Obama's New Boner: The Falkland Islands

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews

Incidentally by "boner" I mean a mistake.

At any rate, is there any reason to support Argentina at all in the Falkland Islands dispute? The Falkland Islands' inhabitants are of British stock not to mention Britain is our greatest ally in the world.

[Sitnam]

It doesn't appear Obama is supporting Argentina.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue...

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”





So what is your problem?

[appleciders]

Well, that doesn't make Britain legally entitled to the islands. I'm not offering an opinion about the dispute (it's a complex situation and the legal claims rest on 18th century European land claims) but surely the ethnicity of the inhabitants does not determine the legal ownership of the islands, nor should Obama blindly back our allies regardless of the legality of the situation. Besides, this U.N. resolution states that Britain and Argentina should begin talks over the ownership, not that Britain should vacate the islands. This is consistent with what the administration has said in the past. This is a non-issue.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

It doesn't appear Obama's supporting Argentina.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

So what is your problem?

In a move one British conservative analyst called "hugely insulting to Britain," the Organization of American States earlier this week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the "sovereignty" of the Falkland Islands. While the U.S. delegation did not speak in support of the measure, it ultimately joined a consensus adopting it.

Simply calling for negotiations is playing into Argentina's hands as much as "negotiating" over Dokdo would play into neo-Tojoist revanchist hands in Japan.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

At any rate, is there any reason to support Argentina at all in the Falkland Islands dispute? The Falkland Islands' inhabitants are of British stock not to mention Britain is our greatest ally in the world.

I'm uncertain how supporting negotiation is a bad thing in your world. As opposed to waiting for another inevitable war.

Certainly I support the UK retaining the Falklands. Just as certainly, the UK and Argentina need to sit down together and attempt to settle the issue once and for all. Probably the attempt will fail; each nation seems pretty set in their goal. It's still worth trying.

[Little Nemo]

I don't think the term "boner" applies here even if you concede Obama is wrong. A boner usually implies a person did something that was indisputably wrong, even to the person who did it. Something like locking your keys in the car or saying the Falkland Islands War was fought between Brazil and the UK.

[Mosier]

I don't understand why The USA is not firmly on our ally's side on this issue. Has Argentina EVER controlled the Falklands? How many times is Britain going to have to fight for the place? The inhabitants are British, have always been British, and want to stay that way. They ought to be able to count on their allies for support. Argentina's only claim to the place is "it's kind of close to us, and we want it." What if England supported an international agreement calling on the USA to negotiate with Mexico over the sovreignty of San Diego? We'd tell them to fuck themselves, that's what.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Frank

I'm uncertain how supporting negotiation is a bad thing in your world. As opposed to waiting for another inevitable war.

Certainly I support the UK retaining the Falklands. Just as certainly, the UK and Argentina need to sit down together and attempt to settle the issue once and for all. Probably the attempt will fail; each nation seems pretty set in their goal. It's still worth trying.

Because there is nothing to negotiate about. And war is not inevitable, the Falklands War only happened because Argentina was under a bellicose junta at the time and there were domestic troubles.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

And war is not inevitable, the Falklands War only happened because Argentina was under a bellicose junta at the time and there were domestic troubles.

That will certainly never happen again.

[guizot]

Originally Posted by Mosier

...What if England supported an international agreement calling on the USA to negotiate with Mexico over the sovreignty of San Diego? We'd tell them to fuck themselves, that's what.

I personally wouldn't mind so much, if they'd agree to take Orange County with it.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Has Argentina EVER controlled the Falklands?

Yes, from about 1820 through 1833. Prior to that Spain and Britain squabbled about who owned it, to no solid result (both having each abandoned it, seperately and concurrently); after that it has been controlled solely by Britain.

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Has Argentina EVER controlled the Falklands?

Yes; the British forcibly ejected the Argentine government of the Falklands in 1833.

