March 3, 2010
Must Everything Be Negotiated?
The Obama Administration now thinks Britain should sit down and negotiate over the Falkland Islands with Argentina.
The Times of London reports that reactions in the Falkland Islands ranged from dismay to fury.
I'll bet.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at March 3, 2010 12:32 AM
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544634.stm
The AP news agency reported that at the meeting, Argentina asked for US help in resolving the dispute.
"What we have requested is mediation as a friendly country of both Argentina and the United Kingdom," it quoted Ms Fernandez as saying.
After the meeting, Mrs Clinton said the US wanted to encourage dialogue but was not offering to act in a mediating role.
What's wrong with that? Is Argentina our enemy now? The US is involved in many regional and strategic partnerships with Argentina, and the last time I checked the US and Argentina were on pretty good terms. One might even say, friendly terms. Why does the US have to choose sides on this one? I don't get it. As for Clinton: she offered to mediate between the UK and Argentina. The UK has declined. So that's the end of that, I assume.
Posted by: Craig at March 3, 2010 12:49 am
The AP news agency reported that at the meeting, Argentina asked for US help in resolving the dispute.
"What we have requested is mediation as a friendly country of both Argentina and the United Kingdom," it quoted Ms Fernandez as saying.
After the meeting, Mrs Clinton said the US wanted to encourage dialogue but was not offering to act in a mediating role.
What's wrong with that? Is Argentina our enemy now? The US is involved in many regional and strategic partnerships with Argentina, and the last time I checked the US and Argentina were on pretty good terms. One might even say, friendly terms. Why does the US have to choose sides on this one? I don't get it. As for Clinton: she offered to mediate between the UK and Argentina. The UK has declined. So that's the end of that, I assume.
Scrath that last! She didn't even offer to mediate, she merely is "encouraging dialog". I'm with her on that. Latin America is important to the US, and I'd really rather not see how it plays out if the UK decides to go to war over the Falklands, again. There has to be a better way.
Posted by: Craig at March 3, 2010 12:51 am
Craig,
England provides the greatest support in all of the US's current foreign ventures. They have over 10,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and has increased the number every time the US asked.
Why? Why is England fighting in Afghanistan? Because their ally asked them to help. They are the 2nd largest troop presence after the US.
When your ally is bleeding for you and walking side by side with you, without having any goal of their own - only there to help you - they get some special consideration when they need political support.
The Oministration seems to be making a habit of pissing on their friends. There is a clear price to pay, as those allies reduce their support for the US and turn to other regional or trilateral world power relationships to balance out the changed US stance.
Posted by: Akiva at March 3, 2010 1:18 am
England provides the greatest support in all of the US's current foreign ventures. They have over 10,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and has increased the number every time the US asked.
Why? Why is England fighting in Afghanistan? Because their ally asked them to help. They are the 2nd largest troop presence after the US.
When your ally is bleeding for you and walking side by side with you, without having any goal of their own - only there to help you - they get some special consideration when they need political support.
The Oministration seems to be making a habit of pissing on their friends. There is a clear price to pay, as those allies reduce their support for the US and turn to other regional or trilateral world power relationships to balance out the changed US stance.
Craig,
The Falkland Islands are British. This isn't something that's up for debate. Britain should be no more expected to negotiate this with Argentina than it should have to negotiate Wales with France.
I'm not taking sides by saying this, I'm just describing reality.
If Russia decided to claim Alaska, and Britain expected us to negotiate that with Moscow, we would tell Britain to go fuck itself.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 3, 2010 1:27 am
The Falkland Islands are British. This isn't something that's up for debate. Britain should be no more expected to negotiate this with Argentina than it should have to negotiate Wales with France.
I'm not taking sides by saying this, I'm just describing reality.
If Russia decided to claim Alaska, and Britain expected us to negotiate that with Moscow, we would tell Britain to go fuck itself.
And of course Argentina is not our enemy. I have nothing whatsoever against Argentina. I rather like the country. Doesn't matter. Argentina has no more jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands than it has over Brazil.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 3, 2010 1:34 am
" I'd really rather not see how it plays out if the UK decides to go to war over the Falklands, again."
What a weasely comment, Craig. The last time the UK 'decided to go to war' was after the Argentinian Junta 'decided to go to war' first.
Posted by: commenter at March 3, 2010 2:06 am
What a weasely comment, Craig. The last time the UK 'decided to go to war' was after the Argentinian Junta 'decided to go to war' first.
Perhaps Obama could negotiate with Mexico over Texas or with Hawaii over independence. It's not like the US don't control any territories historically claimed by others. So if there is an emotional need to hand over land, Obama really has enough land to hand over without involving the British.
(Heck, he could give the thirteen colonies back to England and Britain can give the Falklands to Argentina.)
Posted by: Andrew Brehm at March 3, 2010 2:39 am
(Heck, he could give the thirteen colonies back to England and Britain can give the Falklands to Argentina.)
The Falkland Islands are British. This isn't something that's up for debate.
Well, MJT, I don't know that much about it and I'm not going to take a course to learn but wikipedia says that the territory has been in dispute between Britain, Spain, France and Argentina for centuries so I'd say it is up for debate. Spain and France have bowed out, but Argentina obviously hasn't since they already went to war over the Island once in the past, and lost.
Britain should be no more expected to negotiate this with Argentina than it should have to negotiate Wales with France.
Oh come on. That's not even close to being a good analogy :)
I'm not taking sides by saying this, I'm just describing reality.
That's not the way it looks from here!
If Russia decided to claim Alaska, and Britain expected us to negotiate that with Moscow, we would tell Britain to go fuck itself.
And now you are claiming that the Falklands are an integral part of Great Britain? I don't see that listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
I think a more apt comparison would be to the US territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Posted by: Craig at March 3, 2010 6:04 am
Well, MJT, I don't know that much about it and I'm not going to take a course to learn but wikipedia says that the territory has been in dispute between Britain, Spain, France and Argentina for centuries so I'd say it is up for debate. Spain and France have bowed out, but Argentina obviously hasn't since they already went to war over the Island once in the past, and lost.
Britain should be no more expected to negotiate this with Argentina than it should have to negotiate Wales with France.
Oh come on. That's not even close to being a good analogy :)
I'm not taking sides by saying this, I'm just describing reality.
That's not the way it looks from here!
If Russia decided to claim Alaska, and Britain expected us to negotiate that with Moscow, we would tell Britain to go fuck itself.
And now you are claiming that the Falklands are an integral part of Great Britain? I don't see that listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
I think a more apt comparison would be to the US territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
PS to MJT:
The Falkland Islands are British. This isn't something that's up for debate.
That's what people used to say about America, as well :P
Akiva,
England provides the greatest support in all of the US's current foreign ventures.
That's true.
Why? Why is England fighting in Afghanistan? Because their ally asked them to help. They are the 2nd largest troop presence after the US.
Wouldn't be much of a military alliance if a call went out for help, and nobody showed up :)
When your ally is bleeding for you and walking side by side with you, without having any goal of their own - only there to help you - they get some special consideration when they need political support.
What makes you think I'm not trying to be supportive when I suggest that it might be better to try to resolve the situation diplomatically, rather than brewing up a shit-storm in Latin America?
The Oministration seems to be making a habit of pissing on their friends. There is a clear price to pay, as those allies reduce their support for the US and turn to other regional or trilateral world power relationships to balance out the changed US stance.
And what makes you think that reduced US support for Europe is unrelated to the price the US was made to pay during the war on terror, when after 50 years of being a faithful ally and protector the Euros pretty much told us to go to hell? Our past support for Europeans certainly didn't buy us much, did it? I personally think the US needs to look to Asia for friends in the future, and to Latin America because they are our neighbors, and let the Europeans go their own way as they so clearly want to.
Anyway, I'm not personally going to take a side in this. If the UK wants to go to war over the Falklands, let them. The US may have enough influence in Latin America to keep everyone else out of it. And that's about as much as we can do for the British if it comes down to that.
Posted by: Craig at March 3, 2010 6:19 am
The Falkland Islands are British. This isn't something that's up for debate.
That's what people used to say about America, as well :P
Akiva,
England provides the greatest support in all of the US's current foreign ventures.
That's true.
Why? Why is England fighting in Afghanistan? Because their ally asked them to help. They are the 2nd largest troop presence after the US.
Wouldn't be much of a military alliance if a call went out for help, and nobody showed up :)
When your ally is bleeding for you and walking side by side with you, without having any goal of their own - only there to help you - they get some special consideration when they need political support.
What makes you think I'm not trying to be supportive when I suggest that it might be better to try to resolve the situation diplomatically, rather than brewing up a shit-storm in Latin America?
The Oministration seems to be making a habit of pissing on their friends. There is a clear price to pay, as those allies reduce their support for the US and turn to other regional or trilateral world power relationships to balance out the changed US stance.
And what makes you think that reduced US support for Europe is unrelated to the price the US was made to pay during the war on terror, when after 50 years of being a faithful ally and protector the Euros pretty much told us to go to hell? Our past support for Europeans certainly didn't buy us much, did it? I personally think the US needs to look to Asia for friends in the future, and to Latin America because they are our neighbors, and let the Europeans go their own way as they so clearly want to.
Anyway, I'm not personally going to take a side in this. If the UK wants to go to war over the Falklands, let them. The US may have enough influence in Latin America to keep everyone else out of it. And that's about as much as we can do for the British if it comes down to that.
Why is the Argentina-UK dispute any of our business anyway?
Let the two parties in question sort it out.
Posted by: Toady at March 3, 2010 6:30 am
Let the two parties in question sort it out.
Craig,
Try to differentiate between Western and Eastern Europe in your arguments. Its more credible.
When eastern Europe tries to be friends with the US, Obama pisses on them. You can be sure they'll think twice when they think of America. Ironic isn't it, and a pity too? They could have been great allies and friends.
As far as looking to Asia, yeah right! You mean...like China. They're not your friend, they're your owners! How about Taiwan, Hahaha? The US has already crapped on them. Oh I forgot Australia...of course, with their left wing government they're a natural friend.
Posted by: jb at March 3, 2010 6:32 am
Try to differentiate between Western and Eastern Europe in your arguments. Its more credible.
When eastern Europe tries to be friends with the US, Obama pisses on them. You can be sure they'll think twice when they think of America. Ironic isn't it, and a pity too? They could have been great allies and friends.
As far as looking to Asia, yeah right! You mean...like China. They're not your friend, they're your owners! How about Taiwan, Hahaha? The US has already crapped on them. Oh I forgot Australia...of course, with their left wing government they're a natural friend.
jb,
Try to differentiate between Western and Eastern Europe in your arguments. Its more credible.
Good point. But the US does not have an alliance of long standing with Eastern Europe.
When eastern Europe tries to be friends with the US, Obama pisses on them. You can be sure they'll think twice when they think of America. Ironic isn't it, and a pity too? They could have been great allies and friends.
I don't really want to play that game of playing Eastern Europe against Western Europe, or of playing Bush off against Obama. I'm not aware of anything Obama did to alienate Eastern Europeans. Can you fill me in? Briefly? :)
As far as looking to Asia, yeah right! You mean...like China.
I kinda like the Chinese. On a personal level, that is. Don't care much for the government, but then I don't care much for the governments in most countries. Do you think the US should restrict itself to only being "friends" with industrialized democracies? OK, fine. What's your complaint with Japan and India, then? Lets here it. It has to be something. It's always something.
2/3 of the world's population is in Asia. Both of the (maybe)emerging super-powers are in Asia. Asia is important.
They're not your friend, they're your owners!
A cheap talking point.
How about Taiwan, Hahaha? The US has already crapped on them.
Yeah. China and Taiwan. That's Asia, isn't it?
Oh I forgot Australia...of course
Maybe you forgot Australia because Australia isn't in Asia? Just saying!
Oh I forgot Australia...of course, with their left wing government they're a natural friend.
At least they haven't released any terrorist mass murderers of Americans from prison! I haven't forgotten that it was just last year that the UK sold the US out for an oil deal. Now we are expected to be loyal to the UK? Is that how it works? For the sake of all the people in Britain who actually DO or DID care about the special relationship with the US at some point in the past, I'm trying to restrain myself here, but to be honest I'm just not feeling the love anymore.
Posted by: Craig at March 3, 2010 7:13 am
Try to differentiate between Western and Eastern Europe in your arguments. Its more credible.
Good point. But the US does not have an alliance of long standing with Eastern Europe.
When eastern Europe tries to be friends with the US, Obama pisses on them. You can be sure they'll think twice when they think of America. Ironic isn't it, and a pity too? They could have been great allies and friends.
I don't really want to play that game of playing Eastern Europe against Western Europe, or of playing Bush off against Obama. I'm not aware of anything Obama did to alienate Eastern Europeans. Can you fill me in? Briefly? :)
As far as looking to Asia, yeah right! You mean...like China.
I kinda like the Chinese. On a personal level, that is. Don't care much for the government, but then I don't care much for the governments in most countries. Do you think the US should restrict itself to only being "friends" with industrialized democracies? OK, fine. What's your complaint with Japan and India, then? Lets here it. It has to be something. It's always something.
2/3 of the world's population is in Asia. Both of the (maybe)emerging super-powers are in Asia. Asia is important.
They're not your friend, they're your owners!
A cheap talking point.
How about Taiwan, Hahaha? The US has already crapped on them.
Yeah. China and Taiwan. That's Asia, isn't it?
Oh I forgot Australia...of course
Maybe you forgot Australia because Australia isn't in Asia? Just saying!
Oh I forgot Australia...of course, with their left wing government they're a natural friend.
At least they haven't released any terrorist mass murderers of Americans from prison! I haven't forgotten that it was just last year that the UK sold the US out for an oil deal. Now we are expected to be loyal to the UK? Is that how it works? For the sake of all the people in Britain who actually DO or DID care about the special relationship with the US at some point in the past, I'm trying to restrain myself here, but to be honest I'm just not feeling the love anymore.
Bush tried to and succeeding in cultivating the anglo-sphere, specifically, the traditional US-UK relationship (at least, since 1917).
Ergo, the anti-Bush is having none of that.
Just another brick in the wall of pissing on traditional allies (what's an ally, Dad?) and bankrupting the USA.
(Stephen Harper ought to be getting a tad nervous.)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 3, 2010 7:30 am
Ergo, the anti-Bush is having none of that.
Just another brick in the wall of pissing on traditional allies (what's an ally, Dad?) and bankrupting the USA.
(Stephen Harper ought to be getting a tad nervous.)
Come to think of it, Harper seems to be trying to fill the leadership vacuum himself.
At least he's not flinching.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 3, 2010 7:39 am
At least he's not flinching.
Barry,
Bush tried to and succeeding in cultivating the anglo-sphere, specifically, the traditional US-UK relationship (at least, since 1917).
You give Bush too much credit. It was Tony Blair who decided - all on his own - that it was important for the UK to stand with the US. Against the will of the British people. And look at the price he payed for it.
Ergo, the anti-Bush is having none of that.
I think I warned on this blog and others that there was going to be a price to be paid for all the anti-Americanism in the UK. And I know that was before Obama was elected, because I pointed out that he was the front-runner to win, and if he did win he'd be the first American President to not be ethnically European. So don't blame Obama. If you didn't see it coming, you weren't paying attention. The Brits seem to have wanted the "special relationship" with the US to be over for quite some time. And now it is. That's not Obama's fault.
Posted by: Craig at March 3, 2010 7:45 am
Bush tried to and succeeding in cultivating the anglo-sphere, specifically, the traditional US-UK relationship (at least, since 1917).
You give Bush too much credit. It was Tony Blair who decided - all on his own - that it was important for the UK to stand with the US. Against the will of the British people. And look at the price he payed for it.
Ergo, the anti-Bush is having none of that.
I think I warned on this blog and others that there was going to be a price to be paid for all the anti-Americanism in the UK. And I know that was before Obama was elected, because I pointed out that he was the front-runner to win, and if he did win he'd be the first American President to not be ethnically European. So don't blame Obama. If you didn't see it coming, you weren't paying attention. The Brits seem to have wanted the "special relationship" with the US to be over for quite some time. And now it is. That's not Obama's fault.
The Brits seem to have wanted the "special relationship" with the US to be over for quite some time. And now it is. That's not Obama's fault.
Britain under Gordon Brown is more closely allied with Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are with the US (or maybe Europe). This point was illustrated when, during the beginning of the current financial crisis, Brown used the Anti-Terrorism Act (2001) to freeze all Icelandic assets in the UK. Then he begged actual supporters of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, for help.
Britain relies on the Islamic Banking mob to keep itself afloat, and it relies on the fast-sinking Dubai economy to provide jobs for its citizens.
