Obama Administration And the Falkland Islands Dispute

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06 ... latestnews

President
Obama Administration Backs Argentina Over U.K. on Falkland Dispute

By Judson Berger

Published June 10, 2011

| FoxNews.com

* Print
* Email
* Share
* Comments (22)
*
*
* Text Size

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner smiles during a news conference in Mexico City May 30.

Reuters

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner smiles during a news conference in Mexico City May 30.

The Obama administration once again has sided with Argentina -- and by default, against Britain -- in the ongoing dispute over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war.

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.

However, Britain does not consider the sovereignty in question. After the British fended off an Argentine invasion of the nearby islands in 1982 -- a war in which hundreds died on both sides -- the government continues to assert control over the Falklands and grant islanders British citizenship.

Britain has resisted international calls for the two nations to negotiate the issue -- which makes the U.S. position all the more peculiar.

Noting that President Obama just returned from a visit to London where he cited the U.S.-U.K. "special relationship," Heritage Foundation analyst Nile Gardiner said the U.S. should at least stay neutral on the Falkland issue.

"British sovereignty over the islands is not an issue for negotiation. ... 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. Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, whose namesake was prime minister during the Falklands War.

The Obama administration made clear in early 2010 that it would endorse calls for talks over the islands. At a Buenos Aires news conference with Argentina's president in March 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she agreed with Argentina that the two nations should "sit down and resolve the issues between them."

From there, the U.S. implicitly backed an OAS document calling for talks last June and again Tuesday at a conference in El Salvador. The latest declaration, which refers to the islands as the Malvinas Islands, calls for exploring "all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute" and resuming sovereignty negotiations "as soon as possible."

It was accompanied by some tough words toward Britain. In an OAS press release, Argentine foreign minister Hector Timerman said: "Unfortunately, Britain still declines to resume bilateral dialogue, in violation not only of repeated resolutions of the United Nations and this Organization." Timerman called for a "peaceful settlement to the dispute."

In the wake of the adoption, the British government quietly asserted its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands while downplaying the U.S. position -- stressing that the Obama administration continues to recognize British control of the territory.

"The longstanding U.S. position is unchanged. The U.S. recognizes the U.K.'s administration of the Falkland Islands," a British Embassy representative told FoxNews.com. "We're in regular touch with the U.S. on this issue, as on so many issues, and we expect that dialogue to continue."

The government on the Falkland Islands expressed disappointment with the OAS declaration. According to a report in MercoPress, Falkland officials issued a statement saying they "regret that this issue should once again be raised on the regional stage" and support the standing British position that "the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06 ... z1Ovvn2saZ

[Ritterin Sophia]

Are we just going to leave out that what Obama said was that Argentina and the UK need to come to a mutual diplomatic solution to the argument?

[Slacker]

Well, it is a Fox news article. The same flap happened over at SB yesterday when someone posted this same article, actually.

[bobalot]

Are we just going to leave out that what Obama said was that Argentina and the UK need to come to a mutual diplomatic solution to the argument?

This is a post by General Mung Beans, what did you expect? A topic from a source that strives for facts and balance?

[HMS Sophia]

Hang on. Aren't the islanders still wanting to be British when polled? Or do they still not matter?

[cosmicalstorm]

Haven't the Brits fortified the islands since the last war? And some kind of oil might be in the area? And they have nuclear submarines. I'm guessing they won't leave them.

[Captain Seafort]

Haven't the Brits fortified the islands since the last war?

We have - RAF Mount Pleasant has four Typhoons stationed there, and there's about a battalion's worth of the army stationed in the islands rather than the rather weak RM detatchment in '82.

And some kind of oil might be in the area?

There are considerable confirmed oil reserves in Falklands waters. Whether or not they're exploitable is currently being investigated.

And they have nuclear submarines.

We do. And the bastards got a demonstration of what they were capable of last time round.

I'm guessing they won't leave them.

