The sorry spectacle of a British serviceman and woman selling “their stories” to the highest bidder leaves a bitter taste. One can, and should, have sympathy for their recent ordeal. They are, however, members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, and consequently, should behave in a way that respects the traditions of the army, air force and navy. The front-page of The Sun today is cheap, and certainly does not help Britain maintain the moral high ground in the eyes of the world.

One must remember that the former captives are professional soldiers, not volunteers, whose training and salaries have been, and are, paid for by the taxpayer. No one made them choose their profession, a job that I am sure they knew had inherent risks. To be profiteering from active service in the defence of this country is wrong. Where have the military values of personal discipline, honour and tradition gone?

Some commentators are suggesting that the captives’ disclosures are all part of the media war with the Iranian regime. I hope not. Those in the MOD who decided to allow the former captives to talk to the media should be subjected to heavy criticism. Not only for bringing our proud armed forces into disrepute, but for also portraying Britain in such a poor light. Until today, I am sure that most people around the world believed our story, and respected our servicemen for the manner in which they had behaved under significant duress.

The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, not a man of impressive stature, should be asked which member(s) of the government authorised this media approach. New Labour has a long track-record of media manipulation. Getting the ‘right’ story out ‘front and centre’ has always appeared more important to this government than protecting the hard-fought, outstanding, international reputation of our armed forces. Shame on those involved in this decision who thought that British soldiers selling ther stories to the tabloids was an appropriate way for them to behave.

It would appear that this Labour government is happy to continue damaging our international reputation. The unfortunate headlines from today’s papers will have undermined our standing in the whole Iran affair. We must, I feel, endeavour to maintain a prinicipled stand against the Iranian regime. For it is the regime that is the problem, not the Iranian people. It will be ideas and principles that will win over the quiet majority in Iran, not weapons and media manipulation.

In the next week or two this House, the nation and the Right Honourable Lady herself will learn of what metal she is made – Enoch Powell

Following on from yesterday’s post, today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Emergency Debate on the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The BBC Parliament channel repeated the three hour debate last Sunday evening. For those of us who are never happier than when wearing our political anoraks, it made for an interesting evening’s viewing.

The debate took place unusually on a Saturday morning. Unsurprisingly, it was very well attended by both sides of the House. Listening to the contributions reminded me of the importance of Parliament. It was undeniably a time of confusion and anger, and the Commons served to allow those concerned Members to vent their disgust at the invasion, their frustration about apparent government inaction in the weeks preceding, and most importantly, to express the views of the nation at large.

There were many distinguished speeches from the floor. The debate was begun by the Prime Minister, to which Michael Foot responded admirably – Foot had been an ardent supporter of those in the 1930s who had called for the end of the appeasement of Hitler. Memorably, Enoch Powell, then an Ulster Unionist, cleverly challenged Mrs Thatcher on her apparent pleasure at receiving her newly bestowed sobriquet, ‘The Iron Lady’ (quote above), in the light of events likely to follow. Edward du Cann, the then MP for Taunton, in response to Michael Foot’s speech, summed up the general feeling of the House most eloquently:

There are times in the affairs of our nation when the House should speak with a single, united voice. This is just such a time. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for us all. He did this nation a service when, in clear and unmistakable terms, he condemned what he called this brutal aggression and when he affirmed the rights of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own destiny.

Listening to the debate reminded me of the importance of Parliament during times of national distress. In the light of recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kenneth Clarke was right to recently call for the House of Commons to be formally included in the decision-making process of this country going to war. On April 3rd 1982, the Commons successfully and strongly debated the events preceding the invasion at the same time as offering its full support for the government’s decision to send a task force to the South Atlantic. Future legislation regards the role of Parliament at such times should recall that historically, the elected representatives of this country, of whatever political colour, have displayed admirable qualities when determining the use of our armed forces in the defence of this nation. We would do well to remember that.

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands should remind us all of the importance of principle in foreign affairs. Margaret Thatcher’s brave decision to send a task force to reclaim the islands was based upon the principles that unprovoked military aggression should not be rewarded and that the British islanders had a right to self-determination. The invasion was an illegal act and hence warranted a forceful response. Despite being given a ’50/50′ chance of the task force’s success by her military commanders, and the expression of some doubts both within and without government, the then Prime Minister stood firmly, arguing the case to stand up to the intimidation of the Argentine military junta. She was proven to be right.

The loss of 255 British lives was a high cost to pay to defend Britons on the other side of the world, however, I truly believe that they died for a cause worth defending. Britain should never shirk from defending its people, its territory and its interests. To do so, would be to invite another conflict similar to that which we witnessed in 1982.

The Iranian abduction of 15 British Navy personnel last week has brought into sharp focus the daily dangers that our servicemen and women are undergoing by protecting British interests around the world. We ask so much of our armed forces and in return we spend so relatively little. Indeed, it is that apparent lack of commitment to defence spending that may have contributed to Iran’s flagrant actions last week, in that we may very well have appeared weak.

Since the taking of the 15 servicemen (including one woman), the British government has reacted with a calm firmness. So far, this approach does not appear to be bearing fruit. Today, there are further reports that the abducted Britons will be charged with espionage for having taken “an aggressive action” by “invading Iranian waters”. The ultimate penalty for this charge if convicted would be death. Now, I do not suspect that this will be the outcome, however, there is a sense that Britain alone has few options to pursue in securing the safe release of its service personnel. This state of affairs should concern us all.

I am not advocating a military solution to this situation. I am, however, suggesting that if Britain wants to continue wielding military and diplomatic strength around the world, it needs to dramatically increase its spending on conventional forces. Britain spends proportionately less of its wealth on defence than Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. Defence spending as a percentage of the UK’s gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930. Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of our GDP (£32 billion) was spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88. Our spending as a proportion of national wealth is just over half that of the USA. And this apparent lower level of funding is despite the fact that the present Labour government has presided over a big increase in operational commitments: Operation Desert Fox to destroy Saddam Hussein’s capability to produce weapons of mass destruction (1998), Kosovo (1999 – ), Sierra Leone (2000 – ), Afghanistan (2001 -) and Operation Telic in Iraq (2003 – ). The Conservative Party’s Defence Team has calculated that troop numbers have fallen from 101,360 full-time personnel in 1997 to 99,460 in 2007, while the Royal Air Force has seen offensive squadrons fall from 16 to 11, and the Navy has lost eight destroyers and six frigates. This should not be politically acceptable.

This government has been quick to place our forces in action. I would have initially supported each of the campaigns listed above, however, my support would have been qualified on the basis of a genuine government commitment to proper investment in our armed forces. Recent history teaches us that we have always compromised our defence in times of peace only to find ourselves overwhelmed by events when a war looms. Let us hope that this on-going Iranian dispute ends peacefully. However, what if it does not?