Because of this, we have no control over Britain's actions. The decision about the Falkland Island issue will be made by our close friends and the sponsors of 9/11, Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 3, 2010 8:41 am
Britain under Gordon Brown is more closely allied with Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are with the US (or maybe Europe). This point was illustrated when, during the beginning of the current financial crisis, Brown used the Anti-Terrorism Act (2001) to freeze all Icelandic assets in the UK. Then he begged actual supporters of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, for help.
Britain relies on the Islamic Banking mob to keep itself afloat, and it relies on the fast-sinking Dubai economy to provide jobs for its citizens.
Because of this, we have no control over Britain's actions. The decision about the Falkland Island issue will be made by our close friends and the sponsors of 9/11, Saudi Arabia.
Of course, no matter what happens with the Falkland Island issue, Britain will blame it all on America
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 3, 2010 8:42 am
Argentina does have a stake in the Falklands, especially after much oil and natural ressources were recently found there...I am sure that they would like to get a share of that wealth if they can, and they are asking a good friend in the US to help get the ball rolling!
Posted by: Mason at March 3, 2010 9:26 am
Craig,
Obama scuppered the missile defense deal for eastern Europe to appease the Russians (as if Putin could ever be appeased)
Those countries were counting on those missiles as a deterent. I'm quite sure none of them looked to willingly on the prospect of involuntarily rejoining that great "workers' paradise".
Obama's reneging was more than a disappointment, it was a real humiliation. That's one more group who will not look to the US for leadership.
It may not be important for you to distinguish between eastern and western Europe, but it is for many, many others of huge importance.
As far as China's ownership of the US, get real!
Its going to bite you in the ass much sooner than you think. I don't consider it a "cheap talking point: at all! You ignore it at your peril. China will be your "friend" as long as the money keeps rolling in.
India is extremely important and of course it is in Asia but I don't think the US will seek it out as a "friend" preferring Pakistan instead for whatever reason. Now they're not mutually exclusive but I don't see the US making overtures to India. It would have happened by now. Its a stupid decision on Obama's part, but hey at least he's consistent.
I do realize that Australia is not geographically part of Asia (duhhh!). But economically the umbilical cord is pretty short.
But to the main point: The Brits consider this interference in their foreign affairs and do not welcome it, regardless of whether you think its the Falklands or the Malvenas.
Posted by: jb at March 3, 2010 10:40 am
Obama scuppered the missile defense deal for eastern Europe to appease the Russians (as if Putin could ever be appeased)
Those countries were counting on those missiles as a deterent. I'm quite sure none of them looked to willingly on the prospect of involuntarily rejoining that great "workers' paradise".
Obama's reneging was more than a disappointment, it was a real humiliation. That's one more group who will not look to the US for leadership.
It may not be important for you to distinguish between eastern and western Europe, but it is for many, many others of huge importance.
As far as China's ownership of the US, get real!
Its going to bite you in the ass much sooner than you think. I don't consider it a "cheap talking point: at all! You ignore it at your peril. China will be your "friend" as long as the money keeps rolling in.
India is extremely important and of course it is in Asia but I don't think the US will seek it out as a "friend" preferring Pakistan instead for whatever reason. Now they're not mutually exclusive but I don't see the US making overtures to India. It would have happened by now. Its a stupid decision on Obama's part, but hey at least he's consistent.
I do realize that Australia is not geographically part of Asia (duhhh!). But economically the umbilical cord is pretty short.
But to the main point: The Brits consider this interference in their foreign affairs and do not welcome it, regardless of whether you think its the Falklands or the Malvenas.
To give one inch to the Argentinians on the issue of the Falklands would be the greatest dishonour to the memory of all those British soldiers who gave their lives in defence of the islands and its inhabitants so that the Falklanders could live in a democratic and free society and not as second class citizens in a Latin American banana socialist republic.
Posted by: Jabba the Cat at March 3, 2010 11:57 am
"Well, MJT, I don't know that much about it and I'm not going to take a course to learn but wikipedia says that the territory has been in dispute between Britain, Spain, France and Argentina for centuries so I'd say it is up for debate."
Wiki also says that Britain was the first onto the islands, that France and Spain both abandoned their claim, Argentina tried to sell their claim to Britain and it was the US that destroyed their settlement on the island...
Since you like Wiki, read up on the subject. Argentina has an incredibly weak claim to the islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#French_claim
"PS to MJT:
The Falkland Islands are British. This isn't something that's up for debate.
That's what people used to say about America, as well :P "
In which case you should be supporting Britain then since the entire population of the Falklands have stated they want to be British, not Argentinian. Aren't they allowed self-determination? All of the islanders also have full British citizenship.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Argentina or any other country in North or South America says. The only people's opinions who matter are the residents of the Islands and they've spoken loud and clear.
Posted by: JoshC at March 3, 2010 12:51 pm
Wiki also says that Britain was the first onto the islands, that France and Spain both abandoned their claim, Argentina tried to sell their claim to Britain and it was the US that destroyed their settlement on the island...
Since you like Wiki, read up on the subject. Argentina has an incredibly weak claim to the islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#French_claim
"PS to MJT:
The Falkland Islands are British. This isn't something that's up for debate.
That's what people used to say about America, as well :P "
In which case you should be supporting Britain then since the entire population of the Falklands have stated they want to be British, not Argentinian. Aren't they allowed self-determination? All of the islanders also have full British citizenship.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Argentina or any other country in North or South America says. The only people's opinions who matter are the residents of the Islands and they've spoken loud and clear.
The only people's opinions who matter are the residents of the Islands and they've spoken loud and clear.
Seems to me most of the people making that claim were making a quite different claim about South Ossetians with their Russian passports :)
Posted by: Craig at March 3, 2010 4:32 pm
Seems to me most of the people making that claim were making a quite different claim about South Ossetians with their Russian passports :)
Yes, Craig, but the Falkland Islands are not being violently wrenched away from Argentina. They are British, they've been British, and they will remain British. Argentina's claim to them is entirely without merit, and the U.S. has no business legitimizing this delusion with a show of even-handedness.
Britain will no sooner begin talks with Argentina over the Falklands than we would begin talks with Spain over Puerto Rico.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 3, 2010 4:46 pm
Britain will no sooner begin talks with Argentina over the Falklands than we would begin talks with Spain over Puerto Rico.
Heck, Spain has a better claim to Puerto Rico than Argentina has to the Falklands. At least Puerto Ricans speak Spanish and were at one time yoked to Madrid. The people who live on the Falkland Islands are British and have always been tied to London.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 3, 2010 4:48 pm
The key point here is that the U.S. President should not be in the business of giving credence, however hedged and mealy-mouthed, to disputes of the sort [country X] thinks a piece of [our ally] should be broken off and henceforth belong to [country X], just cuz they really really want it.
To dignify such a claim with a response like 'let's negotiate' rather than 'huh?' isn't, as some here suggest, remaining neutral; it gives the claim credence. (If Croatia, say, decided they wanted Hawaii, surely the response would be perplexed silence, not 'interesting point, let's negotiate'.)
So why would we do that? Why would a U.S. President who cared about our alliances do that? (Rhetorical)
As far as I can tell, the main reason certain people get convinced Argentina may have an argument that the Falklands should belong to it, is geographical proximity. (Probably also has a lot to do with simpleminded white people bad/brown people good type thinking.)
But geographical proximity is an extremely weak principle by which to sort out human arrangements. 'Argentina should be able to take the Falklands, and govern the people living there, cuz it's really close by'. Sorry, doesn't work for me. Lots of places are close to other places. That is not how these things are decidedd. These islands are currently part of the governing entity we call the UK, and by all appearances, they and the UK want to keep it that way. Some third party comes along saying 'give 'em to us cuz we want 'em'? The appropriate response is silence (and taking cues from our ally), not vapid, feelgood discussion'ism.
Posted by: Sonic Charmer at March 3, 2010 4:59 pm
To dignify such a claim with a response like 'let's negotiate' rather than 'huh?' isn't, as some here suggest, remaining neutral; it gives the claim credence. (If Croatia, say, decided they wanted Hawaii, surely the response would be perplexed silence, not 'interesting point, let's negotiate'.)
So why would we do that? Why would a U.S. President who cared about our alliances do that? (Rhetorical)
As far as I can tell, the main reason certain people get convinced Argentina may have an argument that the Falklands should belong to it, is geographical proximity. (Probably also has a lot to do with simpleminded white people bad/brown people good type thinking.)
But geographical proximity is an extremely weak principle by which to sort out human arrangements. 'Argentina should be able to take the Falklands, and govern the people living there, cuz it's really close by'. Sorry, doesn't work for me. Lots of places are close to other places. That is not how these things are decidedd. These islands are currently part of the governing entity we call the UK, and by all appearances, they and the UK want to keep it that way. Some third party comes along saying 'give 'em to us cuz we want 'em'? The appropriate response is silence (and taking cues from our ally), not vapid, feelgood discussion'ism.
The Argentina claim is completely bogus. Basically they want to claim that as a former Spanish colony that they should get all former Spanish territorial claims in their region. Pretty ethically weak for a country struggling to recover from colonialism. It would give them an equal claim to Chile! Otherwise they are relying on the continental shelf issue, which is crazy, it would give France a claim to England FCOL!
Actually Argentina only pushed its claim during a coup in which they were run by a military junta that couldn't deliver basic services to its people. After weeks of protests against the junta in front of the palace the junta invaded the FI as a distraction. The distraction idea largely working, turning Argentina's public opinion against England. However, when they lost the war the military government fell. BTW, the generals counted on the support of other former colonies in Latin America, but received almost none, not at the UN or even in diplomatic back channels - that is how weak their claim was!
Argentina sent poor young conscript soldiers to the FI where they froze, encountered local hostility, and then had their butts whupped by the UK. Many soldiers later expressed utter disbelief that they had been sent to invade barren sheepfolds inhabited by Englishmen! The English have lived there for nearly 400 years. They wear tweed, raise sheep, and they drink whiskey.
The Argentines don't even have a plan for running the islands if they get them... only vague ideas about tourism. But few people would likely leave sunny Argentina to visit some bleak and frozen islands! There are no real natural resources on the islands, not oil or natural gas. And although closer to Argentina than to England, they are still far, far away, at about 400 miles.
The FI residents were feeling pretty betrayed in the 1980's as the UK began cutting its support for far off colonies and military commitments. So, the only positive result of the FI War was the re-establishment of the UK's responsibility to the islands. These include regular mail service, air transport to the homeland, and a huge permanent air base. They are NEVER going to give up the islands to the Argentines, ever. They would have to dismantle their bases, tear down centuries old buildings, and evacuate thousands of civilians in a land that they recently died to defend!
They would also have "lost their turkey", in tribal parlance, and put all far off UK territories up as fair game. This would make them a very weak ally for the US. So in many ways we would be stabbing ourselves in the back. For what, the friendship and support of the Argentines? That support would be skin deep and weak.
Argentina does not have the military, economic, or diplomatic strength of the UK. And as part of the non-G8 global cadre they would always be looking to bring the US down a notch. Whereas the UK has every reason to prop us up as a way of bolstering their own status. No, Argentina is not the ally that one should trade the UK for.
IMHO a better move would have been to commit to big dollar donations and trade agreements with Chile during their earthquake crisis. It would be both more humanitarian and more strategic diplomatically. We do much more trade with Chile($20b) than with Argentina($8.8b)and we have a higher likelihood of both maintaining improved relations with Chile and of leveraging that relationship in the wider region.
Posted by: Sean at March 3, 2010 5:24 pm
Actually Argentina only pushed its claim during a coup in which they were run by a military junta that couldn't deliver basic services to its people. After weeks of protests against the junta in front of the palace the junta invaded the FI as a distraction. The distraction idea largely working, turning Argentina's public opinion against England. However, when they lost the war the military government fell. BTW, the generals counted on the support of other former colonies in Latin America, but received almost none, not at the UN or even in diplomatic back channels - that is how weak their claim was!
Argentina sent poor young conscript soldiers to the FI where they froze, encountered local hostility, and then had their butts whupped by the UK. Many soldiers later expressed utter disbelief that they had been sent to invade barren sheepfolds inhabited by Englishmen! The English have lived there for nearly 400 years. They wear tweed, raise sheep, and they drink whiskey.
The Argentines don't even have a plan for running the islands if they get them... only vague ideas about tourism. But few people would likely leave sunny Argentina to visit some bleak and frozen islands! There are no real natural resources on the islands, not oil or natural gas. And although closer to Argentina than to England, they are still far, far away, at about 400 miles.
The FI residents were feeling pretty betrayed in the 1980's as the UK began cutting its support for far off colonies and military commitments. So, the only positive result of the FI War was the re-establishment of the UK's responsibility to the islands. These include regular mail service, air transport to the homeland, and a huge permanent air base. They are NEVER going to give up the islands to the Argentines, ever. They would have to dismantle their bases, tear down centuries old buildings, and evacuate thousands of civilians in a land that they recently died to defend!
They would also have "lost their turkey", in tribal parlance, and put all far off UK territories up as fair game. This would make them a very weak ally for the US. So in many ways we would be stabbing ourselves in the back. For what, the friendship and support of the Argentines? That support would be skin deep and weak.
Argentina does not have the military, economic, or diplomatic strength of the UK. And as part of the non-G8 global cadre they would always be looking to bring the US down a notch. Whereas the UK has every reason to prop us up as a way of bolstering their own status. No, Argentina is not the ally that one should trade the UK for.
IMHO a better move would have been to commit to big dollar donations and trade agreements with Chile during their earthquake crisis. It would be both more humanitarian and more strategic diplomatically. We do much more trade with Chile($20b) than with Argentina($8.8b)and we have a higher likelihood of both maintaining improved relations with Chile and of leveraging that relationship in the wider region.
My understanding is that the Falklands are British sovereign territory, not a colony. Expecting the Brits to "negotiate" with Argentina over the Falklands would be like the U.S. "negotiating" with Japan over Hawaii or Mexico over California.
The Obama administration is being a horse's ass on this.
Posted by: Lindsey Abelard at March 3, 2010 5:55 pm
The Obama administration is being a horse's ass on this.
Are U.S.-Mexican negotiations over the southwestern states next? And this from an administration that is fine with one party locking the doors of the Capitol so " the most ethical and transparent Congress in American history" can't have a bipartisan negotiation of healthcare legislation.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 3, 2010 7:48 pm
I think that the U.S. should attack Britain and cite the Monroe Doctrine as a justifiable means to all ends.
Why the fuck not? We gave Saddam the the Mahdi Army didn't we?
Posted by: Abu Guerrilla at March 3, 2010 9:53 pm
Why the fuck not? We gave Saddam the the Mahdi Army didn't we?
But conquering Britain would mean having to eat English food. I'll pass.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 3, 2010 10:49 pm
"Are U.S.-Mexican negotiations over the southwestern states next?"
Don't rule it out, though it would be agonizing for BO to give up California's electoral votes.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 3, 2010 11:30 pm
Don't rule it out, though it would be agonizing for BO to give up California's electoral votes.
Lindsey,
My understanding is that the Falklands are British sovereign territory, not a colony.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
1 a : a body of people living in a
new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b : the territory inhabited by such a body
Fits the definition of "colony" as far as I'm concerned. It's definitely not an integral part of the UK.
Expecting the Brits to "negotiate" with Argentina over the Falklands would be like the U.S. "negotiating" with Japan over Hawaii or Mexico over California.
The Hawaii example is silly. As for California, you realize we seized California and 3 other US states from Mexico by right of conquest, don't you? That would be illegal in the modern era. However, Mexico ceded those 4 states to the US and forfeited any claim to them. That's not the case with the Falkland Islands and Argentina. There *is* an historical dispute, whether you like it or not.
Sonic Charmer,
(If Croatia, say, decided they wanted Hawaii, surely the response would be perplexed silence, not 'interesting point, let's negotiate'.)
Do you have any idea how much you undermine your own position with such far-fetched comparisons? Not that I much care because as far as I'm concerned this is between the UK and Argentina, but I would think an unbiased observer would pick up on the absurdity of your counter-examples right away. Why didn't you use the example of China and Hong Kong, or the example of China and Taiwan? Both are quite similar, and both are recent. One is even current! I guess the main way they AREN'T similar is that Argentina is weak, and China is not.
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 12:35 am
My understanding is that the Falklands are British sovereign territory, not a colony.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
1 a : a body of people living in a
new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b : the territory inhabited by such a body
Fits the definition of "colony" as far as I'm concerned. It's definitely not an integral part of the UK.
Expecting the Brits to "negotiate" with Argentina over the Falklands would be like the U.S. "negotiating" with Japan over Hawaii or Mexico over California.
