The Falklands: An Obama Betrayal?

[palbert]

President Obama has indicated the US might not support Great Britain in what may be a looming second military engagement with Argentina over the ownership of the Falkland Islands, called the Malvinas by Argentina.

This would be a repudiation of the background support, first surreptitious then open, President Reagan extended to the Thatcher government. This stance is particularly harmful to Britain because its compromised capacity to wage war down there is most likely the result of US undertakings to provide equipment, etc.

Britain has almost always been at our side and frequently pulled our nuts out of the fire.

We should now treat them thus? See:

Obama throws U.K.

I have already emailed the White House.

 

[kallipolis]

Per your captioned press report President Obama's reply was:“Our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral… this is not something that we typically intervene in,” Obama replied to the question."

This is a typically diplomatic response enabling President Obama to avoid being drawn into a highly contentious cross fire that would annoy Argentina, or the UK.

The USA, and the UK are so closed knit on military, and intelligence matters that it would be unlikely that Argentina would attempt another invasion of the Falklands, preferring to pursue a diplomatic initiative in support of its position.

 

[palbert]

...[portion deleted]....The USA, and the UK are so closed knit on military, and intelligence matters that it would be unlikely that Argentina would attempt another invasion of the Falklands, preferring to pursue a diplomatic initiative in support of its position.

That close knit arrangement did little to prevent the first invasion. I lived in Miami at the time of the first invasion: Argentinians feel very passionately about taking the islands, or at least its bounty. (I lost some South American clients because I supported Britain.)

 

[kallipolis]

of all the things I disagree with Obama on, I'm not sure this would even by in my top 10.

it seems like a weird issue to me... the Falkland people want to stay under Britain and Britain wants the Falklands to stay under them, so let Argentina pout in the corner.

The United Kingdom has since 1945 granted self determination to all its dominions, and overseas territories with the Falkland Islanders choosing to remain British which is in accordance with the United Nations charter which invites colonial powers to let their dependent territory citizens determine their status. The people of Gibraltar, along with other UK territories continue to vote in favour of remaining British citizens.

The United Kingdom has invited Argentina to arbitrate its case before the International Court, in The Hague and has refused knowing that the Falkland Islanders will vote to remain British.

It is worth noting that Argentina is the product of colonial settlement by Spaniards, with Italians and other Europeans featuring prominently.

This article sets out the position with some delicacy:

BBC News - Regions and territories: Falkland Islands

 

[Benvolio]

President Obama has indicated the US might not support Great Britain in what may be a looming second military engagement with Argentina over the ownership of the Falkland Islands, called the Malvinas by Argentina.

This would be a repudiation of the background support, first surreptitious then open, President Reagan extended to the Thatcher government. This stance is particularly harmful to Britain because its compromised capacity to wage war down there is most likely the result of US undertakings to provide equipment, etc.

Britain has almost always been at our side and frequently pulled our nuts out of the fire.

We should now treat them thus? See:

Obama throws U.K.

I have already emailed the White House.

Remember, Dinesh D'Souza has written a book entitled The Roots of Obama's Rage, analyzing
Obama's thinking as highly influenced by his belief that much of the world are victims of colonialism, and his disapproval of Britain and the US as colonial powers. It would be consistent for him to see the people of the Falklands and Argentina as victims of Britains colonialism.
Politically he is making a mistake. Most Americans will side with Britain and see that the desire of the people of the islands to remain with Britain is controlling.

 

[kallipolis]

That close knit arrangement did little to prevent the first invasion. I lived in Miami at the time of the first invasion: Argentinians feel very passionately about taking the islands, or at least its bounty. (I lost some South American clients because I supported Britain.)

Much has changed since then, and it is worth noting that Argentina no longer possesses the capability to mount a successful invasion with one special forces brigade of worth.

The UK has a submarine on station in the South Atlantic, permanently with an advanced warship, Dauntless now en route to take up patrol duties around The Falklands. This apart from a permanent presence on the islands of an army battalion, and RAF fighters which can outmatch anything the Argentines possess.

I believe that Argentina's diplomatic initiative will ultimately fail to achieve its purpose for there is little support in DC for Argentina's position which chooses to ignore the aspirations of the islanders to remain British.

 

[kallipolis]

Remember, Dinesh D'Souza has written a book entitled The Roots of Obama's Rage, analyzing
Obama's thinking as highly influenced by his belief that much of the world are victims of colonialism, and his disapproval of Britain and the US as colonial powers. It would be consistent for him to see the people of the Falklands and Argentina as victims of Britains colonialism.
Politically he is making a mistake. Most Americans will side with Britain and see that the desire of the people of the islands to remain with Britain is controlling.