Indeed not. The islands' sovereignty simply isn't up for discussion. Quite apart from the marginally relevant points you raise, the islanders are British subjects and wish to remain so. Ergo we're not going anywhere. The sooner Argentina realises this and stops sulking, the sooner Obama can stop making an idiot of himself by suggesting that negotiations are required.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As I recall, the Falkland Islanders still want to be British. Surely that is the final arbiter on the matter, the will of the people involved?

[Steve]

To be fair, Obama is also trying to maintain relations with the rest of Latin America, most of whom support Argentina IIRC. So he gives some ultimately meaningless noises about the need for negotiation; so what? He's not saying "Britain should hand over the islands", he's saying "Britain should negotiate with Argentina on the issue", which is a vague call since it can mean supporting Argentina or supporting Britain coming to the table to tell Buenos Aires, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off.

[HMS Sophia]

As I recall, the Falkland Islanders still want to be British. Surely that is the final arbiter on the matter, the will of the people involved?

I said this like 6 hours ago... But anyway, the Argentinians don't care what the Islanders think. They just want 'las malvinas' back, because... well, because all-right...
This time around, they have a much stronger Navy, but our ground forces are much better equipped, and something tells me that the possibility of a nuclear sub on station is something that'l make anyone think twice.

[Captain Seafort]

This time around, they have a much stronger Navy

No they don't - not even close. Last time they had a carrier (since scrapped) and a cruiser (at least to start with). The best they've got now is a T42 that only works because her sister ship is being used as a spare parts bin.

our ground forces are much better equipped

You're correct, but being better equipped than the RM detachment that was overwhelmed last time is nothing to brag about. Far more important is 1435 Flight - the Typhoons would rip apart any invasion force the Argies managed to scrape together.

something tells me that the possibility of a nuclear sub on station is something that'l make anyone think twice.

Especially given the understandable Argie reaction of shitting themselves every time the possibility of a sub in the area is mentioned.

[HMS Sophia]

No they don't - not even close. Last time they had a carrier (since scrapped) and a cruiser (at least to start with). The best they've got now is a T42 that only works because her sister ship is being used as a spare parts bin.

Whoops. I was being real stupid there Just ignore that one.

You're correct, but being better equipped than the RM detachment that was overwhelmed last time is nothing to brag about. Far more important is 1435 Flight - the Typhoons would rip apart any invasion force the Argies managed to scrape together.

Hell, even without that flight, if we go off what the marines managed last time, then a near battalion of troops should be able to hold of Argentina. Exaggeration yes, but not by much, considering the available assets.

Especially given the understandable Argie reaction of shitting themselves every time the possibility of a sub in the area is mentioned.

I've seen it theorised that it's not unlikely that one of our subs is close by most of the time... close by being in the general area of the south Atlantic. Might be completely wrong, but it would be interesting.

[General Mung Beans]

As I recall, the Falkland Islanders still want to be British. Surely that is the final arbiter on the matter, the will of the people involved?

Exactly. And it should be noted simply calling for negotiations would be a boon for Argentina since it would imply that there actually is a disptue.

[Gil Hamilton]

This actually strikes me as a way Argentina can back down from the issue while saving face. My understanding is there are alot of politicians and people in Argentina that are really into the "Let's get the Malvinas!" back, but it is clear that Britain is never going to hand over the Falklands and Argentina can't take them by force. Negotiations allow the Argentines who don't want another embarrassing thumping to quietly put the issue off the table by saying that they are talking about it.

It's not like Obama is suggesting that the Falklands should return to Argentina. He's suggesting that Britain should allow Argentina to ask, thus letting the inevitable "No." be entirely a diplomatic one.

[Zaune]

Indeed not. The islands' sovereignty simply isn't up for discussion. Quite apart from the marginally relevant points you raise, the islanders are British subjects and wish to remain so.

In fairness to the Argentine government, the British settlers were only transplanted there after the original handful of residents were booted off by force. A hundred and eighty-odd years is a long time to hold a grudge over a few marginally-habitable islands in the middle of nowhere, of course, but I reckon we owe them the opportunity to make their case. Perhaps some neutral third party like the UN should arbitrate?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm just having a hard time seeing why anyone thinks there is a dispute. The pole on the islands have made their choice, and as far as I am concerned that is the end of it.

