Falklands

[tibilicus]

In actual war, I think Washington will back the UK.

But in diplomacy? In the the tussle over who gets to enjoy the spoils of the sea?


The US policy has not simply been one of neutrality, but of deafening silence in this past week. Meanwhile, British flags are being burned on the streets of Buenos Aires. Brazil has urged Britain to negotiate. The entire Rio Group declared its support for Argentina on Monday. Argentina's foreign minister had talks with the UN secretary General today, pressing Ban ki-moon to intervene, to urge the UK to negotiate.

Is silence 'neutral', under these circumstances? If the world has changed, is the same US policy still viable? What if the secutiry council will be forced to a resolution?
(Of course, if I were Obama, I'd be silent about it all too for now)

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

In other news, the new EU 'foreign minister', the very British Baroness Ashton, has been spotted in a photograph of....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...nuclear disarmament protesters in 1982, demanding that Thatcher repeals the British Naval Task Force she just dispatched to the Falklands.

Irrelevant.

They can scream and cry to the UN all they want and get all those really great allies like Venezuela to back them, nothing will happen.

Their claim to the Falklands and the area surrounding it simply doesn't hold up under international law. China owns Tibet and parts of Kashmir, Chinas claim to these areas is far weaker than Britain's claim to the Falklands yet do you think they're ever going to give these areas up? Do you think there's going to be any real pressure ever put on them to give up these areas? The answer is no.

Argentina need to go cry some where else.