provided us real assistance, such as Senegal, would be all the
more noticeable.
Conclusion
8.
I believe we should go for a restricted grouping of
those countries which gave us most support. The most
distinguishable group is that which applied full economic
sanctions. These were the European Community, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, Norway and the United States. Ireland and Italy both ceased to apply the EC sanctions after one month. But while Italy's action was a matter of political necessity and the government continued to offer strong support, Ireland's action was a matter of policy and the Irish subsequently acted most unhelpfully at the United Nations. Italy should be
invited, Ireland not. We pressed Japan strongly to apply economic sanctions, but all they agreed to do was to issue guidance that their firms should not profit by the EC sanctions. I do not think that they are entitled to figure among the countries which applied full sanctions. It would, on the other hand, seem entirely appropriate to invite the Nepalese Ambassador.
9.
Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone and Portugal gave vital practical help to the Task Force through the provision of staging and refuelling facilities for aircraft and ships to and from Ascension. The three African countries might, however, be reluctant to be singled out from the Third World in being invited to the Service; besides, some other Third World countries such as Kenya, Bangladesh and Guyana were no less outspoken in their support of Britain but their geographical location meant that we did not need to ask for their practical help in the same way. On balance, I think that we ought to exclude them all.
10.
Switzerland is a special case; her public silence stemmed from a desire not to undermine her ability to protect UK interests in Argentina effectively, which she has done. The Swiss Ambassador should be invited.
- 3
/11.