The Falklands: An Obama Betrayal?

[Kulindahr]

The Penguin News? Thats hardly British. The Falkland Islands newspaper uploads a picture where one of their editors used a pejorative as the filename for the Argentine leaders portrait, and this amounts to the British press being offensive?

If anything, it serves to show exactly how the Falkland Islanders think about Argentina and its intent to claim ownership of the islanders homeland. Over 150yrs has passed, the inhabitants are Falklanders, not Brits. So this is Falklander insult, and can they be blamed?? Really. They see Argentina as an aggressor.

Thanks for the clarity offered.

I'd see the Argentines as aggressors, too, if I lived there. As it is, I see them as imperialists, wanting to extend their reach and impose their rules over a foreign people who don't want them.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not buying it. It's the British that have refused to negotiate with her administration.

Argentina Insists, Uk Resists Talks On Malvinas/falklands

Fernandez didn't say anything particularly offensive to the people living there. She was addressing the British.

Wow -- that article demonstrates why the islanders are pissed at her: she's attempting to engage in aggression via diplomacy.

Of course the British aren't talking to her! At least they're being nice about it. From what that article reports, she should be chastized for being ignorant of international law, specifically the U.N. Charter, and told that imperialism is no longer in fashion.

Seriously, what she's doing is as if Russia started demanding talks on reclaiming Alaska, and Obama refused to talk with them. She should be happy she's not being burned in effigy (though given the latitude, frozen in effigy might be more appropriate).

 

[chrisrobin]

The thread title reminds me of "are you still beating your wife?"

If Obama sides with Argentina, he's fucked.
If Obama sides with the UK, he's fucked.
If Obama remains neutral, he's fucked.

If I were he, I would choose the path that costs the least (neutrality) - which is what he is doing.

 

[JB3]

I'm not buying it. It's the British that have refused to negotiate with her administration.

Argentina Insists, Uk Resists Talks On Malvinas/falklands

Fernandez didn't say anything particularly offensive to the people living there. She was addressing the British.

And the reason they aren't saying anything is because of the oil discovery. It's not an insignificant piece of land.

I guess I just bring what is closest to an Argentine perspective... even though I'm not Argentine. I just can relate to them quite well.

Slightly off topic, but Argentina is expanding its interests in Africa and Asia...

Argentina Discovers Africa

That's an interesting website... it's on my list of bookmarks.

Why should the British negotiate if there's nothing to negotiate over? The people of the Falklands have made their decision, and Argentina would do well to respect it.

 

[JB3]

Not buying it. She isn't the one that's being aggressive here. She's only speaking the truth.

She's trying to force a nation to cede to her wishes, when they have chosen otherwise. The law means nothing to her. She should be careful, lest she piss off the United Nations.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not buying it. She isn't the one that's being aggressive here. She's only speaking the truth.

Trying to take away someone else's home from them is "speaking the truth"?!

The Falklands belong to the people who live there. They don't want anything to do with Argentina. Their parents weren't Argentine, their grandparents weren't Argentine, their great-grandparents weren't Argentine. But this ambitious president wants to force them to be Argentines, so she can have their wealth.

That's aggression. She knows she can't commit her aggression by Argentine military force, so she's angling to get the UK to use its military force to coerce the islanders into being Argentine.

That's against every principle of respect for people. It's no different than if my neighbor had a spring I wanted, so I started a campaign to get the city council to claim the field it was in and hand it to me, so I could have guns behind me when I told his children they had to stay away.

 

[Kulindahr]

She's trying to force a nation to cede to her wishes, when they have chosen otherwise. The law means nothing to her. She should be careful, lest she piss off the United Nations.

The UN would be impotent on this -- two nations who believe in stealing land from others sit on the Security Council.

 

[bankside]

A few points.

• There is no place called "Malvinas."
• I actually like that Obama is staying out of it. It's nothing to him unless an ally makes a request for support. In a way this thread is like saying "Obama refuses to support American action on the decades long dispute between Liechtenstein and France over import duties on local cheeses." So? Not his business.
• Finally, there is no way that Argentina would have a chance. You just can't invade a first-world permanent member of the Security Council. Britain would have stopped at nothing to win the last war; it had no choice by virtue of its position. Nothing in that equation has changed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fernandez is not the one being aggressive, and she is simply asking for dialogue. I think some are misinterpreting her intentions. I'm just not buying the idea that she somehow disrespected them. She's not forcing anyone to be Argentines.

That's what she says she wants -- Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands.

Maybe Brazil should start a diplomatic campaign to get Argentina to sit down and negotiate the sovereignty of those two provinces that stick up by Paraguay. Heck, start a campaign to negotiate the sovereignty of Uruguay, too!

