The Falklands: An Obama Betrayal?

[Kulindahr]

Joining up for military action isn't the only example of an ally. There are economic allies. Try again. Your definition of an ally is narrow at best.

The US is linked to non-NATO major allies in some military ways. Such allies have priority on buying used US military equipment and a number of other things such as cooperation in military research and development.

But that's really beside the point: the federal government says Argentina is an ally -- sorry, benvolio; since they're the ones who make such determinations, you lose.

 

[Kulindahr]

I believe Argentina did purchase those A-4 Fightinghawk airplanes that were extensively upgraded from the US... it was like $300 million in total I think.

The total sounds right. Those A-4s could have been had by anyone, totally rebuilt, but only allies could get the upgrades. Argentina did buy a lot of rebuilt ones before being designated a major non-NATO ally, but gets priority in service and purchase.

I've been trying to find why Clinton decided they should have this status, but so far nothing.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think they completed the purchase in 1998, during the Carlos Menem government... someone I find a bit of a controversial figure in Argentine politics, much like the late great Nestor Kirchner.

In 1998 they had been given MNNA status, so that fits. I found a State Department summary report that called Argentina an ally before that, but I can't find any reason why. I did find that Clinton asked to have them as MNNA for something having to do with peacekeeping -- I can't figure that out. But at any rate, Argentina has been, by law, an MNNA ally since 1996 or '97, and apparently before that, though I don't know the precise status.

And now I think I'll aim my curiosity as something besides Argentina's status as far as being an ally.

 

[JayHawk]

Jayhawk ,thank you for the post and a bit of an eye-opener ,though i have never pissed and moaned about the Falklands , Yes getting your soulmate killed in Afghanistan , does fill you with hate , but not disappoinment just grief which even after 2 yrs i find hard to handle .

As for America and Britain i think our special-bond is astounding and gladdens my heart .
I honour my lovers memory and bravery everyday , so i would like an apology for that barb .
Erik used to say that they were all brothers and proud of it .

He loved serving his country ,and especialy on exercise with jarheads with which he had a
special affinity.

People grief and try and get on as best they can ,this for me can sometimes be hard , when on a busy night you can deal with up to 10 Deaths . Perhaps if you loked at your perspective then mine , we can stop this stupid argument. I am proud of our special relationship with the
USA and i certainly hold no malice to another brave soldier , Take care.

I apologize completely for insults now and in the past. I see the words on the screen in black and white and apply my own feelings to the matter. I cannot possibly understand or be in your place.

I too have deep feelings for the brothers in arms I have met through the years. Those I have lost I never forget. I also am quite aware there are many political insults and simple mistakes made by all sides. Yet I will never believe it was for naught.

Lest I say too much just leave it at this. I have infinite respect for both Erik although I never knew him and you for your sacrifice. Know forever it was not for nothing.

 

[JayHawk]

I wont go off topic again for any mod that reads the above post. That apology had to stand on its own.

GC I don't think nationalization is justified under any circumstance. The government simply exist to provide proper sticks and carrots to motive moral behavior. Ours has failed that repeatedly but that is another subject. I don't say that for the often repeated "distrust of government" that Americans generally harbor. I say it because large corporations and institutions rarely do well without simple mission statements. it is impossible to have a simple mission statement when a centralized government holds the lead in most major industry. I can see how Argentina could easily look at Chavez and Venezuela and believe that model is the way forward.

 

[JayHawk]

After seeing the actions of several microcosms of one larger organization I can attest first hand that large organizations cannot have multiple complex missions and succeed. They need to be in smaller easier to control pieces. That is why a centralized government concept always caves in on itself OR lets go of some of the controls.

The government should control the playground so that fairness is the rule. The problem with the past manipulation of the country by a corporation is due to a weak government. In that aspect we too have a weak government because it is manipulated by corporate interest before public interest. However stronger controls or regulation is the answer. Not Government control of corporate interest. Even China had to loose the throat hold before the economy flourished. You can not be the referee and play the game. It simply will not work in the long run.

 

[JayHawk]

Right so if they are raiding the country a courts system and litigation is the tact. You just agreed that tighter regulation is what is needed. That is what government does to step in. They do not become industrialist.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can see a case for a sort of nationalization, but the the raw thing just done. If a corporation is abusing a nation, the proper procedure would be to take that corporation to court. IIRC the OAS has only a fledgling judicial structure, so Argentina would have had to rely on their own -- so at the very least, the administration should have made their case to the high court and sought a ruling assigning a controlling interest in the Argentine portion of the company, via issuance of new stock, and a restructuring to guarantee that the multinational can't just bleed Argentina for resources.

And once problems were resolved, that stock should be put in a trust, with income dedicated to national infrastructure.