Here's a good summary of the claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei...rgentine_claim

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by appleciders

Well, that doesn't make Britain legally entitled to the islands. I'm not offering an opinion about the dispute (it's a complex situation and the legal claims rest on 18th century European land claims) but surely the ethnicity of the inhabitants does not determine the legal ownership of the islands, nor should Obama blindly back our allies regardless of the legality of the situation. Besides, this U.N. resolution states that Britain and Argentina should begin talks over the ownership, not that Britain should vacate the islands. This is consistent with what the administration has said in the past. This is a non-issue.

Actually, Britain's legal claim is pretty strong. The Argentinian claim is based on a previous claim from Spain (and by previous I mean the Spaniards left the islands in 1811). The Spanish claim was disputed by England at the time.

Argentina didn't exist in 1811. Their claim is that they now own the islands because Spain once owned them. Argentina figures that when it declared its independence in 1816, the islands were included as part of the country. So when other countries (one of the first of which was ironically Britain) explicitly recognized Argentina as a country they were also implicitly recognizing Argentina's claim to the islands.

So Argentina's claim requires you to accept that Spain originally owned the islands and that Spain transferred ownership to Argentina. Both of these premises are pretty shaky.

The British claim is that they first landed on the islands and claimed them in 1690 and settled on the islands in 1766. They don't feel the Spanish had a valid claim in the first place so they certainly couldn't have given the islands to Argentina. And, on a more current note, the islanders who are living there want to remain under British control.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Mosier

I don't understand why The USA is not firmly on our ally's side on this issue.

Which one?

In anycase, I don't think this is even a change in policy. IIRC, the Bush and Clinton administrations were also neutral on the issue, and held the two-sides should talk it out.

Which as an American who seriously couldn't care less about who owns them, I think my gov't has the right idea.

[elucidator]

...neo-Tojoist revanchist ...

Are they in cahoots with the Irruminati?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The British claim is that they first landed on the islands and claimed them in 1690 and settled on the islands in 1766.

And abandoned the islands in circa 1774, while the Spanish settlements were not abandoned until some 30 years later. Then, in about 1820, Argentina (or the Provinces of the Rio Plata, as you prefer) founded a new colony.

Both sides have good claims.

[Sitnam]

Seriously though, please cite the British outrage over this decision.

The Times says, "British officials in Washington said that they were comfortable with the US response to the dispute, but indicated that any American support for mediated negotiations would not be well received. It was “up to the islanders whether they want mediation or not”, one official said."

It sounds like everyone involved doesn't want us involved, win-win.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

"negotiating" over Dokdo would play into neo-Tojoist revanchist hands in Japan.

They would argue that they aren't revanchists. That is, if neo-Tojoists existed, which they don't.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Frank

And abandoned the islands in circa 1774, while the Spanish settlements were not abandoned until some 30 years later. Then, in about 1820, Argentina (or the Provinces of the Rio Plata, as you prefer) founded a new colony.

Both sides have good claims.

The problem Argentina has is that both Spain and Britain withdrew their colonies. If the British withdrawal negated the British claim, then the Spanish withdrawal negated the Spanish claim. And Argentina needs the Spanish claim to be valid for their claim to be valid.

As for the Argentinian settlers in the 1820's, it's significant that they asked British permission before settling on the islands. The permission was granted and after the settlement was established, the head of the settlement declared he was now the governor of the islands on behalf of the Argentinian government. The British government disputed this and evicted the "governor" and his supporters. The Argentinians who remained all publicly acknowledged British sovereignty.

[Roderick Femm]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Are they in cahoots with the Irruminati?

Mickey Rooney, is that you?

[Whack-a-Mole]

A look at a map makes the British claim seem a bit odd.

That said the history lesson given above combined with the last (near) 200 years of history and especially the Falklander's wish to remain British cinches it for me. Argentina can go piss up a tree.

I imagine they see their chance in that the US really does not want to get involved in another conflict. That said I think the Brits are quite capable of handling the military side on their own. US support might be nice but not strictly necessary for them.

That said the Brits are our greatest allies and I think the US should back them up, at least in a token fashion, on this. Friends are hard to come by in the world these days.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer and especially keep your bestest friends closest.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Simply calling for negotiations is playing into Argentina's hands as much as "negotiating" over Dokdo would play into neo-Tojoist revanchist hands in Japan.