The Hawaii example is silly. As for California, you realize we seized California and 3 other US states from Mexico by right of conquest, don't you? That would be illegal in the modern era. However, Mexico ceded those 4 states to the US and forfeited any claim to them. That's not the case with the Falkland Islands and Argentina. There *is* an historical dispute, whether you like it or not.
Sonic Charmer,
(If Croatia, say, decided they wanted Hawaii, surely the response would be perplexed silence, not 'interesting point, let's negotiate'.)
Do you have any idea how much you undermine your own position with such far-fetched comparisons? Not that I much care because as far as I'm concerned this is between the UK and Argentina, but I would think an unbiased observer would pick up on the absurdity of your counter-examples right away. Why didn't you use the example of China and Hong Kong, or the example of China and Taiwan? Both are quite similar, and both are recent. One is even current! I guess the main way they AREN'T similar is that Argentina is weak, and China is not.
US territories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Territories
Unincorporated organized territories
* Guam
* Northern Mariana Islands (commonwealth)
* Puerto Rico (commonwealth)
* United States Virgin Islands
Unincorporated unorganized territories
Islands in South Pacific
* American Samoa, self-governing under a constitution last revised in 1967
* Wake Island, inhabited by US military and civilian contractors only
* Midway Islands, inhabited by caretakers
* Johnston Atoll, uninhabited
* Baker Island, uninhabited
* Howland Island, uninhabited
* Jarvis Island, uninhabited
* Kingman Reef, uninhabited
Islands in Americas
* Bajo Nuevo Bank, uninhabited (claimed by Colombia and Jamaica)
* Serranilla Bank, uninhabited (claimed by Colombia)
* Navassa Island, uninhabited (claimed by Haiti)
Several of those are in dispute with other countries. Most of them could be disputed by other countries. Why not use one of those for a counter-example, instead of "What if Ukraine claimed Alabama" and such stuff like that.
And here is one US territory I know we can have a great argument about!
* Guantanamo Bay, uninhabited
So, how about it? That one is actually IN Cuba! Does anyone believe that if Cuba was strong and the US was weak, that the US would be able to retain Gitmo as a US territory?
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 12:48 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Territories
Unincorporated organized territories
* Guam
* Northern Mariana Islands (commonwealth)
* Puerto Rico (commonwealth)
* United States Virgin Islands
Unincorporated unorganized territories
Islands in South Pacific
* American Samoa, self-governing under a constitution last revised in 1967
* Wake Island, inhabited by US military and civilian contractors only
* Midway Islands, inhabited by caretakers
* Johnston Atoll, uninhabited
* Baker Island, uninhabited
* Howland Island, uninhabited
* Jarvis Island, uninhabited
* Kingman Reef, uninhabited
Islands in Americas
* Bajo Nuevo Bank, uninhabited (claimed by Colombia and Jamaica)
* Serranilla Bank, uninhabited (claimed by Colombia)
* Navassa Island, uninhabited (claimed by Haiti)
Several of those are in dispute with other countries. Most of them could be disputed by other countries. Why not use one of those for a counter-example, instead of "What if Ukraine claimed Alabama" and such stuff like that.
And here is one US territory I know we can have a great argument about!
* Guantanamo Bay, uninhabited
So, how about it? That one is actually IN Cuba! Does anyone believe that if Cuba was strong and the US was weak, that the US would be able to retain Gitmo as a US territory?
PS... that wiki article has a list of former US territories as well. Some of them are quite significant, like the Philippine Islands. The UK has also given up quite a large number of territories in the 20th century. All this "there is no debate" talk is just that: talk! If the UK really cared about the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, they would form some sort of binding agreement with Argentina that would resolve the dispute once and for all, rather than leaving them hanging in limbo.
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 12:54 am
that wiki article has a list of former US territories as well. Some of them are quite significant, like the Philippine Islands.
That's not a reasonable comparison. The Phillipines is a country with its own indigenous non-American population. The Falkland Islands are inhabited by British people, not Argentine people.
If the UK were to "give up" the Falkland Islands, it would become independent. It wouldn't be given over to Argentina. No Argentines live on the Falkland Islands.
The UK can't really give up the Falklands, though, because only 3,000 people live there. It is not a viable nation state. Why give it up, anyway? There's no reason. No one on those islands is asking for independence. And they certainly don't want to be annexed by a country that attacked them not long ago during one of its military dictatorship phases.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 4, 2010 1:20 am
That's not a reasonable comparison. The Phillipines is a country with its own indigenous non-American population. The Falkland Islands are inhabited by British people, not Argentine people.
If the UK were to "give up" the Falkland Islands, it would become independent. It wouldn't be given over to Argentina. No Argentines live on the Falkland Islands.
The UK can't really give up the Falklands, though, because only 3,000 people live there. It is not a viable nation state. Why give it up, anyway? There's no reason. No one on those islands is asking for independence. And they certainly don't want to be annexed by a country that attacked them not long ago during one of its military dictatorship phases.
Apparently Craig's position is immune to logic.
Posted by: commenter at March 4, 2010 1:27 am
MJT,
The Falkland Islands are inhabited by British people, not Argentine people.
And how did they get there? It's pretty far from Britain! The US used to be inhabited by British people as well. And Argentina used to be inhabited by Spanish people.
If the UK were to "give up" the Falkland Islands, it would become independent.
I'm not advocating that the UK give up the Falklands. I'm advocating that the UK resolve the dispute. You probably noticed that Latin America voted unanimously to support Argentinian sovereignty claims. I wouldn't be surprised if it went to the UN if the UN didn't vote in favor of Argentina, either. The UK could always veto seeing as how they have veto power, but that would be hugely embarrassing considering they are currently claiming that their rights to the Falkland Islands are undisputed. I'd rather things didn't get so ugly, and I would think a compromise that everyone can live with is well within reach.
The UK can't really give up the Falklands, though, because only 3,000 people live there. It is not a viable nation state.
That's a good point. And it's actually barely even a viable town.
commenter,
Apparently Craig's position is immune to logic.
There has been very little logic in this thread. People seem to be blinded by emotion and bias on this one. Look at all the asinine comparison's people are making? You think they don't know how ridiculous those examples are? It's called denial, man. I try to avoid it, myself. Not always successfully, but I give it my best shot!
And by the way, I didn't vote for Obama. I haven't voted for a democrat since 1992. So if I'm this ambivalent, imagine what the left is up to on this one?
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 3:08 am
The Falkland Islands are inhabited by British people, not Argentine people.
And how did they get there? It's pretty far from Britain! The US used to be inhabited by British people as well. And Argentina used to be inhabited by Spanish people.
If the UK were to "give up" the Falkland Islands, it would become independent.
I'm not advocating that the UK give up the Falklands. I'm advocating that the UK resolve the dispute. You probably noticed that Latin America voted unanimously to support Argentinian sovereignty claims. I wouldn't be surprised if it went to the UN if the UN didn't vote in favor of Argentina, either. The UK could always veto seeing as how they have veto power, but that would be hugely embarrassing considering they are currently claiming that their rights to the Falkland Islands are undisputed. I'd rather things didn't get so ugly, and I would think a compromise that everyone can live with is well within reach.
The UK can't really give up the Falklands, though, because only 3,000 people live there. It is not a viable nation state.
That's a good point. And it's actually barely even a viable town.
commenter,
Apparently Craig's position is immune to logic.
There has been very little logic in this thread. People seem to be blinded by emotion and bias on this one. Look at all the asinine comparison's people are making? You think they don't know how ridiculous those examples are? It's called denial, man. I try to avoid it, myself. Not always successfully, but I give it my best shot!
And by the way, I didn't vote for Obama. I haven't voted for a democrat since 1992. So if I'm this ambivalent, imagine what the left is up to on this one?
"And how did they get there?"
They moved there. Just like Argentinians would.
Argentinians are not a natural presence in all locations not currently settled by the British.
Hence there is no reason to assume that a location is somehow Argentinian just because Britons had to move there to get there.
Posted by: Andrew Brehm at March 4, 2010 3:21 am
They moved there. Just like Argentinians would.
Argentinians are not a natural presence in all locations not currently settled by the British.
Hence there is no reason to assume that a location is somehow Argentinian just because Britons had to move there to get there.
Craig,
Have you ever heard of St. Pierre and Michelon? Probably not.
Perhaps you should check it out!
And perhaps Canada should just invade it or perhaps the Quebec government should take it over!
Posted by: yesjb at March 4, 2010 3:58 am
Have you ever heard of St. Pierre and Michelon? Probably not.
Perhaps you should check it out!
And perhaps Canada should just invade it or perhaps the Quebec government should take it over!
Britons had to move to Britain, too. Unless you think they evolved from hobbits.
Craig argues Britain should "resolve" this issue.
How does one "resolve" a bully saying, "Hey kid, give me your lunch money!"?
Posted by: Squires at March 4, 2010 4:59 am
Craig argues Britain should "resolve" this issue.
How does one "resolve" a bully saying, "Hey kid, give me your lunch money!"?
Andrew, I wasn't even able to understand what you were trying to say in your comment, so I won't reply.
yesjb,
Have you ever heard of St. Pierre and Michelon? Probably not.
Perhaps you should check it out!
And perhaps Canada should just invade it or perhaps the Quebec government should take it over!
Maybe they should! Since I'm not Canadian, it's not really my call though :)
Squires,
Britons had to move to Britain, too. Unless you think they evolved from hobbits.
Actually, "Britons" is a term that applies to the indigenous people of the British Isles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_%28historical%29
Maybe you meant "Anglo-Saxons"? They didn't "move there", though. They invaded.
Craig argues Britain should "resolve" this issue.
Yes. Yes I do. What's your suggestion? That they leave it unresolved? And then what happens? In the real world, I mean?
How does one "resolve" a bully saying, "Hey kid, give me your lunch money!"?
Argentina is "bullying" Britain? Am I supposed to laugh at that?
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 6:56 am
yesjb,
Have you ever heard of St. Pierre and Michelon? Probably not.
Perhaps you should check it out!
And perhaps Canada should just invade it or perhaps the Quebec government should take it over!
Maybe they should! Since I'm not Canadian, it's not really my call though :)
Squires,
Britons had to move to Britain, too. Unless you think they evolved from hobbits.
Actually, "Britons" is a term that applies to the indigenous people of the British Isles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_%28historical%29
Maybe you meant "Anglo-Saxons"? They didn't "move there", though. They invaded.
Craig argues Britain should "resolve" this issue.
Yes. Yes I do. What's your suggestion? That they leave it unresolved? And then what happens? In the real world, I mean?
How does one "resolve" a bully saying, "Hey kid, give me your lunch money!"?
Argentina is "bullying" Britain? Am I supposed to laugh at that?
"Maybe they should! Since I'm not Canadian, it's not really my call though :) "
I am a Canadian, and no they shouldn't.
Most Canadians don't even think about it and are quite content to let the status quo stand. After all the islands are part of France no different than any other region (Aquitaine, Isle de France etc).
They have remained French since the days of colonial British and French north America.
and it is the French who live there, not Canadians nor Québecois.
Nor despite the fact that the Islands are actually in the Gulf of St. Lawrence just off the coast of several provinces has there been any desire to change their status.
Am I making my point here? :-)
Posted by: jb at March 4, 2010 7:40 am
I am a Canadian, and no they shouldn't.
Most Canadians don't even think about it and are quite content to let the status quo stand. After all the islands are part of France no different than any other region (Aquitaine, Isle de France etc).
They have remained French since the days of colonial British and French north America.
and it is the French who live there, not Canadians nor Québecois.
Nor despite the fact that the Islands are actually in the Gulf of St. Lawrence just off the coast of several provinces has there been any desire to change their status.
Am I making my point here? :-)
Sorry, I forgot one thing...
Perhaps Obama should have a look at these islands and offer Sec Clinton to advise the Canadian government on how to "return" these islands to Canada :-))
Posted by: jb at March 4, 2010 7:42 am
Perhaps Obama should have a look at these islands and offer Sec Clinton to advise the Canadian government on how to "return" these islands to Canada :-))
jb,
Most Canadians don't even think about it and are quite content to let the status quo stand.
Then it's an invalid example. The Argentinians have been asserting sovereignty over those Islands since 1828, and have never abandoned their claim.
After all the islands are part of France no different than any other region (Aquitaine, Isle de France etc).
That's a mis-statement of fact. Aquitanine is a province of France. The Islands you are talking about are French territories aka colonies.
Perhaps Obama should have a look at these islands and offer Sec Clinton to advise the Canadian government on how to "return" these islands to Canada :-))
Clinton was asked to mediate by Argentina's President. If Canada's Prime Minister asks Clinton to mediate a dispute over those French Islands, I'm sure she'd oblige. But didn't you just say Canada doesn't dispute French claims to those Islands? You just being a smartass now?
Am I making my point here? :-)
If your point was to prove that you are misinformed and irrational, then yes :)
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 7:57 am
Most Canadians don't even think about it and are quite content to let the status quo stand.
Then it's an invalid example. The Argentinians have been asserting sovereignty over those Islands since 1828, and have never abandoned their claim.
After all the islands are part of France no different than any other region (Aquitaine, Isle de France etc).
That's a mis-statement of fact. Aquitanine is a province of France. The Islands you are talking about are French territories aka colonies.
Perhaps Obama should have a look at these islands and offer Sec Clinton to advise the Canadian government on how to "return" these islands to Canada :-))
Clinton was asked to mediate by Argentina's President. If Canada's Prime Minister asks Clinton to mediate a dispute over those French Islands, I'm sure she'd oblige. But didn't you just say Canada doesn't dispute French claims to those Islands? You just being a smartass now?
Am I making my point here? :-)
If your point was to prove that you are misinformed and irrational, then yes :)
"Then it's an invalid example. The Argentinians have been asserting sovereignty over those Islands since 1828, and have never abandoned their claim."
So what? This is about the legality of their claim. Nobody is questioning that they want to own those islands.
Just because Argentina is nuttier than Canada doesn't mean that Argentina is entitled to more islands in the Atlantic than Canada.
But perhaps you won't understand again...
Posted by: Andrew Brehm at March 4, 2010 8:48 am
So what? This is about the legality of their claim. Nobody is questioning that they want to own those islands.
Just because Argentina is nuttier than Canada doesn't mean that Argentina is entitled to more islands in the Atlantic than Canada.
But perhaps you won't understand again...
Listen, Craig,
Just because Argentina wants to prove their dick is bigger doesn't make their claim valid or rational just like your arguments.
Secondly, they are not territories (aka colonies). That's BS.
They are a "department" which is the term applied to all French areas in France proper and overseas. And they are treated the same. They were reclassified as a "territorial collectivity" in 1985 to comply with European Community (now European Union) trade regulations.
Thirdly if Canada asked the US to mediate, the US should respectfully decline. Canada and France resolved a fishing dispute around the islands decades ago without US help (aka interference!)
Posted by: jb at March 4, 2010 9:06 am
Just because Argentina wants to prove their dick is bigger doesn't make their claim valid or rational just like your arguments.
Secondly, they are not territories (aka colonies). That's BS.
They are a "department" which is the term applied to all French areas in France proper and overseas. And they are treated the same. They were reclassified as a "territorial collectivity" in 1985 to comply with European Community (now European Union) trade regulations.
Thirdly if Canada asked the US to mediate, the US should respectfully decline. Canada and France resolved a fishing dispute around the islands decades ago without US help (aka interference!)
Andrew,
So what? This is about the legality of their claim.
No, actually the comment you were replying to was about the nuttiness of jb's attempted comparison between Canada and it's non-dispute of France's sovereignty of some islands off Canadian shores with Argentina's centuries-old dispute with Britain.
Nobody is questioning that they want to own those islands.
Then why did jb offer up the counter example that he did?
Just because Argentina is nuttier than Canada doesn't mean that Argentina is entitled to more islands in the Atlantic than Canada.
But perhaps you won't understand again...
You're right. I didn't understand the purpose of any of your comments in this thread. They seem nonsensical and smart-assy to me. If you don't have anything to say, perhaps you should consider not saying anything? Then nobody will have to try to decipher what appears to be (sorry!) babbling.
jb,
Just because Argentina wants to prove their dick is bigger...
First it was "bullying" that you accused the weaker party of, now you accuse the weaker party of wanting to get in a penis measuring contest? Something tells me the one with the problem is you, but I could be wrong!
...doesn't make their claim valid or rational...
Neither the UK nor Argentina have a valid claim, if by "valid" you mean that it is indisputably legal. That's what "dispute" means, you know...
Secondly, they are not territories (aka colonies). That's BS.
JFC, am I arguing with an imbecile again? I hate it when that happens :o
Are you a leftist by any chance? Big mouth, feeble-minded... you fit the profile.
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 9:28 am
So what? This is about the legality of their claim.