Were that the case then it would be rational for the indigenous Indian nations of the United States to invite the British settlers, and their descendants et al to return to the lands of their fathers.

I rather believe that President Obama continues to learn from his daily experiences, and understands that it is entirely appropriate and logical for the indigenous Indian nations of Argentina to invite the descendants of the Spanish settlers to return to Spain.

 

[ChickenGuy]

I do wish the Argentinians would stop grandstanding and posturing about this. We are where we are, and the local population have made their views clear. The Falklands War deepened the scars on both sides, but the conflict was the result of an Argentinian military dictator unilaterally invading the territory because he was looking for glory on the battlefield for populist and propaganda purposes.

It's always interesting how GIANT countries can make SUCH big deals about TINY islands. Not just U.K./Argentina but in many places around the world. They're always conflated into something FAR more than just the possession of what is usually a completely insignifant little piece of land. I think kallipolis could give a better opinion than me about it since I understand there is still some bickering between Greece and Turkey over some of the islands in the Aegean Sea.

My message would be to forget about it, accept current boundaries and territorial rights as they are, and concentrate on more important matters - like for example, oh I don't know, the health, education, welfare and prosperity of 30,000,000 or so Argentinians that live on the South American mainland.

 

[medic1]

So let me get this right , he backsteps while British Soldiers die in his fucked up mess .

 

[kallipolis]

So let me get this right , he backsteps while British Soldiers die in his fucked up mess .

This is not the case.

President Obama understands the sensitivity of this highly contentious issue and has chosen to avoid taking sides when declaring the neutrality of the United States. In private there is no support in DC for Argentina's position which disregards the aspirations of the islanders to remain British.

 

[kallipolis]

Argentina and England are making a big deal about the Malvinas (I stand with Argentina here) because of a recent discovery of oil. Not so insignificant now isn't it?

Argentina continues to make a big deal of this issue because of the discovery of oil around the Falklands.

The United Kingdom respects the clearly expressed wishes of the Falkland Islanders to remain British.

 

[kallipolis]

I do wish the Argentinians would stop grandstanding and posturing about this. We are where we are, and the local population have made their views clear. The Falklands War deepened the scars on both sides, but the conflict was the result of an Argentinian military dictator unilaterally invading the territory because he was looking for glory on the battlefield for populist and propaganda purposes.

It's always interesting how GIANT countries can make SUCH big deals about TINY islands. Not just U.K./Argentina but in many places around the world. They're always conflated into something FAR more than just the possession of what is usually a completely insignifant little piece of land. I think kallipolis could give a better opinion than me about it since I understand there is still some bickering between Greece and Turkey over some of the islands in the Aegean Sea.

My message would be to forget about it, accept current boundaries and territorial rights as they are, and concentrate on more important matters - like for example, oh I don't know, the health, education, welfare and prosperity of 30,000,000 or so Argentinians that live on the South American mainland.

Oil was discovered in the South Aegean in 1974 and there lies the Turkish interest.

Those oil fields are now becoming a matter of deep interest for Greece if only to assist us out of our economic crisis.

Fortunately Greece has much better relations with the current Turkish government, than with earlier Turkish administrations also noting that the Turkish armed forces are now being brought under strict civilian supervision if only to prevent further military coups.

I foresee an amicable arrangement in sharing the South Aegean oil. Cyprus also has plans to pump oil laying off its coasts with Greek petroleum interests already involved with international oil exploration corporations.

 

[Just_Believe18]

What's the big deal? I'm glad President Obama has taken the position of neutrality. It's none of our business! Britain has the matter under control, and both sides need to work out a detail that resolves the issue internally. Argentina isn't going to send troops again, so there is no threat of loss of life if the U.S. doesn't get involved.

Obama's position honors Britain as an ally, and sends a signal to continue to improve trade relations with Argentina. In case all of you forgot, the President went to S. America this past week to try to improve relations and trade agreements with Latin America. You know, bring jobs, influence, and wealth to the United States?

 

[CowboyBob]

Why does the USA have to stick it's nose in every squabble in the world? If the UK and Argentina want to start a war over a few small islands in the middle of nowhere that's their business and not ours. Hooray for President Obama for not bullying our way into every saber-rattling event.

 

[Kulindahr]

The United Kingdom has since 1945 granted self determination to all its dominions, and overseas territories with the Falkland Islanders choosing to remain British which is in accordance with the United Nations charter which invites colonial powers to let their dependent territory citizens determine their status. The people of Gibraltar, along with other UK territories continue to vote in favour of remaining British citizens.

The United Kingdom has invited Argentina to arbitrate its case before the International Court, in The Hague and has refused knowing that the Falkland Islanders will vote to remain British.