 

[kallipolis]

Nationalisation is not the primary matter, rather the issue is also of current market level compensation for the assets that have been forcibly acquired by the Argentine Government. Here lies the dilemma for the Argentine Government lacking physical funds to compensate Repsol's interest, as a result of being shut out of capital markets since defaulting on its international debts.

 

[Benvolio]

Argentinians are white.

 

[bankside]

If a MNC (multinational corporation) is misappropriating its profits, I can see where a government citing its national sovereignty can seize control of its assets.

I still think the Spanish government of that idiot Mariano Rajoy should keep its mouth shut. And this is coming from someone you would think would be biased towards Spain. In this case I'm not. I know what Repsol has done in South America...

Repsol

Yes, this may be citing figures from the horse's rear. But Argentina's oil infrastructure is indeed crumbling because of neglect and lack of investment. I can see where the government thought this was necessary. And they could always do business with Petrobras.

Repsol has neglected people and countries in order to maximize it's profits. That to me is a case for nationalization. I agree and respect the decision of Argentina's government, even as someone who is from Spain.

Misappropriation of revenue might be possible but I'm not sure how you can misappropriate profits. At least not net profits.

 

[Kulindahr]

Argentina paid down its debts and have substantial foreign reserves. The economic picture has changed since then, especially since the late Nestor Kirchner government.

Yes, and that was a brilliant move, to re-assume the defaulted ~$100 billion in debt. I can remember being shocked, amazed, and then delighted to hear of the move -- quite ballsy, really, and it set a standard for other countries to live up to.

I got to thinking about Argentina yesterday while fifteen feet up a tree, doing topping so the people in their houses can still see the beach -- for a few seconds the wind died and the surf calmed, and I heard familiar strains...

 

[Lostlover]

The Falkland Islands (screw what the Argentines call them) belong to the people of the islands. It is their desire to remain a British Overseas Territory. The option is available to the people, to take independance, or to become a part of Argentina if they wished to. They don't. The UN recognises that, and the majority of nations support that.

This has zero to do with the islands themselves, like has been said. It widely believed to be because of oil and gas, and the fact that Argentina's economy is not doing too well at the moment.

I think neither brits nor argentines believe any action taken will be outside of a diplomatic sphere. I'm sure that the UK and Argentina will move forward with the acceptance that the Falkland Islands will remain as they have for the last 150+ years, but that oil and gas in the region could be shared. Once Argentina has that agreement, they will drop their claim on the 'Malvinas' like a hot-rock.

EDIT: In response to Obama's position. In light of where he was, he made probably a very strategic statement. In all liklihood, he knows just as well as everybody else, that it was a pretty mute question actually.

Argentina's economy is growing, while the UK just entered a recession. So, maybe the UK's response is based on economics? (The UK has just entered its second recession in the last 3 + years while Argentina's economy grew at 8.8% last year.)

I, personally, think it is silly that the UK is trying to claim a piece of land so near Argentina. But, then again, I don't give enough of a shit to actually care about this situation.

The UK, though, should act like an adult and ignore Argentina. It shows a weak ego to be so hurt and offended by such a poorly managed country, like Argentina. North Korea, a nuclear state, last week threatened the US and South Korea and I don't think any politician from either country batted an eye.

 

[Benvolio]

If North Korea actually did something, UK would be on our side, Argentina probably would be indifferent.

 

[bankside]

North Korea takes its empty grain silos, paints them camouflage colours and then drives them through the streets of the capital on their sides. It is a sham of a threat.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's off topic, but here is more on this story...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/north-koreas-missiles-are-fakes-analysts-say/

They should have asked Hollywood for help.

 

[Benvolio]

What would North Korea do? There are reports that they even have fake missiles in military parades. Everything they fire ends up a dud.

The UK probably would, but where is your proof that Argentina would be indifferent?

When Did Argentina ever help us?

 

[Kulindahr]

When Did Argentina ever help us?

Counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, fighting human trafficking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah counter terrorism especially.. the tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay has required special attention in recent years. Argentina has been key in combating terrorism in that area... potentially from Al Qaeda. Argentina also does counter-terrorism exercises with the United States.

They apparently store some U.S. equipment for U.S. use, presumably for anti-terrorism and/or anti-narcotics, but I can't find any specifics on that, like what kind or how much -- I'm guessing helicopters. And the US State department says that tri-border area is rife with smuggling, but I don't know if the U.S. is involved in any way fighting that.

A couple of sources said there isn't any evidence for actual terrorism efforts/work/activity in the tri-border area, but that there's so much traffic between there and the Middle East Argentina stays on top of it to discourage anyone from thinking about it.

 

[rareboy]

When Did Argentina ever help us?

Oh Lord.

At the very least, without it, we'd never have had the musical Evita rack up billions in revenue in the US.

There. Feel Better?