No, actually the comment you were replying to was about the nuttiness of jb's attempted comparison between Canada and it's non-dispute of France's sovereignty of some islands off Canadian shores with Argentina's centuries-old dispute with Britain.
Nobody is questioning that they want to own those islands.
Then why did jb offer up the counter example that he did?
Just because Argentina is nuttier than Canada doesn't mean that Argentina is entitled to more islands in the Atlantic than Canada.
But perhaps you won't understand again...
You're right. I didn't understand the purpose of any of your comments in this thread. They seem nonsensical and smart-assy to me. If you don't have anything to say, perhaps you should consider not saying anything? Then nobody will have to try to decipher what appears to be (sorry!) babbling.
jb,
Just because Argentina wants to prove their dick is bigger...
First it was "bullying" that you accused the weaker party of, now you accuse the weaker party of wanting to get in a penis measuring contest? Something tells me the one with the problem is you, but I could be wrong!
...doesn't make their claim valid or rational...
Neither the UK nor Argentina have a valid claim, if by "valid" you mean that it is indisputably legal. That's what "dispute" means, you know...
Secondly, they are not territories (aka colonies). That's BS.
JFC, am I arguing with an imbecile again? I hate it when that happens :o
Are you a leftist by any chance? Big mouth, feeble-minded... you fit the profile.
You know Craig I tried to be objective, something your pea-sized brain doesn't have enough neurons to grasp. and I try not to be personal.
If the facts don't fit your turgid hypothesis, then call the messenger an imbecile. Sounds like the problem is definitely chez vous! What a pompous , little ass!
And no I'm not a leftist, nor feeble minded nor big mouthed.
But its clear what you are and you're the only person here that doesn't realize it. So spare me your insults and innuendos.
Its clear bullying, insults and subjectivity are your forté. Rational discussion is definitely absent.
What a total waste of time you are!
Posted by: jb at March 4, 2010 10:04 am
If the facts don't fit your turgid hypothesis, then call the messenger an imbecile. Sounds like the problem is definitely chez vous! What a pompous , little ass!
And no I'm not a leftist, nor feeble minded nor big mouthed.
But its clear what you are and you're the only person here that doesn't realize it. So spare me your insults and innuendos.
Its clear bullying, insults and subjectivity are your forté. Rational discussion is definitely absent.
What a total waste of time you are!
You know Craig I tried to be objective...
By basing your entire argument on deliberate mis-statements of fact? lol
I bet if I went through MJT's archives I'd find that's a pattern with you. And now you accuse me AND Argentina of being a bully. Note where in my last comment I said this:
First it was "bullying" that you accused the weaker party of, now you accuse the weaker party of wanting to get in a penis measuring contest? Something tells me the one with the problem is you, but I could be wrong!
Looks like I wasn't wrong. Passive-Aggressive is your default mode, isn't it?
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 10:28 am
By basing your entire argument on deliberate mis-statements of fact? lol
I bet if I went through MJT's archives I'd find that's a pattern with you. And now you accuse me AND Argentina of being a bully. Note where in my last comment I said this:
First it was "bullying" that you accused the weaker party of, now you accuse the weaker party of wanting to get in a penis measuring contest? Something tells me the one with the problem is you, but I could be wrong!
Looks like I wasn't wrong. Passive-Aggressive is your default mode, isn't it?
Don't make me pull over the car.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 4, 2010 10:59 am
@ Mary Madigan
"Britain relies on the Islamic Banking mob to keep itself afloat, and it relies on the fast-sinking Dubai economy to provide jobs for its citizens.
Because of this, we have no control over Britain's actions. The decision about the Falkland Island issue will be made by our close friends and the sponsors of 9/11, Saudi Arabia."
and
"Of course, no matter what happens with the Falkland Island issue, Britain will blame it all on America..."
Yaaay! Mary you are the now the new official biggest idiot poster on this site. Congratulations. Have you considered cretino-punditry as a full time job... cos looking at your blog, you are quite the amateur photographer.
Actually, I think that this row might be a lot to do with what is under the islands and their immediate environs,. than who lives on them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/argentina-steps-up-falkands-oil-row
Posted by: Microraptor at March 4, 2010 1:41 pm
"Britain relies on the Islamic Banking mob to keep itself afloat, and it relies on the fast-sinking Dubai economy to provide jobs for its citizens.
Because of this, we have no control over Britain's actions. The decision about the Falkland Island issue will be made by our close friends and the sponsors of 9/11, Saudi Arabia."
and
"Of course, no matter what happens with the Falkland Island issue, Britain will blame it all on America..."
Yaaay! Mary you are the now the new official biggest idiot poster on this site. Congratulations. Have you considered cretino-punditry as a full time job... cos looking at your blog, you are quite the amateur photographer.
Actually, I think that this row might be a lot to do with what is under the islands and their immediate environs,. than who lives on them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/argentina-steps-up-falkands-oil-row
Actually, I think that this row might be a lot to do with what is under the islands and their immediate environs,. than who lives on them
Microraptor, I agree with you that's the reason it has come up again now (though it also came up many times in the past, long before oil entered the equation). Check this out, From December 2, 2009:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/12/02/86626/gotcha-the-falkland-oilands-revisted/
The UK could be sitting on 60bn barrels of oil.
THE Falklands are on the brink of a massive oil boom that could boost Britain’s battered economy – 27 years after UK forces retook the islands from Argentina.
And note how since Argentina started protesting the UK drilling in disputed waters (which actually does seem to be in violation of UN treaties) the UK has started downplaying the drilling as a small time operation that is unlikely to find much oil.
Oil always seems to make the dirty business of international politics a lot dirtier.
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 4:25 pm
Microraptor, I agree with you that's the reason it has come up again now (though it also came up many times in the past, long before oil entered the equation). Check this out, From December 2, 2009:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/12/02/86626/gotcha-the-falkland-oilands-revisted/
The UK could be sitting on 60bn barrels of oil.
THE Falklands are on the brink of a massive oil boom that could boost Britain’s battered economy – 27 years after UK forces retook the islands from Argentina.
And note how since Argentina started protesting the UK drilling in disputed waters (which actually does seem to be in violation of UN treaties) the UK has started downplaying the drilling as a small time operation that is unlikely to find much oil.
Oil always seems to make the dirty business of international politics a lot dirtier.
Yaaay! Mary you are the now the new official biggest idiot poster on this site. Congratulations. Have you considered cretino-punditry as a full time job... cos looking at your blog, you are quite the amateur photographer.
Microraptor - I've made the same point several times on British blogs, and most Brits agree. Most acknowledge that Brown is selling out the country and they are very dependent on Gulf state money. This is something that they'd like to change.
Why has this hit such a nerve with you?
In any case, I was responding to Craig's comment, which I'll quote here:
I think I warned on this blog and others that there was going to be a price to be paid for all the anti-Americanism in the UK. And I know that was before Obama was elected, because I pointed out that he was the front-runner to win, and if he did win he'd be the first American President to not be ethnically European. So don't blame Obama. If you didn't see it coming, you weren't paying attention. The Brits seem to have wanted the "special relationship" with the US to be over for quite some time. And now it is. That's not Obama's fault.
I was basically agreeing - The Brits (defined mostly as the current government and the media) don't believe that there is a "special relationship" with the US, they don't like us very much lately and there's very little that Obama or anyone else can do about that.
And as for my prediction that the Brits (the government and the media) will blame the Americans no matter what happens, that's based on past history.
Would you like me to put together a sampling of irrational British hatred of America and Americans? Mean-spirited catty remarks about stupid Americans? British blathering about American arrogance and historical slights? I'd have to limit it to the random hatred generated during the previous few hours, because I don't want to crash Michael's server....
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 4, 2010 4:59 pm
Microraptor - I've made the same point several times on British blogs, and most Brits agree. Most acknowledge that Brown is selling out the country and they are very dependent on Gulf state money. This is something that they'd like to change.
Why has this hit such a nerve with you?
In any case, I was responding to Craig's comment, which I'll quote here:
I think I warned on this blog and others that there was going to be a price to be paid for all the anti-Americanism in the UK. And I know that was before Obama was elected, because I pointed out that he was the front-runner to win, and if he did win he'd be the first American President to not be ethnically European. So don't blame Obama. If you didn't see it coming, you weren't paying attention. The Brits seem to have wanted the "special relationship" with the US to be over for quite some time. And now it is. That's not Obama's fault.
I was basically agreeing - The Brits (defined mostly as the current government and the media) don't believe that there is a "special relationship" with the US, they don't like us very much lately and there's very little that Obama or anyone else can do about that.
And as for my prediction that the Brits (the government and the media) will blame the Americans no matter what happens, that's based on past history.
Would you like me to put together a sampling of irrational British hatred of America and Americans? Mean-spirited catty remarks about stupid Americans? British blathering about American arrogance and historical slights? I'd have to limit it to the random hatred generated during the previous few hours, because I don't want to crash Michael's server....
Thank you UK for your support and extra thanks for support since 9/11/01 I agree that the Falklands are not open to debate and that any oil there is the UK's to do with as you choose. I have friends from both the UK and Argentina that I dearly love but I think Argentina is wrong in this case and if it makes a difference you have my support. I just don't think you can depend on our current President for anything. I don't think we can depend on him either.
Posted by: Tom Curley at March 4, 2010 6:33 pm
http://www.google.com/search?q=Libya+oil+deal+terrorist
When Gordon Browne gets sent to prison (or at least vigorously prosecuted) for corruption in that case, the UK will have my support as well. Somewhat. Because I still haven't forgotten all the snide anti-Americanism coming out of the British media and British politicians, the last 10 years. But I might at least find my way back to giving them a fair shot. In the meantime... no, I don't think so. That isn't how allies behave. Especially when they are "special" allies.
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 8:11 pm
When Gordon Browne gets sent to prison (or at least vigorously prosecuted) for corruption in that case, the UK will have my support as well. Somewhat. Because I still haven't forgotten all the snide anti-Americanism coming out of the British media and British politicians, the last 10 years. But I might at least find my way back to giving them a fair shot. In the meantime... no, I don't think so. That isn't how allies behave. Especially when they are "special" allies.
http://www.google.com/search?q=al-Megrahi+not+dead+yet
That requires some 'splaining too. Is that the kind of diagnosis the most-excellent health care system that the British are trying to shove down our throats is capable of? Or was somebody lying?
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 8:19 pm
That requires some 'splaining too. Is that the kind of diagnosis the most-excellent health care system that the British are trying to shove down our throats is capable of? Or was somebody lying?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/argentina-uk-falkland-row-oil
The recent Rio Summit appears to be quite a farce. Aside from voting to establish a new intergovernmental body for the Americas that excludes Canada and the US, it also featured a shouting match where Venezuela and Colombia's leaders hurled curses at each other in Spanish. You know that you are in trouble when Castro is intervening as the voice of reason. Sigh.
The current Falklands flair up appears to be because a British group wants to explore for oil off the Falkland coast. Please note that it is not an Argentine company trying to find a viable natural resource for the islands to develop.
Also, it should probably be noted that the Falklands ARE largely "independent" these days. Even back during the FI war in the 80's they had their own currency and had actually lost their UK citizenship in the same law that cut off Hong Kong. I believe after the war the UK "fixed" the passport issue. However, they are still governed locally and have their own currency. I also believe that they remain within the Commonwealth.
Posted by: Sean at March 4, 2010 11:13 pm
The recent Rio Summit appears to be quite a farce. Aside from voting to establish a new intergovernmental body for the Americas that excludes Canada and the US, it also featured a shouting match where Venezuela and Colombia's leaders hurled curses at each other in Spanish. You know that you are in trouble when Castro is intervening as the voice of reason. Sigh.
The current Falklands flair up appears to be because a British group wants to explore for oil off the Falkland coast. Please note that it is not an Argentine company trying to find a viable natural resource for the islands to develop.
Also, it should probably be noted that the Falklands ARE largely "independent" these days. Even back during the FI war in the 80's they had their own currency and had actually lost their UK citizenship in the same law that cut off Hong Kong. I believe after the war the UK "fixed" the passport issue. However, they are still governed locally and have their own currency. I also believe that they remain within the Commonwealth.
The only reason Argentina wants to claim the Falklands is to put on some kind of faux-victim act, claim national humiliation, rally the indignant elites, and then get the UN to broker some kind of "peace" in which Argentina gets a "piece" of the FI. It was true in 1982, and it's true today.
This, from a nation with a screaming inferiority complex, that never found sanity after the ties to her fascist European masters were severed.
Posted by: gus3 at March 4, 2010 11:14 pm
This, from a nation with a screaming inferiority complex, that never found sanity after the ties to her fascist European masters were severed.
The recent Rio Summit appears to be quite a farce. Aside from voting to establish a new intergovernmental body for the Americas that excludes Canada and the US, it also featured a shouting match where Venezuela and Colombia's leaders hurled curses at each other in Spanish.
The part you neglect to mention is that they voted to unanimously support Argentina. That didn't even happen in 1982.
The current Falklands flair up appears to be because a British group wants to explore for oil off the Falkland coast.
You think!? lol
Please note that it is not an Argentine company trying to find a viable natural resource for the islands to develop.
What is worth noting about that observation? That the Argentinians aren't fool enough to explore for oil in an area controlled by Britain?
Also, it should probably be noted that the Falklands ARE largely "independent" these days.
No, they aren't. All their essentials are shipped to the Islands via ports in Latin America. All flights to the Islands are from airports in Latin America. They are nowhere near to being self-sufficient. Nor can they survive depending on support from the UK, alone. Britain simply isn't going to invest the money and the effort to try to throw a lifeline to such a small island, so far from home.
Even back during the FI war in the 80's...
Speaking of the 1980s, the only reason the UK won that war is that the US supplied advanced air-to-air missiles and other armaments and supplies to Britain - at sea, no less - on an emergency basis. Because everything the British navy had was obsolete, and they didn't have any friendly ports nearby to resupply from even if they did have state of the art armaments. And it's "worth noting" that this aid was provided reluctantly, even back than. And that's when Ronald Reagan was President of the US, and Margaret Thatcher the PM of Britain.
I believe after the war the UK "fixed" the passport issue. However, they are still governed locally and have their own currency. I also believe that they remain within the Commonwealth.
Why do you state your "beliefs" rather than looking into it? Is it a mystery?
Posted by: Craig at March 4, 2010 11:59 pm
The part you neglect to mention is that they voted to unanimously support Argentina. That didn't even happen in 1982.
The current Falklands flair up appears to be because a British group wants to explore for oil off the Falkland coast.
You think!? lol
Please note that it is not an Argentine company trying to find a viable natural resource for the islands to develop.
What is worth noting about that observation? That the Argentinians aren't fool enough to explore for oil in an area controlled by Britain?
Also, it should probably be noted that the Falklands ARE largely "independent" these days.
No, they aren't. All their essentials are shipped to the Islands via ports in Latin America. All flights to the Islands are from airports in Latin America. They are nowhere near to being self-sufficient. Nor can they survive depending on support from the UK, alone. Britain simply isn't going to invest the money and the effort to try to throw a lifeline to such a small island, so far from home.
Even back during the FI war in the 80's...
Speaking of the 1980s, the only reason the UK won that war is that the US supplied advanced air-to-air missiles and other armaments and supplies to Britain - at sea, no less - on an emergency basis. Because everything the British navy had was obsolete, and they didn't have any friendly ports nearby to resupply from even if they did have state of the art armaments. And it's "worth noting" that this aid was provided reluctantly, even back than. And that's when Ronald Reagan was President of the US, and Margaret Thatcher the PM of Britain.
I believe after the war the UK "fixed" the passport issue. However, they are still governed locally and have their own currency. I also believe that they remain within the Commonwealth.
Why do you state your "beliefs" rather than looking into it? Is it a mystery?
The only reason Argentina wants to claim the Falklands...
I think it's more likely that they don't want a British naval base and air station so close to them. Especially considering the history. The only reason the UK has ever wanted those barren Islands is to have a naval port there from which they could fuck with the Spanish and French, and harass the locals. They got booted a couple times, and had to compete with the Spanish and French (and even the Dutch) who were also busy trying to put naval bases there. And of course, the British abandoned the Falklands for 50 years due to the American revolution. It was actually the US who destroyed the settlement that Argentina had built there, which allowed Britain to re-establish their base (and their claim) in 1833.
And now of course, there's the oil...
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 12:04 am
I think it's more likely that they don't want a British naval base and air station so close to them. Especially considering the history. The only reason the UK has ever wanted those barren Islands is to have a naval port there from which they could fuck with the Spanish and French, and harass the locals. They got booted a couple times, and had to compete with the Spanish and French (and even the Dutch) who were also busy trying to put naval bases there. And of course, the British abandoned the Falklands for 50 years due to the American revolution. It was actually the US who destroyed the settlement that Argentina had built there, which allowed Britain to re-establish their base (and their claim) in 1833.