Why do the Argies even WANT the place anyhow?

[Darth Nostril]

Because of wounded pride. Oh and a shitload of oil under the South Atlantic.

[Captain Seafort]

Hell, even without that flight, if we go off what the marines managed last time, then a near battalion of troops should be able to hold of Argentina. Exaggeration yes, but not by much, considering the available assets.

There were only 60-70 RM present in Stanley in '82, with no air support and few support weapons. They still gave the best the Argentine military had to offer a very bloody nose. 22 very nearly won the first battle of South Georgia, and almost certainly would have if Endeavour had been allowed to intervene. Given that, I don't think it's at all an exaggeration to say that the current defensive force would be able to smash any force that managed to get ashore.

I've seen it theorised that it's not unlikely that one of our subs is close by most of the time... close by being in the general area of the south Atlantic. Might be completely wrong, but it would be interesting.

I wouldn't be surprised. Even if there isn't, even dropping a few hints in that direction is enough to make the Argentine Navy very nervous. It's understandable - they lost more people in a few seconds on the Belgrano than the British armed forces lost in the entire war.

[Captain Seafort]

I reckon we owe them the opportunity to make their case.

Their "case" is nothing but a multi-decade tantrum. Fuck 'em.

Perhaps some neutral third party like the UN should arbitrate?

Why? As has been said repeatedly, there's nothing to arbitrate.

[UnderAGreySky]

Far more important is 1435 Flight - the Typhoons would rip apart any invasion force the Argies managed to scrape together.

Four Typhoons? Protect against one attack or two, maybe. Multiple flights? And no ground-attack on those Typhoons, if memory serves me correct. Unless it is meant to be a hold-them-off-while-the-cavalry-gets-here. But the UK doesn't have an active carrier right now...

[Captain Seafort]

Four Typhoons? Protect against one attack or two, maybe.

A few sorties is all that would be needed to destroy the Argentine ability to invade.

And no ground-attack on those Typhoons, if memory serves me correct.

They do indeed have ground attack, and I believe 1435 is equipped with Sea Eagle.

[erik_t]

The Argentinean capability to invade is rather dubious even without any help from the RAF.

[Alyeska]

Far more important is 1435 Flight - the Typhoons would rip apart any invasion force the Argies managed to scrape together.

Four Typhoons? Protect against one attack or two, maybe. Multiple flights? And no ground-attack on those Typhoons, if memory serves me correct. Unless it is meant to be a hold-them-off-while-the-cavalry-gets-here. But the UK doesn't have an active carrier right now...

The Argentine military capability has degraded since the original Falklands war. They have fewer modern aircraft as compared to before. They cannot put very many aircraft in the air against the Falklands. Pilots do not like suicide missions. They want to return to base. Argentina does not have very many aircraft capable of air-to-air combat which can reach the Falklands and return. The Typhoon is a very modern airplane. It can decimate the Argentine airforce. An invasion fleet would take time to assemble and would be noticed. This provides the RAF time to attack and position more aircraft.

[HMS Sophia]

Excellent, I found what I was looking for.
Not only is the typhoon flight stationed there, but also a pair of sea kings, and a rather fancy Rapier detachment. Effective air defences that were non-existent in the previous war, and that now face a much weakened Argentine air force. Add to this the on station infantry companies MANPADS, and not much is going to get through until the cavalry arrive.

[Zaune]

The Falklands Islands Defence Force is a lot better equipped than it used to be as well, roughly equivalent to a company of light infantry. Not sure what their MANPAD capability's like, but there's supposed to be enough pre-positioned equipment at Mount Pleasant for several times the regular British Army contingent and the FIDF are trained by the Royal Marines, so it's likely they've got access to plenty of heavier kit. Even if the Argentines managed to neutralise the Typhoons and most of the Rapiers with Special Forces, which they may or may not have the capability to insert, they'd have a hell of a job establishing a beachead without heavy losses.