Exactly. What Obama should have said is that under the terms of the UN Charter and other international law, the matter is up to the inhabitants of the islands, and that's that.

It's always interesting how GIANT countries can make SUCH big deals about TINY islands. Not just U.K./Argentina but in many places around the world. They're always conflated into something FAR more than just the possession of what is usually a completely insignifant little piece of land.

It's not the islands, any more than the issues on Alaska's northern slope are about the little construction pads on the surface. It's not even about the sheep, of which the Falklands have almost as many as Argentina has humans. It's about the oil, and about sea-bed minerals, which by some estimates may be worth enough to balance the U.S. budget for a few years -- or if the eager optimists are right, to pay off the debt.

I'm sure that Argentina would like that wealth, but it's not up to them.

Heck, with that kind of money, the Falklands could become an independent country!

 

[Tengilethos]

Why does the USA have to stick it's nose in every squabble in the world? If the UK and Argentina want to start a war over a few small islands in the middle of nowhere that's their business and not ours. Hooray for President Obama for not bullying our way into every saber-rattling event.

And a war is highly unlikely anyway. Argentina is pressing it's claim diplomatically, and military escalation is not in their plans at this time. One of the reasons is that the odds of winning for them are rather low.

 

[broadshoulder]

In 2002 I went to Iguacu Falls in Brazil/Argentina. At immigratinon on the Argentine side there was a huge banner over the road 'Las Malvinas son Argentine'. Their claim to the Falklands is hardcore.

I am of the UK generation who went through the first war in 1982 and look back on it with despondency as all the jingoism and flagwaving got Margaret Thatcher reelected again in 1983. But it is sheer disbelief that this is stil rumbling on..

We have had thirty years to sort this out. We've spent a fortune militarily on protecting them and warning Argentina off. So why havent we got around the table and sorted it out?

I am not sure Argentina wants it. Its constitiion is so wired in getting it back they are pretty intractable. We have offered them dual sovereignty, tried to open commercial airlinks, etc but they were not interested. Ir was all everything or nothing.

I have always thought if Argentina had met us halfway they could have got the Falklands twenty years ago. Its always better to charm to British then threaten them. We just dig our heels in.

 

[LittleDove]

President Obama has indicated the US might not support Great Britain in what may be a looming second military engagement with Argentina over the ownership of the Falkland Islands, called the Malvinas by Argentina.

This would be a repudiation of the background support, first surreptitious then open, President Reagan extended to the Thatcher government. This stance is particularly harmful to Britain because its compromised capacity to wage war down there is most likely the result of US undertakings to provide equipment, etc.

Britain has almost always been at our side and frequently pulled our nuts out of the fire.

We should now treat them thus?

Are you talking about the same Ronald Reagan who was President of the United States? The one who repeatedly threw Thatcher-era Britain under the metaphorical bus?

The one whose ambassador to the UN openly and unequivocally supported the Argentines? The one whose ambassador to the UN dined at the Argentine Embassy the day of the invasion of the Falklands, an act which the British ambassador to Washington at the time said was comparable in perfidy to if he had sat down to tea with the Iranians the day the Americans were taken hostage in Iran? The one whose UN ambassador, after having just voted for the UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in the Falklands, immediately turned around and publicly announced she'd made an awful mistake, and that she had intended to abstain, causing outrage in Britain?

The same Reagan who cause further outrage in Britain by not even consulting the British about the invasion of Grenada?

The same Reagan who further outraged Thatcher by dismissing her feelings and disregarding her advice about his "Star Wars" initiative?

The same Reagan who the British Ambassador noted, off the record, that if he stated what Mrs Thatcher really thought of him and his amateurish and clumsy foreign policies, it would cause permanent harm to Anglo-American relations?

Or was there some different Reagan in your history books? One who actually supported Britain?

 

[palbert]

Thank you all for excellent posts. Perhaps my anxiety is heightened by living in Miami at the time of the first conflict. Against that I pair that Britain has no aircraft carriers, which would be indispensable in such a conflict.

And, if the Falklands, what next? Shackleton's islands of Georgia, South Orkney, South Sandwich? As various resources dim, I feel this are is ripe for picking.

Also, and no matter what Obama's position, I have no doubt that Britain would get a great deal of support from the naval and intelligence communities.

I would really like to hear the British (fellow JUBBER) perspective, and time should benefit their participation shortly.

 

[palbert]

@ Little Dove. All concede that Reagan pursued a less than artful public foreign policy in this instance. Living in Miami at the time we early formed the impression that Reagan's fumbling display was intentional and a ruse to divert attention from the fact that America's entire intelligence and military establishments were supporting Britain. He was, as we say, trying to play both ends against the middle. I believe you will find the confrontation ended with the US cheek and jowl with Thatcher (what an image).