And now of course, there's the oil...
1833 ... ancient history. Events older than 2 generations should not make base of real-world policy. They should be domain of the historians.
"All flights to the Islands are from airports in Latin America. They are nowhere near to being self-sufficient. Nor can they survive depending on support from the UK, alone."
That is true, but, to a large part, irrelevant. Latin America is politically more fractured than 30 years ago. And I believe that Chile would aid the British significantly - just to poke the Argentinians in the eye. There is no love over that long mountainous border.
Britain simply isn't going to invest the money and the effort to try to throw a lifeline to such a small island, so far from home.
If the island really sits on 60 bln. USD worth of oil, sure they will do that. They would be fools not to put some effort into keeping such a black-gold mine.
A
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at March 5, 2010 12:55 am
"All flights to the Islands are from airports in Latin America. They are nowhere near to being self-sufficient. Nor can they survive depending on support from the UK, alone."
That is true, but, to a large part, irrelevant. Latin America is politically more fractured than 30 years ago. And I believe that Chile would aid the British significantly - just to poke the Argentinians in the eye. There is no love over that long mountainous border.
Britain simply isn't going to invest the money and the effort to try to throw a lifeline to such a small island, so far from home.
If the island really sits on 60 bln. USD worth of oil, sure they will do that. They would be fools not to put some effort into keeping such a black-gold mine.
A
The Argentina never contested the British claim to the Falklands until relatively recently in history. They tend to do so now whenever the government in Argentina is in trouble and it feels a need to rally the people around a leader having problems in other areas.
The Obama administration's position on this is rather despicable, in my opinion. The Falklands have never been Argentina's and physical proximity does not constitute a territorial claim. It would be akin to the US claiming Bermuda.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 5, 2010 8:13 am
The Obama administration's position on this is rather despicable, in my opinion. The Falklands have never been Argentina's and physical proximity does not constitute a territorial claim. It would be akin to the US claiming Bermuda.
crosspatch,
The Argentina never contested the British claim to the Falklands until relatively recently in history.
They've never NOT disputed it. Argentina has claimed sovereignty of those Islands ever since Argentina become a sovereign nation themselves. And in point of fact they had a civilian settlement on the Islands before the British did, in the 1820s. Which the US wiped out. No need to thank us, Britain.
The Obama administration's position on this is rather despicable, in my opinion.
Why? It's no different than Reagan's.
The Falklands have never been Argentina's and physical proximity does not constitute a territorial claim.
The Falklands have been in the possession of Argentina. And proximity constitutes a better claim than extreme distance, in my opinion. Of course, the best claim of all is possession. If Britain prefers to go that route rather than trying to resolve it once and for all, that's up to them but if there is that much oil under the Falklands the issue is probably not going to just go away.
It would be akin to the US claiming Bermuda.
It's not "akin" to anything. Most the people in this thread including me have been throwing up counter-examples, and none of them bear any similarity.
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 9:00 am
The Argentina never contested the British claim to the Falklands until relatively recently in history.
They've never NOT disputed it. Argentina has claimed sovereignty of those Islands ever since Argentina become a sovereign nation themselves. And in point of fact they had a civilian settlement on the Islands before the British did, in the 1820s. Which the US wiped out. No need to thank us, Britain.
The Obama administration's position on this is rather despicable, in my opinion.
Why? It's no different than Reagan's.
The Falklands have never been Argentina's and physical proximity does not constitute a territorial claim.
The Falklands have been in the possession of Argentina. And proximity constitutes a better claim than extreme distance, in my opinion. Of course, the best claim of all is possession. If Britain prefers to go that route rather than trying to resolve it once and for all, that's up to them but if there is that much oil under the Falklands the issue is probably not going to just go away.
It would be akin to the US claiming Bermuda.
It's not "akin" to anything. Most the people in this thread including me have been throwing up counter-examples, and none of them bear any similarity.
If one wishes to base the Argentine claim to the Falklands on proximity, one might need to consider that Argentina did not possess Patagonia until the second half of the 19th century. They conquered Patagonia not without brutality.
Mid 19th century maps do not show Argentina in its present configuration. Patagonia is not included.
Posted by: del at March 5, 2010 11:40 am
Mid 19th century maps do not show Argentina in its present configuration. Patagonia is not included.
"Obama scuppered the missile defense deal for eastern Europe to appease the Russians (as if Putin could ever be appeased)
Those countries were counting on those missiles as a deterent"
Seriously, they did not. They saw it as a moneymaking scheme and as a moving of NATOS border. Frankly, a lot of them were nervous about Russia cutting the gas because of it. Everybody except the czhec government breathed a sigh of relief when it got canceled.
Honestly.
Posted by: Fnord at March 5, 2010 12:00 pm
Those countries were counting on those missiles as a deterent"
Seriously, they did not. They saw it as a moneymaking scheme and as a moving of NATOS border. Frankly, a lot of them were nervous about Russia cutting the gas because of it. Everybody except the czhec government breathed a sigh of relief when it got canceled.
Honestly.
I still haven't forgotten all the snide anti-Americanism coming out of the British media and British politicians, the last 10 years.
And we all know the media are representative of the people!! We could also talk about anti-European sentiment in the US media - particularly from neoconservatives.
Anyway, the Guardian is positively pro-American when compared to not just the Argentine media but its people. Perhaps if you could read Spanish you'd be aware of it.
The Falklands have been in the possession of Argentina.
Argentina abandoned them in 1833 and only occasionally protested British until 1982. So there were 150 years of effective and continuous British control of the islands. Under international law that is case closed.
But the more important matter here is that the US is not willing to support British sovereignty and the principle of self-determination. Given that defending one's own territory is priority #1 for any state the UK should seriously consider withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan.
Posted by: Patrice at March 5, 2010 4:39 pm
And we all know the media are representative of the people!! We could also talk about anti-European sentiment in the US media - particularly from neoconservatives.
Anyway, the Guardian is positively pro-American when compared to not just the Argentine media but its people. Perhaps if you could read Spanish you'd be aware of it.
The Falklands have been in the possession of Argentina.
Argentina abandoned them in 1833 and only occasionally protested British until 1982. So there were 150 years of effective and continuous British control of the islands. Under international law that is case closed.
But the more important matter here is that the US is not willing to support British sovereignty and the principle of self-determination. Given that defending one's own territory is priority #1 for any state the UK should seriously consider withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan.
Fsnort,
That's not exactly right.
Both the Poles and the Czechs (Republic) had agreements in principal with the Bush administration and felt betrayed by Obama's decision. Read the comments by their leaders. Other eastern European countries were along on the coattails.
Furthermore, I don't believe Russian oil was ever a factor, not in the original negotiations or subsequent comments from either gov't.
But it did show those countries not to trust America.
Honest
Posted by: yesjb at March 5, 2010 7:05 pm
That's not exactly right.
Both the Poles and the Czechs (Republic) had agreements in principal with the Bush administration and felt betrayed by Obama's decision. Read the comments by their leaders. Other eastern European countries were along on the coattails.
Furthermore, I don't believe Russian oil was ever a factor, not in the original negotiations or subsequent comments from either gov't.
But it did show those countries not to trust America.
Honest
But the more important matter here is that the US is not willing to support British sovereignty and the principle of self-determination. Given that defending one's own territory is priority #1 for any state the UK should seriously consider withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan.
Did I say that I support Argentina in this particular slapfight? No, I did not. Both sides are being belligerent, both are making silly threats.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 5, 2010 8:29 pm
Did I say that I support Argentina in this particular slapfight? No, I did not. Both sides are being belligerent, both are making silly threats.
Patrice,
And we all know the media are representative of the people!!
The media and political leadership shape public opinion, Patrice. When the British elites go on a demonization rampage against my country, I assume there's a reason for it. And I also assume it is having an impact. If you don't like your government (assuming you are British) making Americans into enemies into allies, then tell them to shut the fuck up. We're paying attention over here. We hear what is said, and we see what is done.
We could also talk about anti-European sentiment in the US media - particularly from neoconservatives.
I challenge you to find a case of that happening in regards to Britain. Ever. The US media and American politicians have always been very respectful towards the UK.
Anyway, the Guardian is positively pro-American when compared to not just the Argentine media but its people. Perhaps if you could read Spanish you'd be aware of it.
Argentina doesn't concern me much. Britain is supposedly America's oldest and closest ally. Argentina isn't even a friend.
Under international law that is case closed.
Really? Can you give me a cite on that?
But the more important matter here is that the US is not willing to support British sovereignty and the principle of self-determination. Given that defending one's own territory is priority #1 for any state the UK should seriously consider withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan.
That's fine by me. It'd pretty clear that the British never wanted to be in Afghanistan, anyway. And in Iraq, things actually improved down around Basrah where they'd been at AFTER the British left. Could be coincidence, but based on things I've read about how the British were doing things in their area of responsibility, I kinda doubt it. That's not to say things would improve in Afghanistan if the Brits left, but they can hardly get worse can they? And besides, I'm not a big fan of the Afghanistan mission anyway. I wouldn't mind if the US announced it was withdrawing as well. The deciding factor in Afghanistan will be Pakistan, in my opinion, not the number of Western troops in the country.
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 11:50 pm
And we all know the media are representative of the people!!
The media and political leadership shape public opinion, Patrice. When the British elites go on a demonization rampage against my country, I assume there's a reason for it. And I also assume it is having an impact. If you don't like your government (assuming you are British) making Americans into enemies into allies, then tell them to shut the fuck up. We're paying attention over here. We hear what is said, and we see what is done.
We could also talk about anti-European sentiment in the US media - particularly from neoconservatives.
I challenge you to find a case of that happening in regards to Britain. Ever. The US media and American politicians have always been very respectful towards the UK.
Anyway, the Guardian is positively pro-American when compared to not just the Argentine media but its people. Perhaps if you could read Spanish you'd be aware of it.
Argentina doesn't concern me much. Britain is supposedly America's oldest and closest ally. Argentina isn't even a friend.
Under international law that is case closed.
Really? Can you give me a cite on that?
But the more important matter here is that the US is not willing to support British sovereignty and the principle of self-determination. Given that defending one's own territory is priority #1 for any state the UK should seriously consider withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan.
That's fine by me. It'd pretty clear that the British never wanted to be in Afghanistan, anyway. And in Iraq, things actually improved down around Basrah where they'd been at AFTER the British left. Could be coincidence, but based on things I've read about how the British were doing things in their area of responsibility, I kinda doubt it. That's not to say things would improve in Afghanistan if the Brits left, but they can hardly get worse can they? And besides, I'm not a big fan of the Afghanistan mission anyway. I wouldn't mind if the US announced it was withdrawing as well. The deciding factor in Afghanistan will be Pakistan, in my opinion, not the number of Western troops in the country.
To be fair to European allies, I'd categorize American conservative sentiment more specifically as anti-socialist big government and anti-appeasement---wherever those trends may be found in the world. Do the less reflective resort to blanket "They all..." disparagement? Sure---across the political spectrum. I realize also that the term "neoconservative" has more specific connotations for some.
The contributions of tiny Denmark's frontline troops in Afghanistan, for one example, have been admirable, appreciated and underreported, as have contributions by other allies. I wonder though, and worry about some Europeans, and others elsewhere, actually thinking acquiescence makes their values, reflected in their lifestyles, seem less like those of infidels to jihadists, and therefore less vulnerable.
Now, have I enjoyed a clever joke at the expense of the French?
Guilty.
:-)
Posted by: Paul S. at March 6, 2010 12:27 am
The contributions of tiny Denmark's frontline troops in Afghanistan, for one example, have been admirable, appreciated and underreported, as have contributions by other allies. I wonder though, and worry about some Europeans, and others elsewhere, actually thinking acquiescence makes their values, reflected in their lifestyles, seem less like those of infidels to jihadists, and therefore less vulnerable.
Now, have I enjoyed a clever joke at the expense of the French?
Guilty.
:-)
This was basically the Reagan administration's attitude during the Falkland's War. The Cold Warriors preferred their anti-Communist Latin American despots to their foremost ally in NATO (which warded against potential Soviet aggression). Crusaders then were as poor prioritizers as today.
I have never understood the British attitude. Oh, it made sense between Churchill and Roosevelt, because if the Americans decided to wait until the totalitarians had conquered most of Europe and Asia, they did actually save the world. But what has Britain gained since then? It was humiliated at Suez in 1956. The US fostered European integration in the 1950s when the Brits were hostile. The US invaded Grenada (a Commonwealth country) over British protests in 1983. Reagan did nothing to help the UK during the Falklands War. Bush Senior completely overruled Thatcher's little-remembered but very real apprehensions about German reunification and the end of the Warsaw Pact.
And yet, Britain since Thatcher has been the key rhetorical supporter of America. And since John Major, that rhetorical support has also been turned into real stuff, soldiers on the ground for specific operations, often more than all the other Europeans put together. In Blair's case, Britain was a critical enabler in manufacturing the 2002-2003 "Iraq crisis" that made Bush's war possible. Without Blair lending his credibility, his country's alleged intelligence, his respectability, his posh Eton accent and his 35,000 men to the crass cowboys from Crawford, it is unclear Bush's project to destroy Iraq could have gone through.
The question for Britain: what does it get out of this that France and Germany don't? In truth the British people couldn't give a toss. But the leaders, Thatcher and Blair especially, get to indulge in delusions of grandeur by thinking they can steal even a little piece of America's glory.
A good BBC documentary on the subject of the Falklands: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6591267.stm
A good memoir on Thatcher's end of Cold War diplomacy and attitude towards America:
http://www.amazon.com/Diplomacy-Disillusion-Court-Margaret-Thatcher/dp/1860640842
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 3:13 pm
I have never understood the British attitude. Oh, it made sense between Churchill and Roosevelt, because if the Americans decided to wait until the totalitarians had conquered most of Europe and Asia, they did actually save the world. But what has Britain gained since then? It was humiliated at Suez in 1956. The US fostered European integration in the 1950s when the Brits were hostile. The US invaded Grenada (a Commonwealth country) over British protests in 1983. Reagan did nothing to help the UK during the Falklands War. Bush Senior completely overruled Thatcher's little-remembered but very real apprehensions about German reunification and the end of the Warsaw Pact.
And yet, Britain since Thatcher has been the key rhetorical supporter of America. And since John Major, that rhetorical support has also been turned into real stuff, soldiers on the ground for specific operations, often more than all the other Europeans put together. In Blair's case, Britain was a critical enabler in manufacturing the 2002-2003 "Iraq crisis" that made Bush's war possible. Without Blair lending his credibility, his country's alleged intelligence, his respectability, his posh Eton accent and his 35,000 men to the crass cowboys from Crawford, it is unclear Bush's project to destroy Iraq could have gone through.
The question for Britain: what does it get out of this that France and Germany don't? In truth the British people couldn't give a toss. But the leaders, Thatcher and Blair especially, get to indulge in delusions of grandeur by thinking they can steal even a little piece of America's glory.
A good BBC documentary on the subject of the Falklands: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6591267.stm
A good memoir on Thatcher's end of Cold War diplomacy and attitude towards America:
http://www.amazon.com/Diplomacy-Disillusion-Court-Margaret-Thatcher/dp/1860640842
"Bush's project to destroy Iraq"
Except thousands of kids are in schools now, in new as well as refurbished buildings; many students, beyond the cities especially, are attending for the first time. And shops are open, thanks to microgrants and coalition-supported local policing. Credit for all of this goes to continuing hard work by many courageous, dedicated people, Iraqis, my American countrymen and women and others from coalition countries.
And fathers aren't seeing their daughters disappear on the whims of a Hussein son. And no more palaces and statues draining resources.
Ombrageux, you're such a wonderful example of blind ideology you should be in the dictionary.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 6, 2010 5:14 pm
Except thousands of kids are in schools now, in new as well as refurbished buildings; many students, beyond the cities especially, are attending for the first time. And shops are open, thanks to microgrants and coalition-supported local policing. Credit for all of this goes to continuing hard work by many courageous, dedicated people, Iraqis, my American countrymen and women and others from coalition countries.
And fathers aren't seeing their daughters disappear on the whims of a Hussein son. And no more palaces and statues draining resources.
Ombrageux, you're such a wonderful example of blind ideology you should be in the dictionary.
Paul S. - 4.7 million refugees and internally displaced persons were caused by the American invasion, or almost 1 in 4 Arab Iraqis. Iraq had, even up to 1990, one of the most educated populations in the Middle East so your whole "those-who-aren't-dead-and-didn't-flee-are-educated" meme doesn't really work. It is also well-documented that the sanctions between 1991 and 2003 led to a sharp increase in infant and child mortality in Iraq, which can make educating them rather more difficult.
