The President's Remedial Diplomacy

President Barack Obama speaks on the Iraq election at the White House Sunday, March 7, 2010.
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?