Falklands

[Viking]

Indigenous people...? You mean the animals or what?

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

[InsaneApache]

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

Living slap bang in what was known as the danegeld, I reckon about 1000 years.

I'll give you a clue. I have blond hair and blue eyes and a Norse/Germanic surname. So, am I English?

[Pannonian]

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

You need special clothing and a phonebooth.

[Beskar]

I'll give you a clue. I have blond hair and blue eyes and a Norse/Germanic surname. So, am I English?

Well, it is no wonder you got a Norse name when you are living in Jorvik

[InsaneApache]

Well, it is no wonder you got a Norse name when you are living in Jorvik

Not quite but near enough. I also use 'flat' vowels and use the Norse word for thankyou every day.

Ta -Tak.

[Furunculus]

Pft.

You'll notice the Britons here bite their tongue over my provocations.


That is because they don't have a Navy deserving of that name anymore and will be dependent on Paris' mighty fleet for maintaining their Empire. I will have my fun for my tax money. In fact, it is the best €8500000000000000 I've ever spend. Washington is not going to help them. It didn't last time, nor will it want to upset Latin America this time - what with the Latino vote etc.
Britain will come running to us. So looking forward to their grovelling. From behind my large mahogany desk, I shall threat the Briton with due reservedness and natural aloofness. I'll wear my dark suit I imported from Milan, its tone reflects well in my eyes, gives them a natural authority.

*dreams*

lol, reminds me of the joke about the early tornado fighter bombers that had a concrete weight in the nose instead of the blue-vixen radar that was too far behind in development to be installed.

led to the joke about Britain's secret war-winning technology dubbed the blue-circle radar.

seriously though, the main reason why the falklands is a desirable to Britain outside of the oil is because it is a strategic lauch point.

if you want to project power into the middle east you stage from Cyprus

if you want to project power into the south america you stage from the Falklands

if you want to project power into the south asia you stage from Diego Garcia

if you want to choke movement into the med you stage from Gibralter

as long as we have military installations on those parts of the world we are the strategic partner of choice outside of the US. France could make the same claim.

[Boohugh]

No, Fleet Air Arm got an upgrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Harrier

The F2 was ancient anyway, about 3 generations behind the GR9.

The Harrier GR7 and 9's primarily provide close air support to ground troops. They can carry a couple of Sidewinders but (again) to save money the powers that be decided not to put the Blue Vixen radars from the FA2's into the upgraded Harriers leaving them without a dedicated Air-to-Air radar and only relatively short ranged missiles. To say the GR9 is an upgrade over the FA2 in providing air cover for a naval task force is just completely off-target! In 2005, just before they were retired, the FA2's were kicking the butts of F15's in an exercise at Lakenheath, hardly a sign of an ancient, outdated aircraft. The GR9 could do an adequate job (they did ok against some Gripen's over Norway last summer) but the FA2 would still be far better.

The sad fact is that, due to purely financial reasons, Britain now lacks any significant naval air cover and, as the JSF is looking increasingly unlikely to appear anytime soon, the problem will continue on our brand new carriers. Luckily, we haven't needed any naval air cover recently and we need to hope that continues until they either finish the JSF or they decide to bin it and make a navalised Eurofighter instead (or just buy some F18's from the Yanks).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Harrier GR7 and 9's primarily provide close air support to ground troops. They can carry a couple of Sidewinders but (again) to save money the powers that be decided not to put the Blue Vixen radars from the FA2's into the upgraded Harriers leaving them without a dedicated Air-to-Air radar and only relatively short ranged missiles. To say the GR9 is an upgrade over the FA2 in providing air cover for a naval task force is just completely off-target! In 2005, just before they were retired, the FA2's were kicking the butts of F15's in an exercise at Lakenheath, hardly a sign of an ancient, outdated aircraft. The GR9 could do an adequate job (they did ok against some Gripen's over Norway last summer) but the FA2 would still be far better.

The sad fact is that, due to purely financial reasons, Britain now lacks any significant naval air cover and, as the JSF is looking increasingly unlikely to appear anytime soon, the problem will continue on our brand new carriers. Luckily, we haven't needed any naval air cover recently and we need to hope that continues until they either finish the JSF or they decide to bin it and make a navalised Eurofighter instead (or just buy some F18's from the Yanks).