The Japanese don't call the Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo". They call it "Takashima". At any rate, the dispute isn't anywhere near as clear as either country's politicos would have one believe.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

... foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/obama-administration-backs-argentina-over-uk-on-falkland-dispute

I sure understand why OP is upset about this "slap in the face."

Originally Posted by Fair and Balanced News

... "hugely insulting to Britain,"
... which makes the U.S. position all the more peculiar.
Heritage Foundation analyst ...
"This is a slap in the face for America's closest friend and ally," he said, accusing the administration of siding with Venezuela and others against its friend.
"This is a bizarre foreign policy," he added.
[In 2010] Hillary Clinton said ...
... which refers to the islands as the Malvinas Islands
... some tough words toward Britain.

Uh ... wait a minute; let me look at that URL again. F...O...X...N.... Oh, yeah ...
I think I've identified Curtis' problem.

[GIGObuster]

One should not ignore what it is currently taking place around the Falklands.

Currently the British are exploring and drilling the area for oil, Argentinians are complaining.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/i...ew/full/102569

But exploration of the waters around the islands remains controversial amid a long-running dispute between Britain and Argentina over sovereignty.

When the company first reported its oil find at Sea Lion last May, Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner's administration warned that the oil-drilling operation violated international laws and treaties as well as UN resolutions urging neither side to take unilateral actions that could aggravate the situation.

That would be an important reason to make negotiations IMHO.

[Lobohan]

Qin's New Boner: This Thread

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

One should not ignore what it is currently taking place around the Falklands.

Currently the British are exploring and drilling the area for oil, Argentinians are complaining.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/i...ew/full/102569

That would be an important reason to make negotiations IMHO.

I have zero clue and a quick Google on "Sea Lion + Argentina" gave me a lot of info on sea mammals.

What UN resolutions and international agreements are being violated (really asking...I do not know)?

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Qin's New Boner: This Thread

The title's cool, though. It's kinda funny in the context of this post in another thread.

Qin, did that that thread inspire your title? If so, nice job.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I have zero clue and a quick Google on "Sea Lion + Argentina" gave me a lot of info on sea mammals.

What UN resolutions and international agreements are being violated (really asking...I do not know)?

Remember, that is a claim coming from the Argentinians, I would wait to see if the UN agrees with them, but I think they base their claims of violation on the repeated resolutions made to tell both Argentinians and British to settle this peacefully and once and for all.

http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution4325.html
http://www.falklands.info/history/unresolutions.html

Seeing the British make moves like if the issue is settled already is IMHO a jerk move, of course I condemn the takeover attempt the Argentinians made in the 80's, but I do think that risking oil disruptions in the future is not the way to go.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Sitnam;1390331
1

Seriously though, please cite the British outrage over this decision.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...stand-off.html

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/09/...-islands-issue

[Miller]

I don't really see the big deal, either. We want good relations with both Argentina and the UK. Since any support from us for one side is going to piss off the other, the smartest thing to do is say, "We don't care one way or the other, so long as you aren't shooting each other over it." In other words, "We support negotiations between the two sides."

And let's face it, any other response is stupid. If we come out in favor of the UK's claim, it's not actually going to change anything - Argentina is still going to claim that the islands are theirs, but they'll probably slap some tariffs on... well, whatever the hell it is we import from Argentina, and we end up paying more money for our Argentinian derived goods, while doing piss-all to actually resolve the situation in the Falklands.

I'm pretty sure most people in the UK understand it. The rest will, no doubt, provide plenty of material for The Sun's letters column, but other than that, any diplomatic blow back with the UK is likely to be inconsequential.

Magiver, your third cite is a news article about your second cite.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Miller

I don't really see the big deal, either. We want good relations with both Argentina and the UK. Since any support from us for one side is going to piss off the other, the smartest thing to do is say, "We don't care one way or the other, so long as you aren't shooting each other over it." In other words, "We support negotiations between the two sides."

