Falklands

[KukriKhan]

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

[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.

[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.

[Fisherking]

I think we have two idiots competing for the Peace Prize again...

Britain is right but with friends like that...

It might be good if Obuma were to visit the Falklands and hear what the people say...

I wouldn’t blame Britain for making it warm for the US in foreign affaires after this one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, all this demonstrates what I have been saying for years. The US is a bully that treats its allies without respect and, in particular, expects British support without having to give anything in return.

I don't believe anything will come of this, because Britain knows the Argentine government will accept nothing less than a complete capitulation. Backing down is more likely to lead to another invasion than anything else. In the mean time, I suggest we begin withdrawing from Afganistan and innuring those boys to the cold by training in Norway.

[Subotan]

Well, all this demonstrates what I have been saying for years. The US is a bully that treats its allies without respect and, in particular, expects British support without having to give anything in return.

The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.

[Pannonian]

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.

Britain is also of significant value locally. There are numerous groups who have a grievance with us, so Brit-bashing can get quite a few votes. Or if that's too overt, just staying quiet while Third World alliances rev up their anti-colonial rhetoric will do just as well, as brown people, Irish people, Revolutionaries, and others puff out their chests and glory in our arse-kicking in the 18th century. I suppose all we can do is suck it up, and be proud of how we've managed to upset so many people.

[Myrddraal]

Does it matter who is of a 'greater value' globally? Isn't this a matter or principle?

[Furunculus]

Does it matter who is of a 'greater value' globally? Isn't this a matter or principle?

no, i expect a friend to be supportive, especially when the friend is arguably in the right.


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

[Pannonian]

Does it matter who is of a 'greater value' globally? Isn't this a matter or principle?

It's a matter of politics, as everything is. That's why Israel is untouchable, but Britain is dispensable. Criticising Israel ends political careers, but there are votes to be had in standing up to the evil British empire.

[Subotan]

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.

I wasn't disagreeing with what you said, I was just making an addition to it from the U.S.'s perspective.

Britain is also of significant value locally. There are numerous groups who have a grievance with us, so Brit-bashing can get quite a few votes. Or if that's too overt, just staying quiet while Third World alliances rev up their anti-colonial rhetoric will do just as well, as brown people, Irish people, Revolutionaries, and others puff out their chests and glory in our arse-kicking in the 18th century. I suppose all we can do is suck it up, and be proud of how we've managed to upset so many people.

The Kirchners have been taking notes from Mugabe

[Boohugh]

In the mean time, I suggest we begin withdrawing from Afganistan and innuring those boys to the cold by training in Norway.

Just so you know, the Navy and Marines carried out an exercise in Norway as recently as this January, no need to worry about them being unprepared for the climate in the Falklands

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a matter of politics, as everything is. That's why Israel is untouchable, but Britain is dispensable. Criticising Israel ends political careers, but there are votes to be had in standing up to the evil British empire.

Well, right now us pulling out of Afganistan would be disastrous for the US politically. The Coalition would likely collapse, and British troops once out would not go back.

[tibilicus]

The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

Yes, Argentina are also a strong US ally but the simple fact is America owes us big time. Not only because of Iraq but because of the current situation in Afghanistan. Obama wanted more coalition troops, we already make up the second largest party within the coalition and Brown vowed more when Obama asked for it. Not only that but we hold down some of the most hostile and dangerous regions within Afghanistan.

Quite frankly I wish we would be done with the stinking "special relationship". I'm not saying shun the US completely, just maybe take the same approach to them as our European neighbours, friendly but cautious. The current US administration is indecisive and is sending out mixed messages on what they actually want US foreign policy to be.

Whilst I disagree with certain aspects of the current European community, I would much prefer closer ties with Europe than with the US. The special part of the "special relationship" varies depending who is the current president of the USA, Europe doesn't change like that, generally it puts forward a consensus view shared by all it's member states, rarely changing regardless of which government is in power.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As regards the special relationship:

A rhinoceros and an oxpecker bird have a special relationship. The Rhinoceros gets its ears cleaned, is kept free of parasites, the oxpecker helps the rhino by removing the ticks who terrorize it.
The bird gets guaranteed safety in return. Nobody challenges a rhino to get a bird. The bird is guaranteed of his supply of food in this manner too, enjoys all sorts of perks.

This relationship is intimate, mutualistic, and both animals rely on it for their very health and ultimate safety.

It does not imply a relationship of recipocitry, nor of equality. The bird does not expect the rhino to follow it, never. The rhino decides, always. The bird travels along on its back, and enjoys the perks of its free ride.

[Myrddraal]

no, i expect a friend to be supportive, especially when the friend is arguably in the right.


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

No? That's my point exactly. It would be nice to think that what mattered was the principle of self determination. Unfortunately, it seems that what's more important to US politicians is posturing to gain votes. Then again, why should I single out US politicians...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As regards the special relationship:

A rhinoceros and an oxpecker bird have a special relationship. The Rhinoceros gets its ears cleaned, is kept free of parasites, the oxpecker helps the rhino by removing the ticks who terrorize it.
The bird gets guaranteed safety in return. Nobody challenges a rhino to get a bird. The bird is guaranteed of his supply of food in this manner too, enjoys all sorts of perks.

This relationship is intimate, mutualistic, and both animals rely on it for their very health and ultimate safety.

It does not imply a relationship of recipocitry, nor of equality. The bird does not expect the rhino to follow it, never. The rhino decides, always. The bird travels along on its back, and enjoys the perks of its free ride.

