Falklands

[Pannonian]

Policy, but opposition to France should have been preferable. France was the other overseas power, and therefore Britain's main Imperial rival. Germany was interested in dominating the Continent which was something of relatively little interest to Britain. Also, Germany was a monarchy closely tied to Britain whilst France was a politically volatile and unstable historical enemy which was a Republic at the time, peddling such rot as Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

Wilhelm was the cousin whom everyone disliked. He had a personal jealousy of Britain's overseas dominance, and wished to build up German naval strength. Unlike the Anglo-French rivalry, which was largely stable, Germany was an unpredictable player. With Wilhelm's antagonism towards everyone else, this pushed Britain towards France, aided by the francophilism of Edward VII. In Diplomacy terms, Germany was the unpredictable player whom no-one trusted, for he played without regard for logic or strategic understanding.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wilhelm was the cousin whom everyone disliked. He had a personal jealousy of Britain's overseas dominance, and wished to build up German naval strength. Unlike the Anglo-French rivalry, which was largely stable, Germany was an unpredictable player. With Wilhelm's antagonism towards everyone else, this pushed Britain towards France, aided by the francophilism of Edward VII. In Diplomacy terms, Germany was the unpredictable player whom no-one trusted, for he played without regard for logic or strategic understanding.

Quite correct. I have always wondered how the world would have turned had Germany not been so avid at buildling its fleet up to levels that threatened the UK. I don't think the entente cordiale would have materialized (certainly not so explicitly) and I think there would have been little coordination with the French. Had that been true, then the British would have intervened when Germany hit Beligium, but would likely have done so in Antwerp, helping to make it a fortified camp along with the Belgians. But there would have been nobody at Mons Canal who wasn't working for the Kaiser. Given the disaster France suffered at the battle of the Frontiers, would France have had the time to ready a riposte to Von Kluck or would Schlieffen have been vindicated.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meanwhile in the South Atlantic...


Argentina is winning, is still gaining ground. The sabre-rattling is having the desired result.

The British oil rigs will arrive together with the military. This creates the image, the perception, which Argentina seeks: that of a militaristic Britain, of aggressive plunder, that of brutal neo-colonialism. 'And aren't the British doing the same in Iraq?', is this not the same old 'Anglo plundering tof he resources of the weak by massive military force'.

Meanwhile, a Spanish ship has just left to search and drill for oil, in Argentinean waters. Peacefully. Without military accompany. Will it be chased away by force? Will the 'hypocritical British' apply 'double standards'?

There will be the image of Britain as the aggressor, and of Argentina as the reasonable party. Because Argentina is merely applying diplomacy, and Britain is forced to resort to flex its muscles, to prepare its military, in response to Argentinean provocations.

Argentina can push this a whole lot further yet. War is not the goal, not an option. Argentina is merely trying to provoke Britain, to create an image of perceived British aggression and hostile posturising. While peaceful Argentina is meanwhile asking the world to mediate, is only using civilized diplomatic means. Either Britain doesn't agree with talks, which makes it look like a bully, applying only brute force. Or Britain will negotiate. Which is Argentina's goal in the first place.





Edit: and in ninety year's time, people will claim that Argentina never lost the first Falklands war in the first place because the British never managed to invade Argentina proper, merely succeeded in driving them out of the Falklands.
This the duplicitous Brits followed up with a disastrous peace. Which they should've known was a humiliation to the militaristic Junker...erm, Junta mind.
The sneaky subsequent annexation by Britain of the Falklands in 1982 then caused economic hardship in Argentina, which explains why they tried again in 2010. A renewed conflict in which began because the stubborn, arrogant British refused to negotiate, refused to mitigate the duplicitous treaty of 1982 which left Argentina nothing.

Oh! The power of perception!

[KukriKhan]

Heh, Mon Ami... you are my favorite fellow conspiracy-theorist *slash* strategist. :)

[Louis VI the Fat]

conspiracy-theorist strategist. :)

Argentina has won this round in South America. And it has won it in Washington.

