The President's Remedial Diplomacy

(Weekly Standard)  Seth Cropsey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations as deputy undersecretary of the Navy.

---

Barack Obama's theory is that partisanship is the source of conflict. There should be no more red states or blue states. Every political choice is a false choice, an example of old thinking. Similarly on the international stage. If the United States distanced itself from its allies and drew closer to its adversaries, conflict would be reduced. The United States could then serve as the international mediator rather than as the guarantor of global order and an agent of democratic political change. The most recent example of these ideas is the Obama administration's renewed antipathy for Britain in its current dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

Geologic surveys indicate the possibility of up to 60 billion barrels of oil beneath the seabed 60 to 100 miles north of the Falkland Islands. This possibility led to the beginning of exploratory drilling in early February and reopened the tensions between the United Kingdom and Argentina that resulted in the Falklands war of 1982. A consortium of British and Australian firms transported a rig to the area. And Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, whose attempt to tax agricultural exports and use central bank reserves to pay down the nation's massive debt have been hugely unpopular, saw and seized an opportunity to divert the attention of the populace.

Argentina's foreign minister, Jorge Taiana, asked for a meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, called the British firms' exploration "illegitimate," and demanded a discussion with British officials on their claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Argentina announced that it will blockade shipping between its ports and the Falkland Islands, which the Argentines call the Malvinas.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown pointed to the 1,000-man contingent of British forces stationed in the Falklands and warned that the U.K. would again defend the islands' 3,000 residents-none of whom wish to become Argentine citizens-as well as Britain's right under international law to explore for oil. The Times of London reported on February 24 that a submarine had been dispatched to support the Royal Navy surface ship stationed in the Falklands.

Both the U.K. and Argentina have seen their militaries contract substantially since the 74-day conflict that Britain won decisively in 1982. Argentina has prepared the diplomatic ground better and claims the support of many of its neighbors. But the U.K. still possesses enough naval force and logistical support to carry the day if it comes to that. And the U.K. can still draw on logistical support-as it did 28 years ago-at Gibraltar and Ascension Island (several hundred miles below the Equator) in the South Atlantic.

The Obama administration responded initially by declaring its neutrality. "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 declared in late February. "The United States recognizes de facto U.K. administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party."

In early March Secretary of State Hillary Clinton changed the U.S. position during her visit to Buenos Aires. At a joint news conference the deeply unpopular Argentine president (a poll last summer put her approval rating at 28 percent) insisted that the U.K. and Argentina enter into talks about the Falklands. She invoked the authority of the U.N.'s decolonization committee, a body whose agenda mentions among other "non-self-governing territories" American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. "And we agree," interjected Clinton, notwithstanding State's earlier expression of neutrality and the U.K.'s repeated assertion that the Falklands' sovereignty is not negotiable. What sort of neutrality is it that takes the side of a party seeking talks about an issue that the opposing party says is nonnegotiable?

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[Lexasdel]

Oh, and a few more points:

Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, California have not been American as long as the Falklands have been British. Besides, some of them were won through war. And lets remember that there has only ever been one war over the Falklands...

And i've just got out a dusty old book about Luis. Turns out he was in charge of military and something else. He only had a page to himself. Poor bloke.

[diddledee]

Dear Maistir,
You might not personally have British forbears, but your country has a British past as you well know. It also has a native American past, and it would become you to consider that set of facts before we get into a discussion of colonial rights and wrongs.
The Falkland Islands is also a multicultural society, with a distinct mix of Chileans, St Helenians and thirty other nationalities so at least we have that in common.Happily there never were any native Falkland Islanders.
I'm quite amazed that you presume to know more about the economics of my country than I do. Our revenue comes mainly from fishing licenses, along with tourism and agriculture, and we spend a high proportion of it on our own defence. Luckily for us Britain finds it mutually advantageous to have a military base here to help us out.

[diddledee]

Dear Maistir,
You might not personally have British forbears, but your country has a British past as you well know. It also has a native American past, and it would become you to consider that set of facts before we get into a discussion of colonial rights and wrongs.
The Falkland Islands is also a multicultural society, with a distinct mix of Chileans, St Helenians and thirty other nationalities so at least we have that in common.Happily there never were any native Falkland Islanders.
I'm quite amazed that you presume to know more about the economics of my country than I do. Our revenue comes mainly from fishing licenses, along with tourism and agriculture, and we spend a high proportion of it on our own defence. Luckily for us Britain finds it mutually advantageous to have a military base here to help us out.