And let's face it, any other response is stupid. If we come out in favor of the UK's claim, it's not actually going to change anything - Argentina is still going to claim that the islands are theirs, but they'll probably slap some tariffs on... well, whatever the hell it is we import from Argentina, and we end up paying more money for our Argentinian derived goods, while doing piss-all to actually resolve the situation in the Falklands.

I'm pretty sure most people in the UK understand it. The rest will, no doubt, provide plenty of material for The Sun's letters column, but other than that, any diplomatic blow back with the UK is likely to be inconsequential.

Magiver, your third cite is a news article about your second cite.

well by all means bring a cite that shows the UK government loves Obama's position on this.

[casdave]

Looking at maps and deciding that claims based on proximity have even the slightest merit are very shaky indeed.

The Falklands are a long way from Argentina, at least 300 miles. You might argue that its much further than that to the UK, however there are many territirial possessions around the world that are many thousands of miles from the host nation.Iceland to Copenhagen is 1300 miles and that is considered fairly local.

Argentina has never owned the Falklands at any time in its history, having an unauthorised colony its not the same thing at all, there seems to be some thought from Bueno Aires that merely because it took some time before this settlement was swept away that that should be justification for a claim. If I camp in your garden and it takes you a few years before you remove me, that would not make my claim valid in any way.

There is also the precedent issue, we can go back in time to any particular period to stake our claim? I don't think so, we need only go back a few decades in Europe to imagine the chaos that would cause.

[Asympotically fat]

Argentina's claim is extrenely weak. Have a garrision on the island for a few years almost 200 years ago. If proximity is an overriding issue, what about the part of Argetina thta is closer to Chile than it is to the rest of Argentina?

[ralph124c]

What abot US claims? American whalers and sealers operated from bases in the Falkland Islands, in the early 19th century.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by casdave

Iceland to Copenhagen is 1300 miles and that is considered fairly local.

I think you meant Greenland: Iceland is an independent country, and not governed from Copenhagen.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

What abot US claims? American whalers and sealers operated from bases in the Falkland Islands, in the early 19th century.

What about French claims? "Malvinas" comes from the name of a French port, and there has been a French settlement there too at some point in the past. We could for sure use a paradisiac tropical isl...welll...nm...


Anybody else?

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by GIGOBuster

Remember, that is a claim coming from the Argentinians, I would wait to see if the UN agrees with them, but I think they base their claims of violation on the repeated resolutions made to tell both Argentinians and British to settle this peacefully and once and for all.

The easiest way to settle this peacefully is for Argentina to simply drop their spurious claim, accept that whatever weak claim they had essentially died when they got their clock dusted in 1982 and accept that the Islands will now never be Argentinian for at least the foreseeable future.

Argentina and the other South American states can make whatever resolutions they like. I fully support the UK Government paying no heed whatsoever to this irrelevant politicking. If we have to permanently station a couple of nuclear submarines around the Islands, so that the Argentinians finally get it, so be it.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Something like locking your keys in the car or saying the Falkland Islands War was fought between Brazil and the UK.

What do they teach kids in school these days? Everyone knows that the UK was warning Brazil that they were armed and ready to go to war.

[Sri Theo]

Hasn't this been a pretty consistent American position? Even in the previous war the USA didn't openly back the UK due to wanting to maintain influence in Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine and all that. So I don't think this will cause much surprise.

I'm from the UK and don't care, the references to the Telegraph and Dailymail? Well they'll be angry about something else tomorrow.

[zagloba]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

What about French claims? "Malvinas" comes from the name of a French port, and there has been a French settlement there too at some point in the past. We could for sure use a paradisiac tropical isl...welll...nm...

Guadaloupe not good enough for you anymore?

[Ravenman]

Out of curiosity, does the OP think that Eisenhower "pulled a boner" when he decided not to back the UK, France, and Israel in trying to expropriate the Suez Canal?

I'm really wondering if: (a) the US is obligated to follow our allies no matter what; and (b) if a Republican differs with our allies, should it be called "principled leadership," as opposed to when lib'ruls "pull a boner."

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by BigT

The title's cool, though. It's kinda funny in the context of this post in another thread.

Qin, did that that thread inspire your title? If so, nice job.

