Obama Administration Equivocates on Pro-British Falklands Referendum
However, statements made by top officials in the Obama administration, and by Obama himself, suggest that under his presidency the U.S. position has tilted in favor of Argentina. Hillary Clinton set the tone in March 2010, at a press conference with Kirchner during a visit to Buenos Aires. Asked about the Falklands, she said: “We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.” John Kerry has taken much the same line. During his visit to Britain last month, Kerry said Washington would continue to urge “a peaceful resolution of this critical issue.”
Obama took a similar position at last year’s Summit of the Americas, when he said he looked forward to Britain and Argentina continuing to “dialogue” on the issue. This was the speech in which he referred to the Falklands as the Maldives, when he intended to call them by their Argentine name, Las Malvinas. The gaffe may have been harmless, but was illustrative of Obama’s lack of interest in the subject, beyond indulging the anti-imperialist sentiments of the numerous left-wing leaders present. And if Obama watchers such as Dinesh D’Souza are to be believed, Obama has issues with Britain’s colonialist history, stemming from his father’s and grandfather’s experiences under British rule in Kenya, that would incline him towards siding with Argentina.
From Britain’s point of view, however, there are no “issues” that need to be resolved, and no need for it to “dialogue” with Argentina. The Falklands are British, and that’s the end of it, until and unless Argentina should decide to move against the islands. But Obama, Clinton, and now Kerry have all effectively said that Argentina has a legitimate grievance that Britain should acknowledge and address, and intimated that the current arrangement is not necessarily permanent and could be altered.
All things considered, it’s not hard to imagine, at some point in the future, the Obama administration backing a “resolution” to the Falklands dispute that would be more to Argentina’s liking than Britain’s — perhaps shared sovereignty or some form of joint administration. In terms of foreign policy accomplishments, it wouldn’t exactly be solving the Israel-Palestine dispute, but it would be a feather in Obama’s and Kerry’s caps, and it would play well with the restive neighbors down south, as well as with Latino voters back home.
The administration’s reaction to the Falklands referendum result was predictably equivocal. A State Department spokeswoman said that, while the U.S. noted the outcome, “we obviously recognize that there are competing claims,” and called on “all sides” to focus their efforts on a resolution.
The Falkland islanders’ resounding declaration of their desire to remain British is something of an embarrassment for Obama and Kerry, given their championing of self-determination for the peoples of Libya, Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere. The proper U.S response would have been a statement to the effect that the people of the Falklands have made their wishes clear, and that Argentina should respect their decision and cease its efforts to intimidate the islanders and hamper the Falklands economy.
Instead, Obama and Kerry, like Clinton before him, would rather curry favor with the failing, corrupt, and bullying socialist regime in Buenos Aires, and with the rest of the region’s left-wing basket cases, than show solidarity with a country that has long been one of America’s closest allies.
In the long term, Argentina’s obsession with the Falklands will hopefully abate when its people decide to start electing responsible leaders who are more interested in tackling real problems than trying to distract them with nationalistic sideshows. In the short term, the situation remains volatile, and by accepting that Argentina has a case, and encouraging them to pursue it, the Obama administration is helping to keep the incompetent and unstable Kirchner in power. It’s bad news for her country, and quite possibly for the Falklands — because if Kirchner feels that the U.S. won’t stand with Britain as it did when her country invaded in 1982, she might just be emboldened into doing something very stupid.
The suggestion that America should push their nose in is as welcome to me, as a Brit, as the suggestion that, without an invitation, the Brits should suggest starting negotiations over whether the Chinese should have a ruling role in Hawaii has on me as an American. No way, Jose!
And don't forget, the Falklands War was started by Argentina to shore up a disliked dictatorship. They showed their colors by being quite willing... (show more)
The suggestion that America should push their nose in is as welcome to me, as a Brit, as the suggestion that, without an invitation, the Brits should suggest starting negotiations over whether the Chinese should have a ruling role in Hawaii has on me as an American. No way, Jose!