[maistir]

Hi again, Diddle,

News about the Falklands' economy and its various subsidies is available all over the world; you even receive such things as subsidies for livestock-transport ("ships for sheep").

You've completely reversed the picture of your defense; it is maintained entirely by Britain, and no matter what proportion of your local budget is allocated to defense it is piddling in comparison to the actual expenditures needed for the defense of your corner of the old empire.

You are apparently living an ex-pat's fantasy life in the World of Cocaigne. My advice: wake up and begin to negotiate along with the Brtish and the Argentinians. Do so before the UN or the World Court takes up your case. Can't say more now, except that changing the subject under discussion to a different topic is a rather shabby tactic. Otherwise, I enjoyed this exchange of views.

[diddledee]

I know you said you didn't want to chat any more, Maistir, but really!!! The livestock movement subsidies are paid to Falkland farmers by the Falkland Islands Government out of its own revenue. How exactly does that involve Britain.
You're just trying to goad me now I can tell. In what sense is an 8th generation Falkland Islander an 'expat'? Does that make you an expat as well?
We get a lot of Americans down here on cruise ships. I hope you come one day and see for yourself.

[USSAmerikan]

Complete neutrality would be a good thing. During the Falklands war, we fueled British bombers that then disabled Argentinian runways, helping make the conflict an extremely one-sided one. If the Argies would have maintained proper air support over the island, the outcome could have been drastically different, as the Argentines were sinking British ships with outdated A-4 Skyhawks and using skip-bombing techniques that date back to world war II! Sure, they had a few Exocets, like the one that sank the HMS Sheffield and the cargo ship that was transporting helicopters for the land assault. That said, swinging to the extreme opposite is a very unwise choice, but what does someone who does not even know how to execute a proper salute know? Go ahead, Mr. Obama, side with the Argentines... Let's see how quickly the UK pulls out of Afghanistan and what's left of their troops in Iraq.

[maistir]

Utter rubbish. The British claim to these islands is weak, and we should have the courage to tell our "closest ally" so. Friends can do that sort of thing for one another.

A tiny bit of history: James Monroe, at the behest of the British government, declared the Americas closed to colonization in the 1820's and the British recognized the United Provinces of the Rio de Plata region as the successor to the Spanish empire in the same decade. In 1838, the British did not seize the islands from penguins, as the author says, but from the governor appointed by Buenos Aires, Luis Vernet, who had begun to operate businesses there. The British then colonized the islands, knowing that America's navy was too weak to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.

There is an easy solution: the British colonists can continue to live exactly as they live today as British subjects; they simply need to realize that they are British subjects living in Argentina, as tens of thousands of their fellow countrymen do who live in other provinces of Argentina.

This is one of few issues on which the Obama administration should be congratulated.

[diddledee]

The Falkland Islands have a democratically elected government, and are self supporting in all areas apart from defence.
We are entirely English speaking and our children are educated under a modified British system and attend British or Commonwealth universities.
We have a good standard of living and manage our modest resources prudently.
How much of this do you suppose we would be allowed to keep under Argentine rule?
Our fellow countrymen living in Argentina have made their choice and are welcome to it. We have made ours and it doesn't involve Argentina.
It ill becomes citizens of the USA to get too precious about us as British 'colonists'. Your forbears were British colonists too who asserted their right to go their own way. When the time is right so will we. For the moment, we choose not to, and above all, we choose not to be colonised by Argentina.

[maistir]

Dear Diddle,

You have some rather bizarre notions about the world. Most of us American citizens are of German or Irish or Hispanic or African or Asian origin. We no more have British forebears than the alligator has. In fact, many of our forebears got here via the British-organized slave-trade or as escapees from British imperialism. It would become you to think about that set of facts. But there is no delusion quite so bad as self-delusion. If you think that the islands are self-supporting, you can only be referring to the ovine portion of the population. The human population was dependent on Argentina before the Falklands War and is dependent on the British taxpayer today.

[SomeGuy_9128]

We are seeing every day why electing Obama was a mistake.

[ll2owt]

we are learning every day just how many repugnant idiots threr really are.

[matuliska]

That first paragraph is the most beautiful straw man I have ever seen. Kudos.