But, you are right, it must be so much better now. Instead of individual people disappearing we have *whole cities and neighborhoods* vanishing into thin air from either civil war or repeated American assaults.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 5:26 pm
But, you are right, it must be so much better now. Instead of individual people disappearing we have *whole cities and neighborhoods* vanishing into thin air from either civil war or repeated American assaults.
4.7 million refugees and internally displaced persons were caused by the American invasion
That is not even remotely true.
The invasion did not trigger a refugee crisis.
The refugees were fleeing the same Iraqi militias and terrorist armies who were killing American soldiers. As soon as the those militias and terrorists armies were (mostly) beaten, the refugee crisis stopped and even reversed.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 5:36 pm
That is not even remotely true.
The invasion did not trigger a refugee crisis.
The refugees were fleeing the same Iraqi militias and terrorist armies who were killing American soldiers. As soon as the those militias and terrorists armies were (mostly) beaten, the refugee crisis stopped and even reversed.
What, the UNHCR is going to invent statistics on wandering Iraqis as part of the vast internationalist conspiracy to discredit America's really beneficent unilateral way? And the Jordanian and Syrian border posts that were so swamped they had to turn people back were also in on it?
The invasion caused the refugee crisis as it caused the civil war (in addition to the American fighting itself, notably the traditional "counter-insurgency" tactic developed in Vietnam of destroying the human habitat of the insurgent).
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 7:12 pm
The invasion caused the refugee crisis as it caused the civil war (in addition to the American fighting itself, notably the traditional "counter-insurgency" tactic developed in Vietnam of destroying the human habitat of the insurgent).
Wow Craig. I wasn't going to jump in on the hate bandwagon. But I have to agree with others here that you are acting like a jerk. Maybe this is a sensitive issue for you? Are you an Argentine teenager? I dunno, but I would like to offer you some kinda "out".
Yes, at the Rio Summit this year the Latin American nations appeared to side with Argentina this time instead of with the UK. I don't really think that it has much to do with the merits of the case. Likely, this is the former-colony solidarity that the Argentinians counted on back in the 80's and didn't get. I guess this shows the slump in British importance on the international scene?
As for exploring for oil... my point was that the Argentinians have had no plan for developing the islands up till now. The UK plan to explore for oil has been largely written off by commentators as being a crazy scheme that is not likely to net much oil. But at least a UK company was interested in trying and they undoubtedly have the support of the British government. I think this is important in that it shows a renewed commitment to the island by the UK.
Oh, and foreign companies can and do bid for exploration and development in other countries. I think the issue here is that no Argentinian company would want to "legitimize" the British claim by asking for permission to explore.
My comment about independence was not figurative, but literal. I was not talking about logistics or supply, but about their political standing. Before the FI War they were effectively "spun off" or "devolved" from the UK. They had their own currency, government, and passport (or no passport, evidently, and not to their liking). Along with the loss of political support, due to the costs, the British also planned to cut back on the naval support of the island. Argentina's generals took this as a sign that the UK was ready to give up the islands and began pushing for negotiations. When the generals began to run out of political support at home they invaded the islands (to change the subject, so to speak). This merely renewed British support for the islands, led to war, and to the downfall of the generals. The islands now have a new air base, and yes, regular flights to the UK and to Chile (almost none, and sometimes none, from Argentina depending on the politics).
The US did not "win the war" for Britain. In fact, the US carefully stayed out of the war as we didn't want Argentina's generals to collapse and the country turn "commie". Our support was limited to helping the Brits with some of their NATO duties, a few Sidewinder and Shrike missiles, and some fuel. What the UK really wanted was AWACS support, and diplomatic support, and we refused them both. Chile's help, with electronic surveillance and the threat of mischief on the mainland was MUCH more important as it tied up a number of Argentine assets. But it was the threat of British submarines that kept the Argentine navy at home, this was a huge handicap for the Argentinians. However, if their pilots had been more experienced, if the bombs they used had their fuses set correctly, if they followed up the advantages during the war they would have annihilated the exposed British forces at sea and at land. Meanwhile, on land the Argentinians hugely outnumbered the British and were entrenched and waiting for them. They should have won... but the conscripts didn't want to be there, essentially the Argentinians didn't want the islands as much as the British.
A great history of the war was written by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. They had access to UK and Argentine sources and their book was published in 1983. I found it to be fair and balanced, well sourced, and insightful on both the politics and the military story. What you really learn is how risky this whole venture was for the British, how likely they could have lost, and how catastrophic that defeat would be (the entire military would have been de-funded by the opposition back home and their international stature crushed). For the British to have sacrificed and risked so much back then only to have it all questioned again now must annoy them dearly.
As for the Argentine worry about the UK naval and airbase... they have been there for a long time now and I don't think that anyone, even the Argentinians, really fear that Britain will invade the mainland any time soon.
Posted by: Sean at March 6, 2010 7:23 pm
Yes, at the Rio Summit this year the Latin American nations appeared to side with Argentina this time instead of with the UK. I don't really think that it has much to do with the merits of the case. Likely, this is the former-colony solidarity that the Argentinians counted on back in the 80's and didn't get. I guess this shows the slump in British importance on the international scene?
As for exploring for oil... my point was that the Argentinians have had no plan for developing the islands up till now. The UK plan to explore for oil has been largely written off by commentators as being a crazy scheme that is not likely to net much oil. But at least a UK company was interested in trying and they undoubtedly have the support of the British government. I think this is important in that it shows a renewed commitment to the island by the UK.
Oh, and foreign companies can and do bid for exploration and development in other countries. I think the issue here is that no Argentinian company would want to "legitimize" the British claim by asking for permission to explore.
My comment about independence was not figurative, but literal. I was not talking about logistics or supply, but about their political standing. Before the FI War they were effectively "spun off" or "devolved" from the UK. They had their own currency, government, and passport (or no passport, evidently, and not to their liking). Along with the loss of political support, due to the costs, the British also planned to cut back on the naval support of the island. Argentina's generals took this as a sign that the UK was ready to give up the islands and began pushing for negotiations. When the generals began to run out of political support at home they invaded the islands (to change the subject, so to speak). This merely renewed British support for the islands, led to war, and to the downfall of the generals. The islands now have a new air base, and yes, regular flights to the UK and to Chile (almost none, and sometimes none, from Argentina depending on the politics).
The US did not "win the war" for Britain. In fact, the US carefully stayed out of the war as we didn't want Argentina's generals to collapse and the country turn "commie". Our support was limited to helping the Brits with some of their NATO duties, a few Sidewinder and Shrike missiles, and some fuel. What the UK really wanted was AWACS support, and diplomatic support, and we refused them both. Chile's help, with electronic surveillance and the threat of mischief on the mainland was MUCH more important as it tied up a number of Argentine assets. But it was the threat of British submarines that kept the Argentine navy at home, this was a huge handicap for the Argentinians. However, if their pilots had been more experienced, if the bombs they used had their fuses set correctly, if they followed up the advantages during the war they would have annihilated the exposed British forces at sea and at land. Meanwhile, on land the Argentinians hugely outnumbered the British and were entrenched and waiting for them. They should have won... but the conscripts didn't want to be there, essentially the Argentinians didn't want the islands as much as the British.
A great history of the war was written by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. They had access to UK and Argentine sources and their book was published in 1983. I found it to be fair and balanced, well sourced, and insightful on both the politics and the military story. What you really learn is how risky this whole venture was for the British, how likely they could have lost, and how catastrophic that defeat would be (the entire military would have been de-funded by the opposition back home and their international stature crushed). For the British to have sacrificed and risked so much back then only to have it all questioned again now must annoy them dearly.
As for the Argentine worry about the UK naval and airbase... they have been there for a long time now and I don't think that anyone, even the Argentinians, really fear that Britain will invade the mainland any time soon.
The invasion caused the refugee crisis as it caused the civil war
Just because the invasion pre-dated the civil war doesn't mean the invasion caused the civil war. You could just as easily say Saddam Hussein caused the civil war because he caused the invasion.
The civil war would never have happened if it weren't for Iraq's own internal problems between its Sunni and Shia communities, problems that are more than 1,000 years old and have nothing to do with America or any other "neocolonialist power."
The reason you don't understand that is because you aren't interested in the Middle East or its people. You don't know anything about Iraq except some depressing statistics.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 7:32 pm
Just because the invasion pre-dated the civil war doesn't mean the invasion caused the civil war. You could just as easily say Saddam Hussein caused the civil war because he caused the invasion.
The civil war would never have happened if it weren't for Iraq's own internal problems between its Sunni and Shia communities, problems that are more than 1,000 years old and have nothing to do with America or any other "neocolonialist power."
The reason you don't understand that is because you aren't interested in the Middle East or its people. You don't know anything about Iraq except some depressing statistics.
1) Saddam Hussein did not "cause" the invasion on his merry own. There was a manufactured "crisis" in 2002-3 created in London and Washington. We don't need to credit Saddam Hussein, in addition to his numerous crimes, with that of plotting the invasion of his own country.
2) The division between Sunni and Shia was well-known *and* it was known this could cause problems in case of invasion. The arguments were well-rehearsed when they decided not to invade Iraq in 1991.
Let me quote the 1996 Memoir of French diplomat Hubert Vedrine as he explains why France opposed invasion in 1991:
"To not make the Iraqi leader a martyr in the eyes of an Arab public opinion already convinced of the unfairness of the Westerners. To not throw ourselves into an urban guerrilla war with unpredictable consequences. To not play with Iraq's breaking up. Indeed, the elimination of Saddam Hussein could lead to a Kurdish declaration of independence and, as a consequence, wars implicating Turkey, Syria, Iran, as well as Iranian maneuvers into Iraq's Shiite South."
The entire apocalypse didn't come but a good chunk of it foreseeably did.
Why did the Bush clique choose to invade? Hubris I think, ignorance too, and disregard for Iraqi life. Wars are always unpredictable. They over-estimated their own abilities. They disregarded the track record of American (and Western) interventionism: the destruction of rural Vietnam in "counter-insurgency", the failure (still!) to create multiethnic democracy in Bosnia and Kosovo, the very weak economies and over 35% unemployment rates in those two countries despite massive aid, the anarchy of looting and death that followed the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1999... in short, all the horrors and failings of post-invasion Iraq were prefigured in previous U.S. interventions. It so happened they had almost all these ills at once. It was foreseeable and was foreseen.
Only people with a dangerous hubris and ignorance regarding their own supernatural abilities could ignore these facts. They cannot escape responsibility by pleading impotence. They should have known. And I don't need to quote Colin Powell on pottery barns..
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 7:47 pm
2) The division between Sunni and Shia was well-known *and* it was known this could cause problems in case of invasion. The arguments were well-rehearsed when they decided not to invade Iraq in 1991.
Let me quote the 1996 Memoir of French diplomat Hubert Vedrine as he explains why France opposed invasion in 1991:
"To not make the Iraqi leader a martyr in the eyes of an Arab public opinion already convinced of the unfairness of the Westerners. To not throw ourselves into an urban guerrilla war with unpredictable consequences. To not play with Iraq's breaking up. Indeed, the elimination of Saddam Hussein could lead to a Kurdish declaration of independence and, as a consequence, wars implicating Turkey, Syria, Iran, as well as Iranian maneuvers into Iraq's Shiite South."
The entire apocalypse didn't come but a good chunk of it foreseeably did.
Why did the Bush clique choose to invade? Hubris I think, ignorance too, and disregard for Iraqi life. Wars are always unpredictable. They over-estimated their own abilities. They disregarded the track record of American (and Western) interventionism: the destruction of rural Vietnam in "counter-insurgency", the failure (still!) to create multiethnic democracy in Bosnia and Kosovo, the very weak economies and over 35% unemployment rates in those two countries despite massive aid, the anarchy of looting and death that followed the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1999... in short, all the horrors and failings of post-invasion Iraq were prefigured in previous U.S. interventions. It so happened they had almost all these ills at once. It was foreseeable and was foreseen.
Only people with a dangerous hubris and ignorance regarding their own supernatural abilities could ignore these facts. They cannot escape responsibility by pleading impotence. They should have known. And I don't need to quote Colin Powell on pottery barns..
Here is the history of the claims to the Falkland Islands...
The FI were first "discovered" (as in, 'noticed by Europeans') by two different British expeditions, Richard Hawkins in 1594 and John Strong in 1690. Both noted that the islands, although uninhabited, could be a valuable port of call to support Britain's naval supply lines. Strong was actually the first European to land on the islands, after being blown onto them during a storm, he named the islands for the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Falkland, and sailed on.
The Spanish claim comes from a sort of blanket claim to much of the Americas recognized by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (which settled the War of Spanish Succession, delivered the Netherlands to Austria, and reconfirmed Portugal's claim to Brazil). However, remember that the Spanish had never set foot on the FI and were not even sure exactly where they were (various maps had it in different locations and at different sizes).
The French and the English largely ignored Spanish claims and the French established a small fort called Port Louis (near what is today Port Stanley) on East Falkland in 1764. They did this knowing of the earlier British claims to the islands, but in revenge for their loss of Quebec.
Meanwhile, unaware of the French presence, the British established their own colony on West Falkland in 1765-1767 at Port Egmont. The British then stumbled upon the French on the other island and ordered them to leave. As France was now allied with Spain, and they realized that they could not support their colony, they sold it to the Spanish.
In 1769 the Spanish then sent a small mission to the islands, with a new governor and soldiers. They confronted the 250 British marines and drove them off the islands (under protest). A few years later a small British expedition returned and left a plaque restating their claims to the islands, but then returned home. It could be said that Britain later essentially recognized the Spanish claims to the FI in the Nootka Sound Convention in which they renounced all claims to territory in S. America.
Following the French occupation of Spain in 1808 their overseas empire began to crumble. Facing a revolt in Buenos Aires in 1810 the Spanish removed their garrison and settlers from the FI. When Argentina gained independence in 1820 they sent a frigate to the islands to claim them as part of their legacy from Spain (a debatable claim since their independence bid essentially de-legitimatized Spanish claims in the New World). However, the motley collection of fishing and whaling vessels (including Americans) did not recognize Argentine authority. When Argentina sent Louis Vernet to the islands as governor in 1829 the British duly protested (despite the Nootka Sound Convention). The first act of the new governor was to arrest American sailors using the harbors of the islands. This led to the intervention of the American warship the USS Lexington, as the US stated that it had never recognized Argentina (or perhaps even Spain's) claim to the islands. The commander of the Lexington destroyed the Argentine military presence on the island, spiking their guns and blowing up their powder, then declaring the islands free of all government and sailing away. When Argentina sent a new governor to the islands he was murdered by the residents (mostly Argentine convicts) upon his arrival.
In 1833 the British returned to the islands with two warships. They arrived to find the Argentineans attempting to put down their convict rebellion. The British finished the counter-insurgency effort and have remained in possession of the island ever since - with the important exception of the two months of the FI War in 1982.
In analysis it looks like the claims turn on two points. One, if you accept the European style of claiming land that they notice out there in the world... then the first legitimate discovery claim is British. The French were the first to usurp this claim by establishing a colony before the British. If you accept this seizure than their sale to the Spanish might stand. However, you might just as well accept that they were duly stripped of that claim by later military defeats in Europe, in the Americas, and on the islands. Secondly, if you accept the Argentine claim to independence from Spain based upon self-determination than you would be hard pressed to ignore the desires of the FI today, resident for hundreds of years, who distinctly wish to remain under British rule.
Posted by: Sean at March 6, 2010 7:47 pm
The FI were first "discovered" (as in, 'noticed by Europeans') by two different British expeditions, Richard Hawkins in 1594 and John Strong in 1690. Both noted that the islands, although uninhabited, could be a valuable port of call to support Britain's naval supply lines. Strong was actually the first European to land on the islands, after being blown onto them during a storm, he named the islands for the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Falkland, and sailed on.
The Spanish claim comes from a sort of blanket claim to much of the Americas recognized by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (which settled the War of Spanish Succession, delivered the Netherlands to Austria, and reconfirmed Portugal's claim to Brazil). However, remember that the Spanish had never set foot on the FI and were not even sure exactly where they were (various maps had it in different locations and at different sizes).
The French and the English largely ignored Spanish claims and the French established a small fort called Port Louis (near what is today Port Stanley) on East Falkland in 1764. They did this knowing of the earlier British claims to the islands, but in revenge for their loss of Quebec.
Meanwhile, unaware of the French presence, the British established their own colony on West Falkland in 1765-1767 at Port Egmont. The British then stumbled upon the French on the other island and ordered them to leave. As France was now allied with Spain, and they realized that they could not support their colony, they sold it to the Spanish.