And don't forget, the Falklands War was started by Argentina to shore up a disliked dictatorship. They showed their colors by being quite willing to slaughter the Falklanders - heck, they "disappeared" their own Argentinean critics as a matter of routine. Is it really right to consider handing over power to them? A bit like saying "OK, Hitler, you lost the war, but we're prepared to negitiate you having power over the Jews." (show less)
This question would blow Obama's mind! Obama is clearly informed by the racial marxism of elite American academia. He simply cannot fathom that the white, European country is NOT the imperialist aggressor. One country invades another country's territory, searching for oil to placate its unhappy populace. I can't think of a better definition of imperialism, but Obama won't be able to see that because of his rigid perception of a racial bourgeois/proletariat dichotomy.
This question would blow Obama's mind! Obama is clearly informed by the racial marxism of elite American academia. He simply cannot fathom that the white, European country is NOT the imperialist aggressor. One country invades another country's territory, searching for oil to placate its unhappy populace. I can't think of a better definition of imperialism, but Obama won't be able to see that because of his rigid perception of a racial bourgeois/proletariat dichotomy.
Whats more Argentina NEVER owned the Falklands when they were in control Argentina was not even a Country just a SPANISH Colony and it was the USA who took the Falklands away from them during the Spanish/American war and gave them BACK to the British who had previously 'settled' them. Argentina as a 'Country' did not even come in to existence until long AFTER the UK took BACK possession of the Falklands.
Whats more Argentina NEVER owned the Falklands when they were in control Argentina was not even a Country just a SPANISH Colony and it was the USA who took the Falklands away from them during the Spanish/American war and gave them BACK to the British who had previously 'settled' them. Argentina as a 'Country' did not even come in to existence until long AFTER the UK took BACK possession of the Falklands.
Exactly. This country's former steadfast loyalty to its allies disappeared with the ascent of this administration. None of them, especially Britain and Israel, can count on America's support, especially if abandoning them can curry favor with a socialist or Muslim regime somewhere.
Exactly. This country's former steadfast loyalty to its allies disappeared with the ascent of this administration. None of them, especially Britain and Israel, can count on America's support, especially if abandoning them can curry favor with a socialist or Muslim regime somewhere.
The Falkland Islands affair re: Kirchner's stance is asinine.
The Falkland Islands affair re: Kirchner's stance is asinine.
Argentinians are Italians who speak Spanish, act French, and wish they were English. And for some reason they take orders from a leader with a German name...any wonder they don't know their a** from a hole in the ground?
(they do know how to play soccer though)
Argentinians are Italians who speak Spanish, act French, and wish they were English. And for some reason they take orders from a leader with a German name...any wonder they don't know their a** from a hole in the ground?
(they do know how to play soccer though)
The suggestion that America should push their nose in is as welcome to me, as a Brit, as the suggestion that, without an invitation, the Brits should suggest starting negotiations over whether the Chinese should have a ruling role in Hawaii has on me as an American. No way, Jose!
And don't forget, the Falklands War was started by Argentina to shore up a disliked dictatorship. They showed their colors by being quite willing... (show more)
The suggestion that America should push their nose in is as welcome to me, as a Brit, as the suggestion that, without an invitation, the Brits should suggest starting negotiations over whether the Chinese should have a ruling role in Hawaii has on me as an American. No way, Jose!
And don't forget, the Falklands War was started by Argentina to shore up a disliked dictatorship. They showed their colors by being quite willing to slaughter the Falklanders - heck, they "disappeared" their own Argentinean critics as a matter of routine. Is it really right to consider handing over power to them? A bit like saying "OK, Hitler, you lost the war, but we're prepared to negitiate you having power over the Jews." (show less)
The only thing that worries me is whether the UK still has the ability to defend its territory and citizens if necessary. The British armed forces barely managed it back in the 80s. Today, I'm not sure they could even get to the Falklands, much less fight a war there. If negotiations broke down, would we be out of line helping the UK militarily?
The only thing that worries me is whether the UK still has the ability to defend its territory and citizens if necessary. The British armed forces barely managed it back in the 80s. Today, I'm not sure they could even get to the Falklands, much less fight a war there. If negotiations broke down, would we be out of line helping the UK militarily?
Based upon recent photos of the actor in "The Bible", that would also explain why The Devil Didn't Go Down To Georgia.
Based upon recent photos of the actor in "The Bible", that would also explain why The Devil Didn't Go Down To Georgia.