No, I think not. We have supported the US in two wars, we are their major military ally. They need to either support us to prevent a possible military action, or shop elsewhere for men to put in body bags; I would not be surprised if Britian currently fills more body bags as a retio in Afganistan than anyone else.

[Pannonian]

No, I think not. We have supported the US in two wars, we are their major military ally. They need to either support us to prevent a possible military action, or shop elsewhere for men to put in body bags; I would not be surprised if Britian currently fills more body bags as a retio in Afganistan than anyone else.

No fear. The ever valuable Israel will gladly take Britain's place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Both are, at least technically, allies of the USA.

For me, Britain has fought/bled with us, which counts for more in my book (but I'm a crusty conservative type).

For the US political left, the alliance with Britain is important, but not singularly.

For the US far left, the alliance with Britain is part of our imperialism AND Britain is standing in the way of a Truly United Europe.

Obama will, effectively, sit this one out. I don't know if he'll support the UK sub-rosa, as did Reagan.

Long term, most of the political left are convinced that Argentina is either a) in the right or b) willing to keep after the issue. Either way, they'd view the easiest long-term solution as Argentine control so that the issue goes away.

As I said earlier, our alliance with Britain is the single most important and trustworthy one we have. We should tend to it better.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Both are, at least technically, allies of the USA.

For me, Britain has fought/bled with us, which counts for more in my book (but I'm a crusty conservative type).

For the US political left, the alliance with Britain is important, but not singularly.

For the US far left, the alliance with Britain is part of our imperialism AND Britain is standing in the way of a Truly United Europe.

Obama will, effectively, sit this one out. I don't know if he'll support the UK sub-rosa, as did Reagan.

Long term, most of the political left are convinced that Argentina is either a) in the right or b) willing to keep after the issue. Either way, they'd view the easiest long-term solution as Argentine control so that the issue goes away.

Objection, your honour!


This conservative is trying to portray this as a US left intervention.

Not so:

A SECRET transcript of a telephone conversation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan has revealed how the former president tried to persuade the prime minister to stop the Falklands war as British troops were advancing on Port Stanley.

The document shows Thatcher was determined to deliver a crushing victory to avenge British losses. Her response to the peace initiative left the president stammering on the transatlantic hotline. At one stage a clearly heated Thatcher demanded to know what Reagan would do if Alaska had been invaded and the United States had suffered casualties recapturing it.

“I wonder if anyone over there realises, I'd like to ask them. Just supposing Alaska was invaded ...” asked Thatcher. “Now you've put all your people up there to retake it and someone suggested that a contact could coe in ... you wouldn't do it.”

“No, no, although, Margaret, I have to say I don't quite think Alaska is a similar situation” said Reagan.

“More or less so,” snapped Thatcher. Reagan feared the pending rout of Argentine forces in the south Atlantic would destabilise the region, damaging Washington's battle against left-wing regimes in Latin America.

But Thatcher, with barely concealed impatience, scotched the plan with a verbal explosion. Reagan could barely get a word in as the prime ministe gushed out a torrent of dismissal. “I didn't lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives, to leave quietly under a ceasefire without the Argentines withdrawing,” she said.

“Oh. Oh, Margaret, that is part of this, as I understand it ...” stammered Reagan, trying to outline a Brazilian peace plan. It called for a ceasefire, Argentine withdrawal and a third-party peace-keeping force in the disputed islands. “Ron, I'm not handing over ... I'm not handing over the island now,” insisted Thatcher.


http://www.margaretthatcher.org/comm...p?docid=110526

[KukriKhan]

“I didn't lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives, to leave quietly under a ceasefire without the Argentines withdrawing,” she said.

You won't believe this, but... I read something along those lines back in those days. NOT in the New York Times.

A sizable portion of the America that I know, supports the UK in this matter; if we come out on the side of Kosovar independence on the principle of local determination and sovereignty, then consistency - and true blood alliance - demands unquestioned support. By God, we should be playing "God Save The Queen" every morning when the colours are raised at The White House!! And tell the Argie's (politely): "Stuff it."

Triangulated Political intrigues are so 1960's. Our New Boss promised an end to such playground epics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kukri speaks for me as well (though I'd have them run up our colors and anthem first).

[Fisherking]

What should be important to the people of the US is the right of self determination by people world wide.

Most remember the Falklands and supported the UK. To them Argentina is a place far away where the government changes every week.

It would be a hard sell to the American Public. The attitude of the Democrat Government can be seen by watching the American Media though, and if they start supporting the Argentine claim watch out.

I am sure the Obama Administration sees big points to be made by being a peace maker. Most politicians would sell out their mother if the gains suited them. But have they judged political opinion in Britain correctly?

To me it would seem that the US needs Britain much more than the other way around.

A scathing response based on peoples self determination and human rights might get Washington’s attention. That would also be a soft spot with the US Press.

South America in general and Argentina in particular are not known for caring much at all for human right.

But the British Government and the British Press have to be smart enough to capitalize on this.

Taking the moral high ground at home is one thing. It has to be taken to the American Public.

Then you will see a quick dance as the Democrats show that they too agree with human rights and self determination.

Otherwise, Britain is a US pawn...



Louis, I found your hero.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Furunculus]

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.

i agree with everything you said below the statement above, but take issue with the quoted statement itself.

it won't 'win' and oil concession, it was already offered one, 50% i believe.
who cares about global opinion. *rhetorical question*

of course global opinion matters, but when;
Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.
why are we negotiating something that we have no intention of relinquishing?

it was endless useless negotiation from the FCO that caused the original war as much as the removal of the navy ship.

[Pannonian]

Louis, I found your hero.

Wow, look at the size of Hillary's packet.

[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.