GR7/9 can carry 6 AARRM. The lack of radar is an issue, but the increased range and loiter time count in it's favour. The Harrier has always been a dedicated-to-nothing fighter/bomber and the GR9's are perfectly adaquate for dealing with the Argantine Air Force. Not to mention, we have 45 of them, vs the 18 we had in 1982.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Would it be sensible to dangle greater integration with the EU over the Falklands?

A good question, actually.

To be fair, I do not expect any hostilities. This all bears the stamp of ritual posturising, combined with the eyes of both parties firmly fixed on the possibility of oil.

The UK's point of view does not automatically generate Europe's sympathy. A silly, obsolete game of 'let's play Empire' I think is the commonly held view. Spain, Hispanophone, trying to be the gateway between Europe and Latin America, plus itself having a similar dispute over Gibraltar, clearly sides against the UK. The overriding sentiment in the other countries is neither sympathy nor antipathy, but mostly an overwhelming sense of 'could not care any less about something than about some godforsaken Islands in the South Atlantic'.
In this sense, closer EU co-operation in defense, closer political integration, and an active European policy by Britain could help London to gain support for its position.

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

The UK receives EU support in two ways:

Relations with the EU
Under the 9th EDF, € 4,547 million (i.e. the 9th EDF territorial allocation of € 3 million + transfers from decommitted funds for an amount of € 0.047 million) and € 1.500 million from the MTR) is allocated to the Falkland Islands by means of a single programming document (SPD). The SPD identifies capacity building in the area of trade development with a view to encourage trade growth and increased value added in the Falklands Islands main production sectors of fisheries, agriculture and tourism as focal sectors.
Under the 10th EDF Falklands islands will receive 4.6 million euros.

Some €1.500 per Falklander per year in direct EU subsidies.
Combine this with the British expenditure on defense - 1000 men for 3000 inhabitants, and the Falklanders could well be Europe's most expensive citizens.

The other point, very important, and it would actually be interesting to see if it gets tested, is:

"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".

That's right. Since two months, all of Europe is obliged to come to Britain's assistance in the case of attack.

Whether the Falklands counts as 'territory', I am not entirely sure. My Google-fu is failing me. Does anybody know whether NATO's similar article five was invoked in 1982?


Edit: my fu is back:
NATO, article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

No NATO obligations then.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, given that France is the only other country with any Force-Projection I don't see that it matters. Unless we're going to stick German or Dutch troops on British/French transports.

[HoreTore]

Look it up HoreTore, 25% of the population are pre-colonial.

I suggest you look up the facts before you speak.

[Beskar]

Not quite but near enough. I also use 'flat' vowels and use the Norse word for thankyou every day.

Ta -Tak.

I saw it said "Grand Duchy of Yorkshire" so I had to comment. I like York, I would install the North England assembly/parliament there, if we ever get one. I am even saying that as an Lancastrian.

[InsaneApache]

I saw it said "Grand Duchy of Yorkshire" so I had to comment. I like York, I would install the North England assembly/parliament there, if we ever get one. I am even saying that as an Lancastrian.

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot ) in Cheshire.

[Beskar]

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot ) in Cheshire.

Ah, you are one of our brothers who have invaded the Jorvick infidels and their silly white rose. Red Rose forever!

[Furunculus]

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot ) in Cheshire.

i lived with the poofy southern lot for eight or more years. :p

That's right. Since two months, all of Europe is obliged to come to Britain's assistance in the case of attack.

lol, i wait with baited breath to discover if our glorious continental comrades will ever make good on that defence arrangement!

[Subotan]

I was just reminded of this
Giving up our claim to Chubut Province in return for recognition of the Falklands as British seems like a fair deal to me.

[KukriKhan]

Which would be that the USA would do nothing and the UK would be well within its right to slap Argentina should it invade. Monroe doctrine specifically limits its scope to asserting the right of (former) colonial territories to independence and the US' god given right to remove any such independence in whatever America; it does not include the right of former colonies to do a land grab with USA support.

Yeah, that's pretty much the policy interpretation Reagan used to explain our "hands off" approach last time. I vividly remember sitting on the tarmac at MacDill AFB for a tense 3 days back then; where we might go was clear, but who, exactly, we were confronting... not so much, 'til Ronnie & Maggie ironed it out and we stood-down.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-i...s-oil-dispute/

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

Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan’s support for Britain in 1982 “irked a lot of people in Latin America”.

