Letters: May 10, 1982

• Share

Falklands Furor

To the Editors:

By invading the Falkland Islands [April 19], Argentina broke international law. Britain is only defending the sovereignty of her own territory, and should take whatever means necessary to protect what rightfully belongs to her.

António R. Lopes Scituate, Mass.

The seizure of the Falkland Islands by Argentina is an act that cannot be justified by any reasoning. Nevertheless, where was Britain's concern for self-determination when it took the Falklands from Argentina almost 150 years, ago? Great Britain's current reaction is more a case of sour grapes and wounded pride than any genuine desire to right a terrible wrong. The sun set on the British Empire a long time ago. History has long recognized that fact. The British should also.

Philip Naff Fort Sheridan, Ill.

It has been the Falkland Islands' good fortune to have lived under British rule for 150 years. It is a pity that all South America has not had the same fate. In spite of being a Latin American, I recognize what the British have given to the world: freedom, life under law and respect for the individual. These rights must be defended even if it takes warships to do it.

Vicente Echerri New York City

As you say in your article about the history of the Falklands, "The Argentines renewed their protests—regularly and in vain—for the next century and a half." So Argentina really didn't take the islands precipitately, did it?

Nelly Casati Orinda, Calif.

Since the anticipated oil wealth of the Falkland Islands area is a prime concern of Great Britain and Argentina, why don't the two countries agree to share it fifty-fifty? Then let the islands' inhabitants vote on which country they want to be associated with. The loser would be compensated with 5% to 10% more of the oil money.

Robert S. Alvarez San Francisco

What next? France invading Louisiana? Mexico wanting Texas returned? Or maybe a Spanish flag flying over the Florida Keys?

James Orme Key Largo, Fla.

World's Destiny

Strobe Talbott's review of Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth [April 19] is penetrating and evenhanded. However, Schell's argument is not that we can easily or quickly proceed to a world government; rather, it is that such a nonviolent world is the only sure way of avoiding an eventual nuclear holocaust. To make that statement is not "dreamlike and fantastic." On the contrary, as Schell points out, to imagine that we can rid the world of nuclear weapons in the present political order is the ultimate naiveté.

Ted Shepherd Cambridge, Mass.

The review misses the point. Nuclear war is no longer a political issue but a moral question on which world survival depends. In light of this, our attitudes and our systems of government must change. Even if we were to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons but kept our attitudes, we would create new ways to destroy ourselves in our quest for security.

Dorothie L. Hellman Stanford, Calif.

English Spoken Here