No, I just found the term appropriate for use but thanks.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Out of curiosity, does the OP think that Eisenhower "pulled a boner" when he decided not to back the UK, France, and Israel in trying to expropriate the Suez Canal?

I'm really wondering if: (a) the US is obligated to follow our allies no matter what; and (b) if a Republican differs with our allies, should it be called "principled leadership," as opposed to when lib'ruls "pull a boner."

No because (1) Suez Canal was actually Egyptian at the time and (2) there was acute danger of war by the USSR if the Anglo-French-Israeli force did not withdraw.

[Markxxx]

Originally Posted by Mosier

... What if England supported an international agreement calling on the USA to negotiate with Mexico over the sovreignty of San Diego? We'd tell them to fuck themselves, that's what.

The Falklands are not a part of the UK in the way San Diego is part of the USA

A better analogy would have been Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

No because (1) Suez Canal was actually Egyptian at the time

The leaves a lot out, the main reason why England, France and Israel tried to expropriate the Suez Canal was that Egypt had just nationalized the canal that was controlled by Britain and France. In the end they just tried to reverse what had just happened.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Incidentally by "boner" I mean a mistake.

How can having a boner ever be a mistake?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Out of curiosity, does the OP think that Eisenhower "pulled a boner" when he decided not to back the UK, France, and Israel in trying to expropriate the Suez Canal?

As I recall from watching documentaries of it there was a lot of gnashing of teeth over that at the time.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Magiver

As I recall from watching documentaries of it there was a lot of gnashing of teeth over that at the time.

You wanna keep boners away from gnashing teeth.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

The easiest way to settle this peacefully is for Argentina to simply drop their spurious claim, accept that whatever weak claim they had essentially died when they got their clock dusted in 1982 and accept that the Islands will now never be Argentinian for at least the foreseeable future.

Argentina and the other South American states can make whatever resolutions they like. I fully support the UK Government paying no heed whatsoever to this irrelevant politicking. If we have to permanently station a couple of nuclear submarines around the Islands, so that the Argentinians finally get it, so be it.

I'm not much a defender of Argentinian claims, If I was the judge I would say Argentina will have to abide by what it is the de facto state of affairs, but it is silly to think it will last forever.

Currently though, the oil issue will most likely bring things to a head, not having negotiated (and I have to say that it is becoming silly to constantly ignore that negotiating does not mean that Argentina would get the islands, but that we could avoid a confrontation by sharing resources) and just waving away the cost of keeping a fleet on the other side of the world just so someone would "get it", continues to strike me as someone cutting their nose to spite the face.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by GIGOBuster

I'm not much a defender of Argentinian claims, If I was the judge I would say Argentina will have to abide by what it is the de facto state of affairs, but it is silly to think it will last forever.

No it isn't. Argentina kissed goodbye to whatever chances they had to take the Islands in 1982. It would be political suicide for any British politician to even broach the subject of giving the Islands to Argentina never mind carrying this plan through to fruition. Even more so now seeing as the Falkland Islander's are full British citizens following the British Citizenship (Falkland Islands) Act passed in 1983. The Falklands will not be Argentinian within my lifetime, if ever.

Originally Posted by GIGOBuster

Currently though, the oil issue will most likely bring things to a head, not having negotiated (and I have to say that it is becoming silly to constantly ignore that negotiating does not mean that Argentina would get the islands, but that we could avoid a confrontation by sharing resources) and just waving away the cost of keeping a fleet on the other side of the world just so someone would "get it", continues to strike me as someone cutting their nose to spite the face.

Nobody's waving away the cost of anything. We have nuclear submarines, they may as well be used. The cost of keeping them in position will be miniscule compared to the value of lost oil due to any oil income sharing programme.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

No it isn't.

I'm afraid you did not pay attention, that is what I also did say.

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

Nobody's waving away the cost of anything. We have nuclear submarines, they may as well be used. The cost of keeping them in position will be miniscule compared to the value of lost oil due to any oil income sharing programme.

And I'm referring to the cost of embargoes (that by the look of things, most of OAS is beginning to be more in favor of Argentina) or a shooting war.