No. We aren’t telling them to give up the Falklands (or Canada). But we are saying that look, you’ve got yourself into a pickle here and although we would like to help you (looks down and twiddles thumbs) we really think that you should handle this yourself.
I mean, no doubt that the UK is our greatest ally and we want to help. However, the only way that we survived as a young country was to tell European powers to stay the fuck out of our hemisphere. So there is a conflict there that keeps us from supporting our pals 100%.
Between this and the “Obama Calls for Independent Palestine, 1967 Borders” thread, I’m wondering: Why is Obama announcing that he’s going to continue policies that have been in place for several administrations such a controversial thing in some quarters?
There does seem to be a strong case of blame drift here. The OP accused Obama. The article lead accused the Obama administration. And then when you read the article you find that what happened was the Organization of American States called for negotiations and the United States government didn’t state it opposed this.
You know who else didn’t state any opposition to the OAS statement? Chuck Norris. So I think it’s pretty clear who really stabbed our closest ally in the back. Sure, he acts tough in the movies but where is he when it counts?
The Falklands are British or, to be more precise, the Kelpers are British and would like to remain so. Because of that, my country’s claim to the islands are irrelevant.
But the U.K. -after the war- claimed much of the surrounding waters as a security zone and it even expanded it many years after the war (I believe in the 90’s) also for security reasons. That is a lie, it was because of the resources. It is a lie because the small force the U.K has in the island could probably conquer Argentina: our armed forces are almost non existant.
I won’t excuse Argentina’s role in the war (after all, we were the agressors) but it is always good to remember that the U.N asked both parties to negotiate the issue many times since the sixties and the U.K has repetedly refused. That is stupid, you won’t be able to exploit the oil without the coaperation of the continent. And it seems that they are all backing us.
Nothing. Spain renounced all its claims over the old Viceroyalty of River Plate in the Recognition, peace and friendship treaty of 1863 between Spain and the Argentinian Confederacy.
Spain says this is an issue between the United Kingdom and Argentina. The President of Argentina visited Spain in 2010 for an international conference and there was talk that there might be an Argentinian request for Spanish support for its claim. The Spanish government said that if Argentina asked for support of its claim, Spain would not give it.
a) It’s not your hemisphere.
b) It really wasn’t your hemisphere when the Monroe Doctrine was passed. (Indeed, I have a hard time seeing how the Doctrine was even relevant to the US’s survival at the time.)
c) Suggesting otherwise is arguably more offensive to the Latin Americans than to the Brits.
I’m not sure a compromise is politically plausible here. The UK fought (by post-WW2 standards) a fairly serious war to keep the islands. They’re not likely to give up any of the gains — including natural resources — unless Argentina has some plan to give them something valuable in return. At the moment, Argentina apparently wants the UK to make unilateral concessions. How could the UK government sell that at home? And how weak and pathetic would it make them look abroad?
It would make sense for the K to spend billions defending the Falklands-if there is a major oil deposit there.
Is there? I have heard of some drilling, but no confirmed oil strikes.
Is 3000 kelpers and 6,000,000 sheep worth >$2 billion/year?
