Sir, While we are considering the pluses and minuses of the Falklands conflict, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the effect the result had on South America.

The collapse of the Galtieri Goverment not only removed a particularly obnoxious regime in Argentina, with all that that entailed, but also the threat it posed to her neighbours.

Despite the cups of tea Margaret Thatcher shared with General Pinochet, the help Chile gave Britain had little to do with support for our cause and everything to do with Chile’s fear of Argentina’s superior land forces. One immediate effect of Argentina’s defeat was the resolution of the Beagle Channel dispute which had plagued relations between the two countries since 1881.

In 1979 in Bolivia, Argentine military intelligence had had a big hand in assisting a military coup to thwart the result of a democratic election. The harsh military regime that followed brought the country to its knees economically, and was therefore relieved to be able to return it to democratic government in 1982 without the Argentine military being around to tell them that they couldn’t do it.

Paraguay was always in fear of Argentine intentions towards her. No one attending an important football match in Asunción when the recapture of South Georgia by the Royal Navy was announced on the loud speakers will forget the jubilation of the crowd.

None of this was the reason we went to war with Argentina. But we might claim some credit for the assistance it gave to the establishment of democracy in South America. After all, isn’t that what we are trying to do in the Middle East?

STANLEY DUNCAN, British Ambassador to Bolivia, 1981-85 Longworth, Oxon

Explore Letters

• Feedback