 

[Kulindahr]

Suggesting that someone else do what you think is fine for her to do is not a "slippery slope", it's showing what she's up to -- trying to steal the land of another country. Brazil annexing Uruguay is a perfect illustration of what she's after, because it would be making one country and people part of another by force.

She wants the wealth, and she doesn't care if she tramples on people who don't want her to get it. If she keeps pressing the UK to "negotiate" something that isn't theirs to give or hers to take, the proper response would be a public snub, preferably referring to her as a rabid shark.

(do sharks get rabies?)

 

[Stardreamer]

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?

So are you saying war for oil is ok?

 

[Stardreamer]

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.

Largely because the artificial constructions we build to take the mantle of Rome from us (League of Nations, United Nations) don't work.

 

[Kulindahr]

Whether there's oil there is irrelevant. Argentina is signatory to the UN Charter. The Charter asserts self-determination for people. The people of the Falklands have made their determination: they want to be British citizens. That's the only thing that matters. If they voted to be part of New Zealand, it wouldn't change a thing: they don't want to be Argentines. By claiming sovereignty, Fernandez is saying the wishes of the people don't matter, that they should be Argentines anyway. By trying to get the Brits to negotiate, she's acting as though the islanders are just property that comes along with the islands.

Her whipping up of nationalist sentiment is standard operating procedure for getting a nation to go along with aggression. That aggression may be done through war, or it may be done with diplomacy -- it's the same continuum. And Britain should continue to ignore her requests to be complicit in her aggression.

 

[JB3]

The UN would be impotent on this -- two nations who believe in stealing land from others sit on the Security Council.

Not quite right. The people of the islands have chosen the british. Any attempt to take them, either by force or subterfuge, is a violation of international law.

 

[Stardreamer]

Um that's awesome. How did you come to that conclusion based on what I said there?

I said there is a reason why both want the area. I never said anything justifying any war. In fact, I said several times that conflict must be avoided through diplomatic means.

But your clear support for Argentina implies that you believe their reasons are valid which you also say is about the oil. They want to subjugate a people who do not want them over oil. So is that ok in your viewpoint?

 

[palbert]

A great deal of the oil is actually off the coast of the islands. I think that Argentina just wants to explore it....[portion deleted]... Argentina is a democratic country and I don't see them subjugating anyone.

What good is JUST exploring for oil. If they find oil you posit they will turn it over to ... whom?

They certainly attempted subjugation back in the '80's. Weren't they proclaiming democracy back then?

Basically, the Argentine infrastructure is compliments of Great Britain. Argentina should be happy it has that ... and churrasco.

 

[bankside]

A great deal of the oil is actually off the coast of the islands. I think that Argentina just wants to explore it. I never validated anything about subjugating anyone. That's just putting words in my mouth. Argentina is a democratic country and I don't see them subjugating anyone.

Argentina is not making a friendly suggestion that Britain hold a referendum to see if the residents of one of its islands would like to separate. It is making a territorial claim. What has argentina's position got to do with democracy for the Falkland Islanders?

And why would Britain allow any other country to explore British oil.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not quite right. The people of the islands have chosen the british. Any attempt to take them, either by force or subterfuge, is a violation of international law.

And the UN doesn't care shit for international law unless the Security Council manages to vote to do something besides talk -- but those two nations who are just fine with violations of the right of self-determination won't.

 

[Kulindahr]

Argentina is not making a friendly suggestion that Britain hold a referendum to see if the residents of one of its islands would like to separate. It is making a territorial claim. What has argentina's position got to do with democracy for the Falkland Islanders?

And why would Britain allow any other country to explore British oil.

Exactly right: she said she wants to discuss "sovereignty". That means she doesn't agree that it's up to the islanders who the islands belong to. That's anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-decency.

"Asking for dialogue" wouldn't include insisting on negotiating a settled matter, it would start by saying Argentina has some disagreement about the ownership of the resources on the sea floor, and wants to reach agreement.

 

[Kulindahr]

And proclaiming democracy? Argentina was a military dictatorship back then under the direction of Videla, Viola, then Galtieri (who launched the attack because the junta was falling apart). They weren't proclaiming democracy. The Argentine dictatorship, which murdered thousands of its own people, was desperate because of the economic situation in Argentina. Argentina at present doesn't have that issue... they still have some economic issues (some inflation and balance of payments problems), but are on a relative strong footing.

The late Nestor Kirchner did well for Argentina... blasting international lending organizations, stabilizing the economy and sending Argentina growing strongly. His wife has carried that on, and she is a strong leftist... one that also has supported equality in her own country.

If their economy is okay, why is she trying to steal someone else's land?