Not since a certain cigar has a Clinton shoved something up someplace this deep as Hillary/Obama did:

Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup yesterday in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.

Her intervention defied Britain’s longstanding position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands’ 3,000 inhabitants asked for them. It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Britain insisted there was no need for mediation as long as the islanders wanted to remain British. “We don’t think that’s necessary,” a Downing Street spokesman said.

What began as a last-minute change to Mrs Clinton’s itinerary on her five-day sweep through Latin America has snowballed into a major diplomatic incident that has emboldened Argentina and caught the US largely un- awares. It could force Britain to reassess the level of international support for its efforts to develop a hydrocarbon industry in the Falklands basin.

When Mrs Clinton left Washington at the weekend she was scheduled to spend just ten minutes with Mrs Kirchner on the fringes of the inauguration of the new Uruguayan President in Montevideo. Argentina was not on her itinerary. The Argentine leadership lobbied hard for more respectful treatment and was rewarded with one of the most closely watched American visits since President Bush attended a summit in Buenos Aires in 2005.

The timing, days after Argentina secured unanimous backing from South American leaders for its demand for talks on the Falklands, meant that Mrs Clinton’s words were bound to be studied for any sign of a shift from America’s traditional stance on the islands — which has been to stay out of the argument over sovereignty but offer Britain vital logistical support.

Mrs Clinton’s meeting with the flamboyant but vulnerable Argentine leader ended amid smiles and laughter. She gave no sign of backing the British position on negotiations, saying instead: “We would like to see Argentina and the UK sit down and resolve the issues between them in a peaceful and productive way. We want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. We cannot make either one do so. We think it is the right way to proceed, so we will be saying this publicly.”

US officials said privately that British fears of being abandoned by the US over the Falklands were wildly overblown, but any hope on the part of the Administration of staying on the sidelines looked forlorn yesterday.

Héctor Timerman, the Argentine Ambassador to the US, said he had never seen “such substantial support” from Washington for his country’s claim. Mrs Clinton had not only offered to mediate but had also signalled that talks should be in line with existing UN resolutions, he insisted, referring to non-binding UN General Assembly resolutions from the 1970s that urge both sides to negotiate.
Ruperto Godoy, the official Argentine government spokesman on the islands, said the new pressure from Mrs Clinton was “very significant, very important” and would help Buenos Aires to force Britain to the negotiating table.

In the Falklands, reaction to the meeting ranged from dismay to fury. “It’s outrageous after all the support we have given the United States,” said Hattie Kilmartin, a sheepfarmer’s wife. “They are not looking at the people who are actually living here and what they want, and it’s crazy that they are even contemplating going against us.”

[Furunculus]

Louis, Louis, what has it actually won?

Nothing of any substance.

The fact that Brits are peeved is because we expect the support of our friends, not because the lack of support has any consequence in an issue where:

Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And, according to Louis, none of that really matters to the Argetines if you "blink" enough to get them a piece of that nice black "pie." I do love greed as a point of analysis, it's so refreshingly human a quality.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, Louis, what has it actually won?

Nothing of any substance.

The fact that Brits are peeved is because we expect the support of our friends, not because the lack of support has any consequence in an issue where:

Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.

Argentina will win one of two things:
- shared concession and exploration rights
- a shift in global opinion and policy towards the Argentinian goal: an acknowledgement that there ought to be negotiations over the Falklands.


It is all show. You are quite right not to go full Chubby Checker with your knickers. The shift in Washington is very slight.


One could analyse this as Britain taking one for a friend. The US has six hundred million southern neighbours to deal with. It has internal political realities. There is the Monroe doctrine. Should the US sacrifice these for what is of little consequence to Britain? (As of yet...)

Washington isn't won over until it supports negotiations, rather than 'encourage' them. Clinton did what American diplomacy had been forced to do: end the silence, sit down with Kirchner.
Hillary - bless her - was so politically clever to publicly state beforehand 'ten minutes' with Kirchner, then make it a two hour talk. This all portrays 'yes, we listen, we hear you, we understand your point - but it is not our dispute to resolve'. Good show. She gave Kirchner something to work with. Argentina can tout this around as a major diplomatic coup, whereas in reality it is of only slight consequence.

