harms our relationship with a nation that the UK would dearly love to have a close effective friendship with. The British public deserve better than this.