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.
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.”](The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)
So what is your problem?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That will certainly never happen again.
I personally wouldn’t mind so much, if they’d agree to take Orange County with it.
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.
Yes; the British forcibly ejected the Argentine government of the Falklands in 1833.
Here’s a good summary of the claims:
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.
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.
Are they in cahoots with the Irruminati?
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.
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.
They would argue that they aren’t revanchists. That is, if neo-Tojoists existed, which they don’t.
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.
Mickey Rooney, is that you?