Lord knows, it might ease the tension, function as a pressure valve for the rising sentiment in Argentina, which has now found a way out.
Then again, Washington is now on record as supporting the Argentinean demand of negotiations over the Falklands - always the goal of Buenos Aires. The shift, if slight, is very real. It is as of today much more difficult for Britain to simply refuse negotiations.



The point also remains that Washington could do for Britain what all of Europe* has done: tell Buenos Aires just where to stick it, and recognise the Falklands as British territory.
*Spain is a more complex story.


Just to irritate you, (you know I have to ) the EU not kowtowing to Argentinean demands, and explicitly adopting in the Treaty of Lisbon that the Falklands are British territory:

Argentina has voiced outrage at the inclusion of the Falkland Islands as British territory in the draft EU constitution.
"We are perturbed, we reject this thoroughly, but it is not a new issue and we will have to fight about it for years to come," said foreign minister, Rafael Bielsa.

Argentina has complained to Brussels and ordered its ambassadors in the 25 EU capitals to issue protests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ink-to-EU.html

Bless the Irish' 'Yes' to Lisbon a few months ago.

[Furunculus]

Argentina is winning, is still gaining ground. The sabre-rattling is having the desired result.
The British oil rigs will arrive together with the military. This creates the image, the perception, which Argentina seeks: that of a militaristic Britain, of aggressive plunder, that of brutal neo-colonialism. 'And aren't the British doing the same in Iraq?', is this not the same old 'Anglo plundering tof he resources of the weak by massive military force'.

Meanwhile, a Spanish ship has just left to search and drill for oil, in Argentinean waters. Peacefully. Without military accompany. Will it be chased away by force? Will the 'hypocritical British' apply 'double standards'?

they are only winning if Britain decides to give a damn what argentina or south america thinks. it would be British weakness that allowed negotiations on the status of the Falklands, nothing else.

if they drill in argentinian waters then of course they will be left alone, but if they get any bright ideas about drilling in Falklands territorial waters.............. that will be another matter.

[The Wizard]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago. This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.

[Furunculus]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago.

This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.

it has been mentioned

for a rought idea:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...United-Kingdom
http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...y_id=Argentina

[The Wizard]

I'd imagine it has more to do with their regional position than their position worldwide, as far as Argentina is concerned.

[Pannonian]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago. This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

[KukriKhan]

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

I don't know whether to LOL or cry, over that.

[Pannonian]

I don't know whether to LOL or cry, over that.

It's true though. Have a look at Wizard's riposte to Lemur's question of what Israel gives to the US in return for the billions in aid, then have a look at his weighing of Britain and Argentina in a matter that doesn't cost the US a cent. The political reality is that Israel and other vocal lobbies get massive amounts of money and cannot be questioned, but Britain fits into whatever policy the US government currently favours, without complaint, and we spend billions for this privilege.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

1. Be careful there pan-man, choking on your own vitriolic sarcasm is a harsh way to go.

2. For the vast majority here, you are preaching to the choir. The BR crowd has a few ardent Israel supporters....but only a few. The rest are more nuanced in their support, with a significant minority actively opposing pretty much everything Israel is/does/stands for.

3. I, for one, value all three alliances, but would rank-order their importance (and my attitudes thereunto) differently than the current crop of politicos. I suspect both I and Kukri and a raft of others would agree that the Special Relationship has been taken for granted by comparison.

[Subotan]

I remember hearing it being put that the USA has lots of special relationships. It has one with Japan, one with South Korea, one with Turkey, one with Pakistan, one with Israel, one with Mexico etc. It just suits British politicians seeking to win prestige at home, and American politicians who want British boots on the ground to ramble on about the Anglo-American special relationship, as if Britain was the only ally the USA had.