Falklands redux
Cowardice and betrayal are again brewing in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are a group of sparsely inhabited British islands a couple hundred miles off the coast of Argentina, most famous for the brief British-Argentinian conflict over them in 1982. In that conflict an increasingly unpopular military junta, facing growing economic problems, looked to invade the islands and subjugate its British citizens as a way of distracting from their domestic inadequacies. Margret Thatcher responded by deploying the British military and crushing the Argentine invasion. As some of you may have heard, over the past couple of years they’ve discovered a substantial amount of economically viable oil around these same islands. With the depletion of the reserves in the North Sea some figures estimate that these new discoveries could be as much as triple the UK’s existing reserves.
Lo and behold, this discovery has given the economically floundering, left wing Kirchner government in Argentina all the reason it needs to stir up trouble by again attempting to colonize the Falklands and its British population. In addition to some saber rattling, economic sanctions and not so subtle threats the Kirchner administration has enlisted the aid of left wing thug Hugo Chavez and his counter-U.S. Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.
Now if you thought to yourself, “Well the British are the United States’ oldest and most steadfast ally; the Obama administration will denounce this cynical aggression and help protect both their ally’s sovereignty and the Falkland people’s right to self determination” then you’d be absolutely, 100% wrong. Back in the summer of 2011, while British troops were fighting, bleeding and dying shoulder to shoulder with American troops in Afghanistan, the Obama administration was signing off on an Organization of American States statement calling for the British to enter into negotiations with Argentina over the status of the Malvinas Islands, the Argentinian name for the Falklands. All this at the behest of the leftist and increasingly anti-American government of Argentina.
Then, on the 20th of January, the Obama administration twisted the knife it drove into the back of the British by issuing a statement through the State Department saying, “This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom,” the official said. “We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels. We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.” Needless to say this left many people floored.
Not only is the Obama administration falling on the wrong side of the geopolitical arena by backing political aggression pursued by organizations dominated by left wing autocrats and anti-American populists but they’re betraying our oldest ally and undercutting the basic principals of liberty and self determination for the 90%+ of the Falkland Islanders who are fully enfranchised British citizens wanting to remain so. All morality, character and faithfulness aside these caustic positions undercut security in the Western Hemisphere by appeasing aggression and placating governments which have no intent to ally themselves with us in the future. This sort of diplomatic timidity serves only to undercut peace and degrade the value of the friendship of the United States. How can we ask our allies, especially those as dear as the British, to send their men and women onto the battlefield to fight and die for our collective security if we won’t even stand up in a council meeting for it?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Foreign Policy, Politics
Well let’s see. Great Brittan is one of our closest allies, and are one of the few nations that actually go along with us even in ill advised ventures. How could we do any less to support them? Oh wait The Chosen One knows better.
No surprises here. If there is a way to undermine the Republic, O-dingleberry will find it.
That the dog turd in the White House still enjoys 42-45% support tells me that there are a lot of people who call themselves Americans who are anything but.
Hurry November.
Good post NSOM.
On the 90+% figure, has there been any polling done on that, or is that supposition. Frankly, I’d be surprised by 1% wanting to be Argentinian, so was just rather curious.
They fooled themselves the 1st time that the Brits would stay home, and got spanked. Well they must figure now that the US UN ambassador is nothing like Jeane Kilpatrick was back in 82′ and that the POTUS today is nothing compared to what Reagan was back then, that they have a better chance. I hope they don’t fool themselves again, but then again it would make for some good flir clips!
God Save The Queen!
RLTW
re #3
Most of the figures I’ve seen quoted in articles is that over 90% of the island is ethnically British as the “native Kelper” population, which is in the majority, is descended from the British Islands and the plurality of the remaining population is directly British. All of the Islanders are British citizens, with the exception of ex-pats. The Foreign office did a survey in 1994 on the island in which 87% of respondents rejected entering into any negotiation with Argentina over a change in sovereignty status.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/falkland-islands/?profile=history&pg=3
Were there any terms that were signed at the surrender of the Argentine garrison at Port Stanley. Was just curious.
RLTW
Remember when Russia invaded Georgia during the run-up to the 2008 election? Obama’s first reaction was to urge both sides to exercise restraint. Anyone who had any doubts about how much Obama would support our allies should have had their confusion erased at that moment.
Anyone who cares about this sort of thing didn’t vote for him in 2008 and doesn’t need to be convinced not to vote for him in 2112. People who did vote for him either want to see him betray our traditional allies and coddle leftists, or are too stupid to reach.
TSO – “…undercutting the basic principals of liberty and self determination for the 90%+ of the Falkland Islanders who are fully enfranchised British citizens wanting to remain so.” At the risk of sounding like a grammar fetishist, as the sentence was written 90%+ of Falkland Islanders are British citizens, not that only 90% of Falkland Islanders want to live under British rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if 10% of the permanent population of the islands are Argentinian ex-pats who also prefer living under British rule.
One of my high school friends was from a Argentinian family, and he was a classmate when the war started in 1982.
His comment was “My family did not want to live under the Argentinian government, and I believe no responsible government would ever allow their citizens to be conquered by Argentina.”