The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region”, he said.

Latin America has awoken. a lot of this sabbre-ratlling is to do with new economic might, shifting demographic balances, and the need for Latin America to express newfound confidence and solidarity at last week's Latin american summit. Always good to have a foreign scapegoat or enemy to emphasise internal closed ranks.

Not to be mean or anything, but the very surname of the Brookings Intitution analyst is a hint to the other reason why the US does not back Britain this time round. The world changes.

[Boohugh]

If anything did happen, the US would almost certainly do what it did last time - no official support for the UK and no signs of cooperation, but it would actually provide significant intelligence support and also some subtle logistical support (easing the passage of ammunition/missile purchases, etc).

[Furunculus]

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.

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

Latin America has awoken. a lot of this sabbre-ratlling is to do with new economic might, shifting demographic balances, and the need for Latin America to express newfound confidence and solidarity at last week's Latin american summit. Always good to have a foreign scapegoat or enemy to emphasise internal closed ranks.

Not to be mean or anything, but the very surname of the Brookings Intitution analyst is a hint to the other reason why the US does not back Britain this time round. The world changes.

that is because saint obama wants a EUropean superstate to prop up a declining american hegemony in the 21st century.

to achieve this he needs a europe that is powerful (i.e. Britain is in it), and anglophile (i.e. Britain is in it).

thus saint obama needs to 'wean' the UK of its US dependancy, because like it or not 21st europe has become a strategic backwater so having the UK as its unsinkable aircraft-carrier off europe is no longer the advantage it once was, we can be of more use to the yanks as a leading light in a federal europe.


but here's the thing Louise*, just because saint obama would have it thus does not mean that Britain should roll over and 'take' it thus. saint obama will be gone one day, and the US will once again realise that an ally that can project power (presuming we still can post May 2010) is an invaluable thing.

the fact that america wants something inimical to the soveriegnistas of Britain is not the cause of a crisis, it's realpolitic, but at the end of the day Britain is still going to have more in common with the anglosphere than it ever will with old-europe. our problems are not yours**.


* post done in a Scrubs style Dr. Cox rant (no offence intended)
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2064955
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2065209
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2065918

[Louis VI the Fat]

If anything did happen, the US would almost certainly do what it did last time - no official support for the UK and no signs of cooperation, but it would actually provide significant intelligence support and also some subtle logistical support (easing the passage of ammunition/missile purchases, etc).

Probably, sure.

But I don't think any war will be coming any time soon. Argentina has embarked on a diplomatic Bltizkrieg, not a military one.

Even as we speak, the Argentine foreign minister is adressing the UN, seeking 'mediated negotiation'. Or, seeks support for diplomatic pressure on Britain. This has been Britain's message to the US yesterday: no mediated negotiation from Washingtonnor support from Washington for this. What America's stance is, today, I do not know. I expect the US will not support mediated negation. Will be fun to find out though. The US is in a difficult position, trying to maintain neutrality.

Maybe America's neutrality/support can be ensured if Britain politely indicates it can't afford both an increase in troops in the Falklands and the maintainance of the second largest force in Afghanistan?

[TinCow]

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians. Since the UK is perfectly capable of hanlding the situation on their own, there's no point in us barging into the situation. I guarantee you that if for some reason Argentina captured the islands and the UK was unable to get them back, the US would begin actively aiding the UK.

[Boohugh]

But I don't think any war will ne coming any time soon. Argentina has embarked on a diplomatic Bltizkrieg, not a military one.

Even as we speak, the Argentine foreign minister is adressing the UN, seeking 'mediated negotiation'.

I agree that military conflict is pretty unlikely and almost certainly wouldn't happen in the short term at least. It's worth noting, however, that Argentina and the UK were engaged in 'mediated negotiations' at the UN for a few years prior to outbreak of hostilities in 1982 too and look how that ended for the Argies!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians.

Yes it does. The UK does need help. Militarily, no. But there probably won't be a war to begin with.