In 1769 the Spanish then sent a small mission to the islands, with a new governor and soldiers. They confronted the 250 British marines and drove them off the islands (under protest). A few years later a small British expedition returned and left a plaque restating their claims to the islands, but then returned home. It could be said that Britain later essentially recognized the Spanish claims to the FI in the Nootka Sound Convention in which they renounced all claims to territory in S. America.
Following the French occupation of Spain in 1808 their overseas empire began to crumble. Facing a revolt in Buenos Aires in 1810 the Spanish removed their garrison and settlers from the FI. When Argentina gained independence in 1820 they sent a frigate to the islands to claim them as part of their legacy from Spain (a debatable claim since their independence bid essentially de-legitimatized Spanish claims in the New World). However, the motley collection of fishing and whaling vessels (including Americans) did not recognize Argentine authority. When Argentina sent Louis Vernet to the islands as governor in 1829 the British duly protested (despite the Nootka Sound Convention). The first act of the new governor was to arrest American sailors using the harbors of the islands. This led to the intervention of the American warship the USS Lexington, as the US stated that it had never recognized Argentina (or perhaps even Spain's) claim to the islands. The commander of the Lexington destroyed the Argentine military presence on the island, spiking their guns and blowing up their powder, then declaring the islands free of all government and sailing away. When Argentina sent a new governor to the islands he was murdered by the residents (mostly Argentine convicts) upon his arrival.
In 1833 the British returned to the islands with two warships. They arrived to find the Argentineans attempting to put down their convict rebellion. The British finished the counter-insurgency effort and have remained in possession of the island ever since - with the important exception of the two months of the FI War in 1982.
In analysis it looks like the claims turn on two points. One, if you accept the European style of claiming land that they notice out there in the world... then the first legitimate discovery claim is British. The French were the first to usurp this claim by establishing a colony before the British. If you accept this seizure than their sale to the Spanish might stand. However, you might just as well accept that they were duly stripped of that claim by later military defeats in Europe, in the Americas, and on the islands. Secondly, if you accept the Argentine claim to independence from Spain based upon self-determination than you would be hard pressed to ignore the desires of the FI today, resident for hundreds of years, who distinctly wish to remain under British rule.
BTW - I think that it is very interesting that the issue of the islands was raised first by the military junta when faced with scandal and protest at home in the 80's. Now, the President of Argentina, who took over after her husband, is facing scandals over bribery and corruption as presidents and as governor, in which nearly a billion dollars is unaccounted for. Raising the issue of the islands appears to be how illegitimate Argentine governments deflect criticism. No?
Posted by: Sean at March 6, 2010 7:55 pm
Oh, and another killer to the claims issue...
In the last few centuries the Spanish and French have gone through monarchies, fascist and socialist regimes, military dictatorships, and several republics (in various order). So during the years since the British discovery of the FI the British are the only ones with a continuous government to make any claims at all!
Again, it doesn't seem legit for the Argentinians to rely upon Spanish claims as the Argentinians must stand on self-determination in order to legitimize their own independence from Spain - if self-determination is maintained then the FI would remain British as long as the residents wish.
Posted by: Sean at March 6, 2010 8:13 pm
In the last few centuries the Spanish and French have gone through monarchies, fascist and socialist regimes, military dictatorships, and several republics (in various order). So during the years since the British discovery of the FI the British are the only ones with a continuous government to make any claims at all!
Again, it doesn't seem legit for the Argentinians to rely upon Spanish claims as the Argentinians must stand on self-determination in order to legitimize their own independence from Spain - if self-determination is maintained then the FI would remain British as long as the residents wish.
Wow Craig. I wasn't going to jump in on the hate bandwagon. But I have to agree with others here that you are acting like a jerk.
Unlike some of the others who have criticized me in this thread, I don't value your opinions of me at all, Sean. So save your breath. You're playing for the other team, and if you ever agreed with me on anything I'd be very worried.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 11:36 pm
Unlike some of the others who have criticized me in this thread, I don't value your opinions of me at all, Sean. So save your breath. You're playing for the other team, and if you ever agreed with me on anything I'd be very worried.
Here is the history of the claims to the Falkland Islands...
Sean, we don't need you to offer your interpretation of the wikipedia article on the Falklands. I suspect most of the people in this thread have read it by now, and if you wanted to help out those who haven't you could have just thrown up a link.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 11:39 pm
Sean, we don't need you to offer your interpretation of the wikipedia article on the Falklands. I suspect most of the people in this thread have read it by now, and if you wanted to help out those who haven't you could have just thrown up a link.
Again, it doesn't seem legit for the Argentinians to rely upon Spanish claims as the Argentinians must stand on self-determination in order to legitimize their own independence from Spain
They aren't. Argentina (not Spain, Spain was booted from South America in 1810 thanks to Napoleon) had the first civilian settlement on the Islands, during the 1820s. And this settlement was established some 50 years after the British had vacated the Islands in 1775. The British didn't return to the Falklands until 1833 - which was after Americans had destroyed the Argentinian settlement. I think I already pointed that out, no?
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 11:45 pm
They aren't. Argentina (not Spain, Spain was booted from South America in 1810 thanks to Napoleon) had the first civilian settlement on the Islands, during the 1820s. And this settlement was established some 50 years after the British had vacated the Islands in 1775. The British didn't return to the Falklands until 1833 - which was after Americans had destroyed the Argentinian settlement. I think I already pointed that out, no?
Craig: You're playing for the other team, and if you ever agreed with me on anything I'd be very worried.
Sean is my oldest friend, Craig, and you're definitely confusing him with somebody else.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 11:45 pm
Sean is my oldest friend, Craig, and you're definitely confusing him with somebody else.
Last comment for me over here. Sean, I know you are going to point out that Britain had a pre-existing claim before Argentina claimed and settled the Islands in the 1820s, and you are going to claim it didn't matter that the Brits had abandoned the Islands 50 years earlier. Problem is, Britain invaded Argentina twice in 1806 and 1807 which means a state of war existed. Which also means British holdings were fair game for Argentina. And that was back when ownership by right of conquest was the norm.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 11:50 pm
Sean is my oldest friend, Craig, and you're definitely confusing him with somebody else.
If so, I apologize to both of you. I admit I saw his name and just skimmed his comments. Bad habit I picked up on Arab blogs I think :)
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 11:53 pm
If so, I apologize to both of you. I admit I saw his name and just skimmed his comments. Bad habit I picked up on Arab blogs I think :)
[...] Totten on Obama and the Falklands. I chimed in there somewhere. I get bored sometimes. Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
Posted by: Hooray, It’s Oscar Day « Rhymes With Cars & Girls at March 7, 2010 8:18 am
Craig,
I'm late responding to this:
[Croatia claims Hawaii] Do you have any idea how much you undermine your own position with such far-fetched comparisons? Not that I much care because as far as I'm concerned this is between the UK and Argentina, but I would think an unbiased observer would pick up on the absurdity of your counter-examples right away. Why didn't you use the example of China and Hong Kong, or the example of China and Taiwan?
..but I do believe you misunderstood the purpose of that example. I agree with you that Croatia claiming Hawaii was an absurd example. That was the point. I wasn't trying to say 'Argentina claiming Falklands is like Croatia claiming Hawaii'. I was just trying to come up with an absurd example of a territorial claim to illustrate the sort of claim we would dismiss out of hand. The point being, there are claims one would dismiss out of hand - not all such claims are created equal.
That being established, then, it follows that if a claim (such as Argentina claiming Falklands) isn't dismissed out of hand, but is met with 'hmm, ok let's negotiate', such a reaction tacitly lends credence to the claim over and above that which it might otherwise have. This is what the Obama administration does by reacting this way. They lend credence to the claim as one that (unlike Croatia claiming Hawaii) at least merits consideration.
But why should it merit consideration? What's the argument? There is none. And why on earth should a U.S. President dignify such a claim against the UK by giving it the time of day? He shouldn't.
If you disagree with either point, feel free to advance an argument to that effect. I've not seen one (either why the Argentinian claim merits serious consideration, or why it's an ok and good think for the U.S. President to dignify it as meriting consideration). Best,
Posted by: Sonic Charmer at March 7, 2010 8:34 am
I'm late responding to this:
[Croatia claims Hawaii] Do you have any idea how much you undermine your own position with such far-fetched comparisons? Not that I much care because as far as I'm concerned this is between the UK and Argentina, but I would think an unbiased observer would pick up on the absurdity of your counter-examples right away. Why didn't you use the example of China and Hong Kong, or the example of China and Taiwan?
..but I do believe you misunderstood the purpose of that example. I agree with you that Croatia claiming Hawaii was an absurd example. That was the point. I wasn't trying to say 'Argentina claiming Falklands is like Croatia claiming Hawaii'. I was just trying to come up with an absurd example of a territorial claim to illustrate the sort of claim we would dismiss out of hand. The point being, there are claims one would dismiss out of hand - not all such claims are created equal.
That being established, then, it follows that if a claim (such as Argentina claiming Falklands) isn't dismissed out of hand, but is met with 'hmm, ok let's negotiate', such a reaction tacitly lends credence to the claim over and above that which it might otherwise have. This is what the Obama administration does by reacting this way. They lend credence to the claim as one that (unlike Croatia claiming Hawaii) at least merits consideration.
But why should it merit consideration? What's the argument? There is none. And why on earth should a U.S. President dignify such a claim against the UK by giving it the time of day? He shouldn't.
If you disagree with either point, feel free to advance an argument to that effect. I've not seen one (either why the Argentinian claim merits serious consideration, or why it's an ok and good think for the U.S. President to dignify it as meriting consideration). Best,
Sonic Charmer,
This is what the Obama administration does by reacting this way. They lend credence to the claim as one that (unlike Croatia claiming Hawaii) at least merits consideration.
But why should it merit consideration? What's the argument? There is none. And why on earth should a U.S. President dignify such a claim against the UK by giving it the time of day? He shouldn't.
I don't agree. It isn't clear to me that the UK's claim to the Falklands is now or ever has been valid. It wasn't clear to me back in 1982, when I first heard the issue being debated on American television. Am I supposed to back Britain's claim just because Britain is an ally of the US? I'd much rather stay out of it. I think that's the position that US Administrations have always taken as well. Reagan was not at all happy about having to support the British in 1982. It doesn't surprise me in the least to see Obama taking the position that Argentina and the UK should work this out diplomatically - without the US choosing sides. If you feel that the UK's claim is 100% valid and there should be no dispute about it, that's fine. I don't. We are both entitled to our opinions, right? :)
Posted by: Craig at March 7, 2010 8:47 am
This is what the Obama administration does by reacting this way. They lend credence to the claim as one that (unlike Croatia claiming Hawaii) at least merits consideration.
But why should it merit consideration? What's the argument? There is none. And why on earth should a U.S. President dignify such a claim against the UK by giving it the time of day? He shouldn't.
I don't agree. It isn't clear to me that the UK's claim to the Falklands is now or ever has been valid. It wasn't clear to me back in 1982, when I first heard the issue being debated on American television. Am I supposed to back Britain's claim just because Britain is an ally of the US? I'd much rather stay out of it. I think that's the position that US Administrations have always taken as well. Reagan was not at all happy about having to support the British in 1982. It doesn't surprise me in the least to see Obama taking the position that Argentina and the UK should work this out diplomatically - without the US choosing sides. If you feel that the UK's claim is 100% valid and there should be no dispute about it, that's fine. I don't. We are both entitled to our opinions, right? :)
Am I supposed to back Britain's claim just because Britain is an ally of the US?
Britain's 'claim' is merely recognition of status quo. Argentina's claim is a demand to radically change the status quo. What is the argument for it?
Yes, in the absence of a valid argument, one would think you'd be in favor of an ally's current borders not being redrawn. One would think that all else equal, the burden of proof would lie with the third party demanding to redraw one's ally's borders. Why do you disagree?
I'd much rather stay out of it.
But by saying 'let's negotiate' we're not staying out of it. We're lending credence to Argentina's claim it would not otherwise merit. That's my point. How is 'calling for talks' staying out of it? If you truly want us to stay out of it you should be equally dismayed that we have done this. Best,
Posted by: Sonic Charmer at March 7, 2010 8:58 am
Britain's 'claim' is merely recognition of status quo. Argentina's claim is a demand to radically change the status quo. What is the argument for it?
Yes, in the absence of a valid argument, one would think you'd be in favor of an ally's current borders not being redrawn. One would think that all else equal, the burden of proof would lie with the third party demanding to redraw one's ally's borders. Why do you disagree?
I'd much rather stay out of it.
But by saying 'let's negotiate' we're not staying out of it. We're lending credence to Argentina's claim it would not otherwise merit. That's my point. How is 'calling for talks' staying out of it? If you truly want us to stay out of it you should be equally dismayed that we have done this. Best,
SC,
Britain's 'claim' is merely recognition of status quo. Argentina's claim is a demand to radically change the status quo. What is the argument for it?
Are you claiming that the status quo is always morally and legally right? And therefore, the status quo should always be maintained?
Yes, in the absence of a valid argument, one would think you'd be in favor of an ally's current borders not being redrawn.
Sorry, but I don't play that way. The British should leave us out of their territorial disputes. I may be a minority on this blog but I don't think I'm a minority on this issue in amongst the American general public. Taking Britain's side entails siding against Argentina. I don't want to have to do that.
One would think that all else equal, the burden of proof would lie with the third party demanding to redraw one's ally's borders. Why do you disagree?
Third party? This dispute is between the UK and Argentina. It is the US that is the third party. Why should we be involved in this? Argentina's President asked Hillary Clinton to mediate. She offered. The UK declined. That's the end of it. Unless it comes to war (again) and the UK needs help (again) which might explain why the US would rather see it resolved diplomatically. If the UK chooses to take a hard-line on this with no discussion and things get ugly, I hope that the US says "I told you so!" and lets the UK play hardball all on their own, next time.
Posted by: Craig at March 7, 2010 9:16 am
Britain's 'claim' is merely recognition of status quo. Argentina's claim is a demand to radically change the status quo. What is the argument for it?
Are you claiming that the status quo is always morally and legally right? And therefore, the status quo should always be maintained?
Yes, in the absence of a valid argument, one would think you'd be in favor of an ally's current borders not being redrawn.
Sorry, but I don't play that way. The British should leave us out of their territorial disputes. I may be a minority on this blog but I don't think I'm a minority on this issue in amongst the American general public. Taking Britain's side entails siding against Argentina. I don't want to have to do that.
One would think that all else equal, the burden of proof would lie with the third party demanding to redraw one's ally's borders. Why do you disagree?
Third party? This dispute is between the UK and Argentina. It is the US that is the third party. Why should we be involved in this? Argentina's President asked Hillary Clinton to mediate. She offered. The UK declined. That's the end of it. Unless it comes to war (again) and the UK needs help (again) which might explain why the US would rather see it resolved diplomatically. If the UK chooses to take a hard-line on this with no discussion and things get ugly, I hope that the US says "I told you so!" and lets the UK play hardball all on their own, next time.
Are you claiming that the status quo is always morally and legally right? And therefore, the status quo should always be maintained?
Maybe not, but in the absence of an actual legitimate argument against it, that is my presumption, sure.
Sorry, but I don't play that way. The British should leave us out of their territorial disputes.
They do, and did. Argentina approached us and asked us to 'intermediate'. So now we're not staying out. Again: your beef is with us, not Britain.
Taking Britain's side entails siding against Argentina. I don't want to have to do that.
Instead we have given support and newfound life to the Argentinian side in a claim that was otherwise dormant. If you were as neutral as you claim to want to be, you wouldn't want us to do that either. Yet for some reason you are ok with it. Yours is a faux symmetry/neutrality.
It is the US that is the third party. Why should we be involved in this? Argentina's President asked Hillary Clinton to mediate. She offered.
I'll echo you, then: why should we be involved in this? Why should she have "offered"? And why doesn't that bother you, given how much you claim to want us to stay out of it? Still unclear,
Posted by: Sonic Charmer at March 7, 2010 9:25 am
Maybe not, but in the absence of an actual legitimate argument against it, that is my presumption, sure.
Sorry, but I don't play that way. The British should leave us out of their territorial disputes.
They do, and did. Argentina approached us and asked us to 'intermediate'. So now we're not staying out. Again: your beef is with us, not Britain.
Taking Britain's side entails siding against Argentina. I don't want to have to do that.
Instead we have given support and newfound life to the Argentinian side in a claim that was otherwise dormant. If you were as neutral as you claim to want to be, you wouldn't want us to do that either. Yet for some reason you are ok with it. Yours is a faux symmetry/neutrality.
It is the US that is the third party. Why should we be involved in this? Argentina's President asked Hillary Clinton to mediate. She offered.
