Ohhh! So as Secretary Clinton prepares to take off for Montevideo and other parts south, THIS raises its ugly head once again. The blame, for now, is being laid on Obama, but Hillary will be the one taking the flak to be sure. This is certain to end up in her pretty hands.
In a February 25 blog post at CDR Salamander:
Thursday, February 25, 2010
You can’t vote “present” to history ….
It can only be his personal antimosity towards the British that we have seen over an over that can explain this – especially when the British spent the better part of a decade backing our play.It was a headline I never expected to read: “US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” Washington has declined to back Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. President Obama’s position is one of strict neutrality, refusing to take sides. According to the State Department:
We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.
Salamander goes on to quote Toby Young in this Telegraph article: Et tu, Barack? America betrays Britain in her hour of need
Her hour of need? What is this? The Battle of Britain? We have always been there in Britain’s hour of need. I actually was out of the country the last time this sovereignty issue exploded into battle. One Haitian radio station spent the entire war playing Argentine tangos, milongas, and the Wolfe Tones of Ireland singing their tribute to countryman Guillermo Brown, founder of the Argentine Navy. It just seemed natural for the Irish to back Argentina against Britain on this issue. For anyone who does not remember this war, here is a concise history of the events: The Falklands War.
Now maybe the U.K. is still smarting from Obama ousting Churchill from the Oval Office, but this administration is hardly inimical to the U.K. Secretary Clinton has gone so far out of her way to be cordial to P.M. Brown and the U.K. Foreign Minister David Miliband that there actually has been speculation of flirtation and crushing.
Now, based on our close friendship and history, the U.K. wants us on their side. Well, here is how it went down the first time: We did remain neutral in the beginning, and the late Secretary of State Alexander Haig did his level best from a neutral position to negotiate between the parties, but the diplomatic approach failed. Reagan agreed to provide limited military assistance to his dear friend Maggie Thatcher. The British prevailed, and the Argentines rose up against the military junta, the president of Argentina resigned sounding the death knell of the junta and opening the door to resumed democratic elections.
I suppose history could repeat itself. I suppose our Homegirl-in-Chief could follow the Haig route and shuttle back and forth between BA and London. Just guessing, but it is probable that her charm goes a little further with David and Gordon than with Cristina Kirchner who is somewhat pissed with us also for not taking their side. But assistant Secretary Valenzuela was pretty terse and clear at the briefing: “We will not be discussing the Falklands issue with them. This is a matter for Argentina and for Britain. And it’s not a matter for the United States to make a judgment on.”
Personally, I agree with neutrality on this. I do not think we should be taking sides in a dispute between our friends, and we badly need friends in The Cone. Badly!