Diplomatically, yes. Today, Argentina appealed to the UN for mediated negotiation and immediate cessation of the British drilling for oil and gas that started this week. This is the bone of contentment. The US could, arguably, should, have issued the statement, public or through diplomatic channels, yesterday that the US will not support this.
That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

We've always been of two minds on this one. The USA treasures the Monroe Doctrine (even though our efforts to 'enforce' it were mixed), so there's some "Europe shouldn't mess with the New World" sentiment at play. At the same time, its a God-awful ways away from us, we have no direct interest (at least since we stopped whaling), and since WW2 we've had the special relationship. Reagan's solution was to be "neutral" (but not yelp at the UK using satellite info and other NATO resources). Obama wants to take a more pro Latin America stance, but can't afford to screw up the alliance too badly. He'll do the same thing, stay neutral. Obama's neutral is likely to be a little quieter and maybe a hint more pro-Argentina, but that's about it.

[TinCow]

That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

Well, I certainly am not privy to the decision-making process, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that the Obama administration would ever actually provide diplomatic support to Argentina on this issue. Not only is the US-UK alliance very strong (even amongst us pinko-liberals), as has been noted above the Falkland Islanders want to be part of Britain. The situation might be different if they wanted to join Argentina or be independent, but as it stands I just cannot conceive of any American administration backing Argentinian sovereignty over the islands. At the moment, the neutral line is the best for our interests because it doesn't tick off our southern neighbors and the US-UK alliance is strong enough to withstand neutrality on this issue. If the situation changed such that the US had to make a choice (either diplomatically or militarily) between Argentina and the UK, there's really no question of which way it would go. Not only are the UK our strongest allies, international law is strongly on their side. That said, I'm a huge anglophile and I'm probably biased; I'm very pro-Obama, but that would change overnight if he actively backed Argentina on this issue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians. Since the UK is perfectly capable of hanlding the situation on their own, there's no point in us barging into the situation. I guarantee you that if for some reason Argentina captured the islands and the UK was unable to get them back, the US would begin actively aiding the UK.

I dissagree. I struggle to remember a time the US has supported Britain without it's own interests being directly threatened. Reagan could (and perhaps should) have sent a Carrier Group as soon as the Argantine Junta invaded. This would have massively reduced the loss of life and probably the laying of mines. That he didn't is just one of many examples of Washington being unwilling to decisively intervene on the behalf of it's most faithful ally.

Obama deserves far more censure given Britain's support of two on-going American Imperial wars (rumour has it 22 Regiment is still in both countries doing the dirty).

[Louis VI the Fat]

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)

The higher profile the Argentine government has recently managed to give the Falklands/Malvinas dispute reflects the greater support Buenos Aires has over the issue these days.
Following backing for Argentina's claim by the Rio Group of Latin American countries, the matter is being raised by Argentina's foreign minister with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Of course, the background is completely different today, compared with 1982 when the war over the islands took place.
There has been a democratic revolution across South America and the old antagonisms (especially between Argentina and Chile, which supported Britain in 1982) have died down.

Grandstanding
Despite dismissing it as another round of grandstanding that will lead nowhere, the British government is having to work harder than usual diplomatically to justify its refusal to discuss sovereignty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8534901.stm

It is highly likely that the Falklands dispute will gain considerable momentum in the coming weeks, and the possibility of another military confrontation between Britain and Argentina, as well as Venezuela, cannot be ruled out. Britain has rightly warned Argentina that the future of the Falklands is non-negotiable, and that the islands will be defended against any attempts to blockade them.

If the Obama administration does not take a clear position in support of London, the Anglo-American Special Relationship will be significantly damaged. It is imperative that in the coming days the White House issues an unequivocal statement backing UK sovereignty over the Falklands in the face of Argentinian bullying, and sends a clear signal that it stands united with Great Britain.

President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cannot remain neutral and sit on the fence over an issue of vital national interest to the United Kingdom. While British and American soldiers fight side by side on the battlefields of Afghanistan, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with the British people as they once again confront Argentine aggression and defend their own kith and kin.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/

~~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.

[Subotan]

An English language Argentinian Newspaper that may be of interest
http://www.buenosairesherald.com

*****

And who knows? Another war might kill 1,000 people, but it may save Gordon Brown's career

[Aemilius Paulus]

And who knows? Another war might kill 1,000 people, but it may save Gordon Brown's career

Lulz, it saved Thatcher, but you would think a Tory is more suited for war than the Labour...