Obama bails on UK in Falklands dispute
This is not a smart move by the Obama administration. We are not going to buy any love from the current regime in Argentina by selling out the Brits. How many troops has Argentina sent to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda and the Taliban? They currently have a government put into office with the support of Chavez's money. They just joined a group that excludes the US and Canada. They have been abusing their own farmers with confiscatory taxes. Their claim to sovereignty is dubious at best.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.
Argentina appealed to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, last night to intervene in the dispute, a move Britain adamantly opposes.
“The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening,” Jorge Taiana, the Argentine Foreign Minister, said after meeting Mr Ban in New York.
“We have asked the Secretary-General, within the framework of his good offices, to stress to Britain the need to abstain from further unilateral acts.”
A top UN aide acknowledged, however, that Mr Ban would not be able to mediate because of Britain’s opposition.
Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain’s Ambassador to the UN, said: “As British ministers have made clear, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands . . . We are also clear that the Falkland Islands Government is entitled to develop a hydrocarbons industry within its waters, and we support this legitimate business in Falklands’ territory.”
Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.
“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”
...
I wonder what would have happened if this would have been going on during Bush's term? The longer that Obama is in office, the weaker he appears to be. It wouldn't surprise me if he only see one term in office before being voted out. I also thought that the forming of a pan American group that excluded the US and Canada combined with Hugo Chavez being such a vocal supporter of the Argentinian claim would have strengthened US support of the British position.
ReplyDeleteProbably the Obama administration has a bigger fish to fry...Argentina has been seen as too much bark and no bite, and here the situation is that, beyond international reclamations, they can't do a lot.
ReplyDeleteThere was in 1995 an agreement between Argentina and the UK to exploit the oil, canceled by the Argentine government, so now they have even less resources...
Better to put the effort where it's needed, in Afghanistan and Iran, etc. than in a small conflict like this.
www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum
Dudes, stop fretting. The US won't support Argentina's claim over the Falklands. When push comes to shove they'll side with the UK.
ReplyDeleteWe are not going to buy any love from the current regime in Argentina by selling out the Brits.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter. The Argentinian claim isn't as "dubious" as you suggest. And the US wasn't as supportive of the UK in 1982 as your source suggests. As for "selling out the Brits" - didn't the Brits release a terrorist who murdered hundreds of Americans in exchange for an oil deal with Libya, just last year? They sold us out but good. They are lucky that Obama is remaining neutral... they are unworthy of US support. And if that means they withdraw their troops from Afghanistan, so be it. We can withdraw our troops from Afghanistan too, as far as I'm concerned.
Craig: Err... We need those troops to stay in Afghanistan. We're the one that's driving this conflict - even though NATO and other countries are greatly contributing - and are obligated to stay and to fix this mess or we'll face even more criticism. Should NATO members or other allies drop their troop level from the action, then we would have to step up and fill the gap with our own troops. A drop in troop will also make us lose support, which, in turn, will damage the legitimacy of the war, and it'll just increase the burden on our back. It's not to say we can't do it unitarily, but it's definitely not a favorable decision right now.
ReplyDeleteCraig,
ReplyDeleteAs for the Libyan crash the British lost lots of lives as well and time moves on plus the chap was dying anyway. As for the Falklands what right does Argentina have for sovereignty, don't be daft and have you forgotten about the people who currently live their? The British are in Afganistan not just because of a Special Relationship but because we believe in the freedom and liberty of all people in the world. Wev hear everyday how our soldiers are dying so the children especially the girl's there can just have simply freedoms such as going to school. That is also why we took on the Axis pact of countries single handedly in WW2 with the help of our other special relationship the British commonwealth of countries (and which still remains today) who offered their help without hesitation, we did'nt have to whip them into doing this brave deed. All 50-60 odd countries as it was then from all around the world and one of those that died in that war came from the falkland islands. They were their for us then as we are there for them today. The oil has nothing to do with why we defend the right and liberties of people in the world, we have a history of it in the UK.
Craig
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, what do you mean by 'lucky Obama is remaining neutral' that sounds about as diplomatic as Hillary Clinton. We in the UK are not as fickle as to pull out our troups from Afganistan over such a minor event after all the thousands of American's who lost their lives in the past, and undo all the good they did, and your comments are disrespectful to all of them, but the USA should realise who their real friends are. We found for example when we went to war the last time against Argentina other countries like Australia & New Zealand were straight by our side with offering to send troups to help us, and how many countries fighting in Afganistan today are members of the British Commonwealth I know Canada and Australia have a big contingency their for starters?
may be craigs right, if the american have so many latins in there country they should side with them. british people stick together gone have the days when most of the american gens were made up from people from the british isles. nice one martin rule brittania
ReplyDelete