I'll echo you, then: why should we be involved in this? Why should she have "offered"? And why doesn't that bother you, given how much you claim to want us to stay out of it? Still unclear,
(leaving us out of it)They do, and did.
No, they don't, and they didn't. They would have lost the Falklands in 1982 if it wasn't for US assistance that they DEMANDED. And if you check British media and blogs, you'll find that the British are still very angry that we were so reluctant to help them.
Argentina approached us and asked us to 'intermediate'. So now we're not staying out.
A sensible move on Argentina's part, since we sided with Britain and against them in 1982.
Again: your beef is with us, not Britain.
Actually, my beef is with MJT and some people on this blog, for making a big deal of it and for implying that the US should be siding with the UK, no questions asked. This wasn't even on my radar.
Instead we have given support and newfound life to the Argentinian side in a claim that was otherwise dormant.
Otherwise dormant? lol. Argentina sought and got unanimous support from every country in Latin America - including several that are close allies of the united States. Argentina has accused the UK of violating a UN treaty that prohibits drilling in disputed waters which seems to be a valid accusation. Argentina has brought a case to the UN, though the UN in typical fashion isn't doing much with it. All this happened in the weeks BEFORE the meeting between Hillary Clinton and Argentina's President.
If you were as neutral as you claim to want to be, you wouldn't want us to do that either. Yet for some reason you are ok with it. Yours is a faux symmetry/neutrality.
It only looks that way to you, because you are so NOT neutral :)
I'll echo you, then: why should we be involved in this? Why should she have "offered"? And why doesn't that bother you, given how much you claim to want us to stay out of it? Still unclear,
How is offering to act as a go-between NOT an example of "neutral" behavior? Are you suggesting that she should have rejected Argentina's request to mediate out of hand, and thereby sent the message that the US is siding with Britain? That would be "neutral", in your view? :)
Posted by: Craig at March 7, 2010 9:45 am
No, they don't, and they didn't. They would have lost the Falklands in 1982 if it wasn't for US assistance that they DEMANDED. And if you check British media and blogs, you'll find that the British are still very angry that we were so reluctant to help them.
Argentina approached us and asked us to 'intermediate'. So now we're not staying out.
A sensible move on Argentina's part, since we sided with Britain and against them in 1982.
Again: your beef is with us, not Britain.
Actually, my beef is with MJT and some people on this blog, for making a big deal of it and for implying that the US should be siding with the UK, no questions asked. This wasn't even on my radar.
Instead we have given support and newfound life to the Argentinian side in a claim that was otherwise dormant.
Otherwise dormant? lol. Argentina sought and got unanimous support from every country in Latin America - including several that are close allies of the united States. Argentina has accused the UK of violating a UN treaty that prohibits drilling in disputed waters which seems to be a valid accusation. Argentina has brought a case to the UN, though the UN in typical fashion isn't doing much with it. All this happened in the weeks BEFORE the meeting between Hillary Clinton and Argentina's President.
If you were as neutral as you claim to want to be, you wouldn't want us to do that either. Yet for some reason you are ok with it. Yours is a faux symmetry/neutrality.
It only looks that way to you, because you are so NOT neutral :)
I'll echo you, then: why should we be involved in this? Why should she have "offered"? And why doesn't that bother you, given how much you claim to want us to stay out of it? Still unclear,
How is offering to act as a go-between NOT an example of "neutral" behavior? Are you suggesting that she should have rejected Argentina's request to mediate out of hand, and thereby sent the message that the US is siding with Britain? That would be "neutral", in your view? :)
A sensible move on Argentina's part, since we sided with Britain and against them in 1982.
Surely you realize that whether Argentina's move was sensible realpolitik is not at issue here.
Actually, my beef is with MJT and some people on this blog, for making a big deal of it and for implying that the US should be siding with the UK, no questions asked.
I don't know about 'no questions asked', but you haven't advanced an argument for why we shouldn't side with the UK, other than to claim a faux neutrality that, in actuality, you don't adhere to. Again, greeting the Argentinian claim with an offer to negotiate is not displaying neutrality, it lends credence to the Argentinian claim. If you disagree with me on that, feel free to say why.
Argentina sought and got unanimous support from every country in Latin America
The fact that some other uninvolved countries 'support' Argentina's demand to break off a piece of the UK for herself is an even less convincing argument for its rightness than is the argument from geographical proximity. They are both forms of playground arguments (ganging up, and pointing at a map).
It only looks that way to you, because you are so NOT neutral :)
I agree, I am not 'neutral' as between an ally and some other country's naked demand to break a piece off that ally.
Why are you? Or at least, Why do you claim to be? I do not see the nobility in such 'neutrality'.
How is offering to act as a go-between NOT an example of "neutral" behavior?
Once again, because it lends credence to the notion that there exists a valid dispute to be 'going between'. There's only so many different times/ways I can say this before expecting you to actually address it. One wouldn't offer to 'go between' a claim of Iran to possess Quebec, a claim of China to posses Luxembourg, a claim of Russia to possess Alsace-Lorraine, etc etc. And why not? Because those would be invalid on the face of them. So, offering to 'go between' the two sides of this claim lends the claim validity - presupposes that it has merit. Do you really not see this? If you do, why not address it (if only to come out and acknowledge that you do think Argentina's claim has merit, so there)?
Are you suggesting that she should have rejected Argentina's request to mediate out of hand, and thereby sent the message that the US is siding with Britain? That would be "neutral", in your view? :)
If the goal were really to be 'neutral' (which mine isn't), then simple silence or politely ignoring Argentina's request (with a pro forma statement that this doesn't concern us) readily suggests itself. Best,
Posted by: Sonic Charmer at March 7, 2010 10:52 am
Surely you realize that whether Argentina's move was sensible realpolitik is not at issue here.
Actually, my beef is with MJT and some people on this blog, for making a big deal of it and for implying that the US should be siding with the UK, no questions asked.
I don't know about 'no questions asked', but you haven't advanced an argument for why we shouldn't side with the UK, other than to claim a faux neutrality that, in actuality, you don't adhere to. Again, greeting the Argentinian claim with an offer to negotiate is not displaying neutrality, it lends credence to the Argentinian claim. If you disagree with me on that, feel free to say why.
Argentina sought and got unanimous support from every country in Latin America
The fact that some other uninvolved countries 'support' Argentina's demand to break off a piece of the UK for herself is an even less convincing argument for its rightness than is the argument from geographical proximity. They are both forms of playground arguments (ganging up, and pointing at a map).
It only looks that way to you, because you are so NOT neutral :)
I agree, I am not 'neutral' as between an ally and some other country's naked demand to break a piece off that ally.
Why are you? Or at least, Why do you claim to be? I do not see the nobility in such 'neutrality'.
How is offering to act as a go-between NOT an example of "neutral" behavior?
Once again, because it lends credence to the notion that there exists a valid dispute to be 'going between'. There's only so many different times/ways I can say this before expecting you to actually address it. One wouldn't offer to 'go between' a claim of Iran to possess Quebec, a claim of China to posses Luxembourg, a claim of Russia to possess Alsace-Lorraine, etc etc. And why not? Because those would be invalid on the face of them. So, offering to 'go between' the two sides of this claim lends the claim validity - presupposes that it has merit. Do you really not see this? If you do, why not address it (if only to come out and acknowledge that you do think Argentina's claim has merit, so there)?
Are you suggesting that she should have rejected Argentina's request to mediate out of hand, and thereby sent the message that the US is siding with Britain? That would be "neutral", in your view? :)
If the goal were really to be 'neutral' (which mine isn't), then simple silence or politely ignoring Argentina's request (with a pro forma statement that this doesn't concern us) readily suggests itself. Best,
Sonic Charmer, I don't really see any reason for me to continue defending my neutrality on this issue to somebody who is obviously not neutral at all. Particularly when you accuse me of being a "fake". Partisans always assume anyone who isn't with them is with the opposition. I've explained my positions on this quite clearly. I don't expect you to approve, any more than I approve of your positions. And we don't need to continue arguing :)
Posted by: Craig at March 7, 2010 1:33 pm
Craig, you need to read the comments that you throw mud at before hitting the old keyboard. I commented on your attitude because it was in stark contrast to most other posters here. It was aggressive and overly personal. You risk having everyone ignore YOUR opinions because you just come off rather juvenile and mean. Get it?
Also, I did not quote the wikipedia article. I have done a bit of research on this subject as it was the first military action that I can recall from memory and my father collected a collection of source material on the war. So, my very first comments on this thread were from memory - hence my use of the term "I believe" as regards the FI citizenship.
I summarized the history in order to analyze the claims... I presented here so that people who see where I was coming from when I later voiced my conclusions. As I stated, this historical summary was largely taken from Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, also a great documentary viable by Netflix even, with some fill in by myself on issues that they left out.. such as the Treaty of Utrecht and a few dates.
If you want to offer a few alternative sources... please do. So far you seem to suggest that Wikipedia largely agrees with me? So where are you coming from, what did you read or watch that sent you off to the angry end of the pool?
Posted by: Sean at March 7, 2010 8:33 pm
Also, I did not quote the wikipedia article. I have done a bit of research on this subject as it was the first military action that I can recall from memory and my father collected a collection of source material on the war. So, my very first comments on this thread were from memory - hence my use of the term "I believe" as regards the FI citizenship.
I summarized the history in order to analyze the claims... I presented here so that people who see where I was coming from when I later voiced my conclusions. As I stated, this historical summary was largely taken from Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, also a great documentary viable by Netflix even, with some fill in by myself on issues that they left out.. such as the Treaty of Utrecht and a few dates.
If you want to offer a few alternative sources... please do. So far you seem to suggest that Wikipedia largely agrees with me? So where are you coming from, what did you read or watch that sent you off to the angry end of the pool?
Sean,
Fwiw, I can't speak for "Craig", and am not absolutely sure of the following, but it is possible he confused or conflated you with another commenter who goes by "Seth" and who is quite a little ideologue.
Or not.
Posted by: del at March 7, 2010 8:45 pm
Fwiw, I can't speak for "Craig", and am not absolutely sure of the following, but it is possible he confused or conflated you with another commenter who goes by "Seth" and who is quite a little ideologue.
Or not.
I apologize for the typos... the wife has the Academy Awards are on in the background. ;) But I assume you get my points?
Craig - I don't buy the argument you mentioned regarding a lack of presence or development during the early 1800s. A lack of development does not invalidate land claims under most international laws. The US has a number of uninhabited territorial claims, as does Russia, Japan, etc.
As for the settlement by Argentina in 1820... it was noted and protested by Britain as illegal. Perhaps it was. The American officer who responded to the Argentinians arresting US sailors said as much when he destroyed their garrison and declared the islands "free of all government". Although I would say that his response didn't exactly support the Brits either.
I don't follow your comment about the state of war in 1805. One, this was more than a decade before Argentine independence in 1816. Two, if you want to claim that right by conquest is legit, then the Brits win again in 1833.
I believe that we come back to only two angles for the Argentine claim to the islands, either geographic proximity or an inherited Spanish claim... Proximity is weak as I noted before, lots of islands are close to other nations, Britain is close to France, so what? And the inherited claim doesn't mesh with Argentina's own independence claim. Meanwhile, the UK's stance today is based on the UN standard of self-determination.
Also, I wouldn't claim that that Reagan supported the British in 1982. The US was courting Argentina's generals as stalwart anti-communists at the time. Jean Kirkpatrick famously rejected many British attempts to get Reagan to back them and kept British diplomat waiting in the halls. In fact, General Galtieri made his famous gamble for the FI because he believed that Reagan had given him a green light. US military and intelligence assistance for the UK was pretty slim for one of our strongest allies.
I would like to leave with a quote from Hastings and Jenkins that I found tonight reviewing the claims chapter.... "If all nations reopened 150-year old claims whenever they felt strong enough [either militarily or diplomatically] the world would be a bloodier place than it is."
The FI have been in continuous British possession for more than a century. At least one war has already been fought over them. The issue should be considered settled. The US has no businesses giving the Argentinians signals that we might, once again, support their claims to these islands. No one needs this drama at this time... oh, except maybe the President of Argentina during her current corruption scandal.
Posted by: Sean at March 7, 2010 9:00 pm
Craig - I don't buy the argument you mentioned regarding a lack of presence or development during the early 1800s. A lack of development does not invalidate land claims under most international laws. The US has a number of uninhabited territorial claims, as does Russia, Japan, etc.
As for the settlement by Argentina in 1820... it was noted and protested by Britain as illegal. Perhaps it was. The American officer who responded to the Argentinians arresting US sailors said as much when he destroyed their garrison and declared the islands "free of all government". Although I would say that his response didn't exactly support the Brits either.
I don't follow your comment about the state of war in 1805. One, this was more than a decade before Argentine independence in 1816. Two, if you want to claim that right by conquest is legit, then the Brits win again in 1833.
I believe that we come back to only two angles for the Argentine claim to the islands, either geographic proximity or an inherited Spanish claim... Proximity is weak as I noted before, lots of islands are close to other nations, Britain is close to France, so what? And the inherited claim doesn't mesh with Argentina's own independence claim. Meanwhile, the UK's stance today is based on the UN standard of self-determination.
Also, I wouldn't claim that that Reagan supported the British in 1982. The US was courting Argentina's generals as stalwart anti-communists at the time. Jean Kirkpatrick famously rejected many British attempts to get Reagan to back them and kept British diplomat waiting in the halls. In fact, General Galtieri made his famous gamble for the FI because he believed that Reagan had given him a green light. US military and intelligence assistance for the UK was pretty slim for one of our strongest allies.
I would like to leave with a quote from Hastings and Jenkins that I found tonight reviewing the claims chapter.... "If all nations reopened 150-year old claims whenever they felt strong enough [either militarily or diplomatically] the world would be a bloodier place than it is."
The FI have been in continuous British possession for more than a century. At least one war has already been fought over them. The issue should be considered settled. The US has no businesses giving the Argentinians signals that we might, once again, support their claims to these islands. No one needs this drama at this time... oh, except maybe the President of Argentina during her current corruption scandal.
Sean,
It was aggressive and overly personal. You risk having everyone ignore YOUR opinions because you just come off rather juvenile and mean. Get it?
I wasn't the first to get "personal" in this thread, and in case you didn't notice everyone was against me. I don't pull many punches when people are ganging up on me. Maybe that's a fault on my part, but it's allowed me to continue participating on Arab blogs these last 5 years when virtually every other westerner has left.
Posted by: Craig at March 8, 2010 4:38 am
It was aggressive and overly personal. You risk having everyone ignore YOUR opinions because you just come off rather juvenile and mean. Get it?
I wasn't the first to get "personal" in this thread, and in case you didn't notice everyone was against me. I don't pull many punches when people are ganging up on me. Maybe that's a fault on my part, but it's allowed me to continue participating on Arab blogs these last 5 years when virtually every other westerner has left.
By the way, Sean, this was the first sentence of the first comment you directed at me:
Wow Craig. I wasn't going to jump in on the hate bandwagon. But I have to agree with others here that you are acting like a jerk.
Pretty personal, no? And as for the "hate" bandwagon, you're comments seemed quite hateful towards both Latin America in general and towards the Obama Administration. That's fine, I tend to get pretty malicious towards ideologies and regimes I loathe as well, but don't try to act like you came in here promoting well reasoned and intellectually sound arguments with the only purpose being to engage in friendly debate. And if you mean hate towards me personally, then it seems you did notice the hostility directed towards me personally in some of the earlier comments, no? :)
Bottomline: It's not cool to accuse the one person who disagrees with the group-think on an ideological blog like this one of being "the troublemaker". I don't really care about this issue, which makes me quite different than just about everyone else in this thread. It also makes it more likely that I'm just calling it the way I see it, since I don't have a dog in the fight.
Posted by: Craig at March 8, 2010 4:57 am
Wow Craig. I wasn't going to jump in on the hate bandwagon. But I have to agree with others here that you are acting like a jerk.
Pretty personal, no? And as for the "hate" bandwagon, you're comments seemed quite hateful towards both Latin America in general and towards the Obama Administration. That's fine, I tend to get pretty malicious towards ideologies and regimes I loathe as well, but don't try to act like you came in here promoting well reasoned and intellectually sound arguments with the only purpose being to engage in friendly debate. And if you mean hate towards me personally, then it seems you did notice the hostility directed towards me personally in some of the earlier comments, no? :)
Bottomline: It's not cool to accuse the one person who disagrees with the group-think on an ideological blog like this one of being "the troublemaker". I don't really care about this issue, which makes me quite different than just about everyone else in this thread. It also makes it more likely that I'm just calling it the way I see it, since I don't have a dog in the fight.
Post a comment