I found this on the surrender terms on wikpedia:
Headquarters, Land Forces
Falkland Islands
INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER
I, the undersigned, Commander of all the Argentine land, sea and air forces in the Falkland Islands [Menéndez’s signature, scribbled over the crossed-out word of “unconditionally”] surrender to Major General J.J. MOORE CB OBE MC* as representative of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government.
Under the terms of this surrender all Argentine personnel in the Falkland Islands are to muster at assembly points which will be nominated by General Moore and hand over their arms, ammunition, and all other weapons and warlike equipment as directed by General Moore or appropriate British officers acting on his behalf.
Following the surrender all personnel of the Argentinian Forces will be treated with honour in accordance with the conditions set out in the Geneva Convention of 1949. They will obey any directions concerning movement and in connection with accommodation.
This surrender is to be effective from 2359 hours ZULU on 14 June (2059 hours local) and includes those Argentine Forces presently deployed in and around Port Stanley, those others on East Falkland, (Menendez’s signature) West Falkland and all outlying islands.
[Menéndez’s signature] Commander Argentine Forces
[Moore’s signature] J. J. MOORE Major General
[Pennicott’s signature] Witness
2359 hours 14 June 1982
re #6
There was a de facto unconditional surrender by the Argentine forces on the islands but it wasn’t recognized as legitimate by the Argentine junta. As far as I know the Argentinians never gave up their claim on the islands and the junta collapsed not long after the war anyway. There’s a brief and not entirely helpful wikipedia article on the surrender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_surrender_in_the_Falklands_War
This is an interesting site, it has the war documents from the falkland war.
http://www.falklands.info/history/82doc.html
but, but, but…in my dreams, my father told me that the British were evil and their emperialism must be fought at every turn because of what he perceived as the problems in Kenay. So, despite the fact that they are one of the US’ most trusted allies, I must side against them and insult them whenever possible. My dreams of what my father thought can’t be wrong…
The One
/snarc off
Bingo! Well pointed out Susan!
RLTW
What is the anti-war crews mantra, “No blood for oil”? Maybe Medea & her PINKO crew & the rest will load up & float south?
Obama family myth is that Black Grandpa was tortured by the British in Kenya as a Mau Mau. So not surprising that Obama has been anti British since taking office
Uh Susan? Kenay? Where the heck is that? *giggle snort*
So, in short… it’s Monday in the Age of Obama?
The real problem here is that the Royal Navy has been so gutted by the socialists in Parliament, that it is doubtful whether it could intervene in ANY capacity to protect it’s citizens and territory of the Falklands.
Right now, about the only warships they could send which might effect some sort of hold on the Argentinians would be a couple fast attack subs.
IIRC, their last carrier and all the Harrier squadrons have been decommissioned, and they’ve also scrapped all the Vulcans and Vindicators. No long-range bombers, no tankers, no nothing.
Great Britain is so screwed in this situation.
@18- the current RN surface fleet is based around the type 45 destroyer. Look that thing up for a good laugh.
This my friends is what we call a classic “dickmove’
@#14, “no blood for oil”, unless it benefits a left-leaning neo-marxist, that is. Then, it’s cool, and Medea and the rest hope that the Brits pay a high price.
Tim, the Harriers will soon be on the way to the U.S. as hangar queens for the USMC Harriers, seems the Brits are having defense garage sale.
@18, I am afraid that I am forced to agree with you
16 – Streetsweeper
OK smartass, so I can’t type “Kenya” – I was in a hurry to post before my boss walked in so sue me.
According to Wiki the UK still has one active carrier, HMS Illustrious. The Illustrious isn’t equipped with any fixed wing aircraft and no UK carrier will be until HMS Queen Elizabeth comes online in 2020. Given that information, as well as who currently occupies the White House, Argentina isn’t likely to find better conditions to try something than right now.
AW1 Tim: There is one major change.
The RAF has four new shiny Eurofighter Typhoons sitting down there.
Argentina has….basically the same planes they did in 1982. And A-4s weren’t exactly state of the art then.
Also, just from reading, it seems they take the local defense force a bit more seriously. Interestingly, they’re armed with AUGs as opposed to SA80s.
Why does Argentina want the Falklands anyway? Passion for sheep?
@26: They want the oil and mineral rights, because I believe, not only does the Falklands have oil inside their territorial waters, but I think they have corridor rights in part of Antarctica as well.
“We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels. We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.”
Just goes to show you that buddy is only half a word.
#18″The real problem here is that the Royal Navy has been so gutted by the socialists in Parliament, that it is doubtful whether it could intervene in ANY capacity to protect it’s citizens and territory of the Falklands.”
The point I was going to make Tim, the Draconian cut backs in MOD, have left Britain with very little to project power with. France and Britain just recently were in talks of alternating the sharing of a carrier. Yep ONE carrier. The only thing worse would be if it happened to be the DeGaul.
Even if naval forces could transport troops there, the British Army has also suffered some dramatic cut backs. They were debating if they could contribute to anymore committments with the war in Afghanistan still ongoing. The Brits have had(by US standards) 4-5 battalions there for the last few years. Last I looked their entire Army had less then 40 manuever battalions to begin with, how many are ready to deploy as a given moment?