Obama votes present on whether the Falklands belong to Britain

posted at 9:17 pm on February 25, 2010 by Allahpundit

He promised you Change, didn’t he?

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue…

Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.

“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 told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

Three theories as to why. (1) It’s revenge for the Brits’ intel leak about how Binyam Mohamed was interrogated. The White House actually threatened to cut off cooperation with Britain on intelligence matters over that last year, and a British think tank tells the Daily Mail it suspects that the resentment is still lingering. Says one Tory MP, “The U.S. position on the Falklands certainly seems to be a warning shot which says to Britain: ‘Don’t mess us around too much or we could make life problematic.’” (2) It’s part of The One’s strategy of “improving our image in the world” by making nice with Latin America’s leftist power brokers. That was the point of punishing Honduras after it deposed its would-be dictator Chavista president, wasn’t it? To prove our “anti-colonialist” bona fides? It sure has earned us a lot of goodwill so far, especially among Hondurans. (3) For whatever bizarre reason, Obama simply enjoys tweaking the Brits. From returning that bust of Churchill to embarrassing Gordon Brown during his first visit to the White House to having a State Department official tell the Daily Telegraph, “There’s nothing special about Britain,” crapping on the “special relationship” is just sort of his thing.

And don’t think it’s gone unnoticed:

So when British soldiers are dying in Helmand in support of his foreign policy, President Obama ‘takes no position’ over Britain’s right to territory which not only is ours without question, but had to be retaken at a cost of 254 British lives.

This deeply regrettable response leaves us with the question; what is the purpose of a special relationship that seems to involve British sacrifice on one side and American indifference on the other?

Your exit question: Considering that this dispute ultimately boils down to oil rights, can anyone explain why America would rather have those oceanic oil fields controlled by South America instead of a politically stable, reliably friendly (until recently) ally like Britain?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Zero is having one of the girls find the Falklands on the map for him.

Mr. Grump on February 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM

When the Falklands war began,the response here in the U.K was. Where the hell are the Falklands and why are they ours?

Britain claimed sovereignty in 1833. The Britons who settled thereafter made up the islands’ first permanent population.

Britain rests its case on its long-term administration of the Falklands and on the principle of self-determination for the islanders, who are almost all of British descent.
It’s sovereignty based on the principal of consent and democracy.
We don’t care about the Falklands,if it wasn’t for that pesky democracy we would be long gone .

Some posters here are saying,it’s nothing to do with the U.S because you have no interest’s there.

On September 11th the U.S was attacked.

Article Five of the Nato pact was signed in April 1949 to confront the threat of what was then the Soviet Union. It commits Nato to assist any member who comes under attack.
Even the French said ,’we are all American’s’.

Using the Lockerbie bomber as a reason to not support us
is disappointing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_arms_importation

For more than 30 years,the I.R.A was bankrolled by donations from the USA — and in those 30 years the U.S would not extradite wanted terrorists to face charges here, despite our repeated requests.

Both federal and local US courts refused extradition requests as policy, giving even escaped murderers political status.
While the funding of the IRA continued without interruption and was still raking in the money even after 9/11, when the Americans suddenly decided that they ought to start proscribing certain terrorist groups. The IRA was not, for some time, one of the groups so proscribed.

The U.S gave visa’s to known I.R.A members to fund raise against our governments wishes.

Gerry Adams was given the keys to New York by Rudy Giuliani

Weapons sent included semtex and surface to air missiles,we didn’t intercept them all.

Money was sent to help the families of killed or imprisoned ‘comrades’ and to keep their graves nice and tidy.

The IRA nearly killed Prime Minister Thatcher and her cabinet with a bomb in 1984, and it assassinated prominent British politicians and members of the royal family.

Nobody deserves terrorism.

Rep. Peter King–for years, the congressman was alinged with “one of the most violent terrorist groups in recent European history”–the IRA

The politician once called the IRA “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland,” he was banned from the BBC by British censors for his pro-IRA views, and he refused to denounce the IRA when one of its mortar bombs killed nine Northern Irish police officers. But Mr. King is now one of America’s most outspoken foes of terrorism.

He forged links with leaders of the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland, and in America he hooked up with Irish Northern Aid, known as Noraid, a New York based group that the American, British, and Irish governments often accused of funneling guns and money to the IRA.

He spoke regularly at Noraid protests and became close to the group’s publicity director, the Bronx lawyer Martin Galvin, a figure reviled by the British.

Much of the conventional weaponry and a great deal of the money necessary for IRA violence came from Irish-American sympathizers.

Mr. King’s advocacy of the IRA’s cause encouraged that flow and earned him the deep-seated hostility of the British and Irish governments

During his visits to Ireland, Mr. King would often stay with well-known leaders of the IRA, and he socialized in IRA drinking haunts.

At one of such clubs, the Felons, membership was limited to IRA veterans who had served time in jail.

Mr. King would almost certainly have been red-flagged by British intelligence as a result, but the experience gave him plenty of material for the three novels he subsequently wrote featuring the I.R.A.

The US government refused to approve a request from Britain for new Ruger guns for RUC officers .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8418150.stm

After all that and more we still stood ‘shoulder to shoulder’.

mags on February 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM

I don’t see why we should side with Britain over Argentina, doesn’t affect us.

Glad B.O. is not getting involved, but you know he’s doing it for the wrong reasons.

That guy couldn’t keep his nose out of a tiny country like Honduras.

V-rod on February 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Britain rests its case on its long-term administration of the Falklands and on the principle of self-determination for the islanders, who are almost all of British descent.
It’s sovereignty based on the principal of consent and democracy.
We don’t care about the Falklands,if it wasn’t for that pesky democracy we would be long gone .

Maybe we should guarantee the soveriegnity of a new sovereign democratic Republic of Las Malvinas. With an economic aid treaty to help them get started. We should guarantee to purchase 1 million barrels a year at $66/barrel for the next 99 years. Google “Panama”.

Chris_Balsz on February 26, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Two items clearly showing our NON-NEUTRAL position in the past:

This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.

1. We did MUCH more than that!! Caspar Weinberger described on Charlie Rose show years later that we gave highly advanced versions of the Sidewinder missile to the UK – a new version that could lock on to a plane’s heat signature from the FRONT, not just the tail (and it’s exhaust). This was vital for subsonic British Harriers to defend against supersonic French Mirages frown by Argentina.

2. The best book about the Falklands War is “Vulcan 607″ – a best seller in the UK and the best aviation book I have ever read. And the Vulcan raids were possible only with our cooperation letting the Brits use our (leased) air base on (their) Ascension Island.

fred5678 on February 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Your exit question: Considering that this dispute ultimately boils down to oil rights, can anyone explain why America would rather have those oceanic oil fields controlled by South America instead of a politically stable, reliably friendly (until recently) ally like Britain?

Hmm, because The One believes Amerika should be economically strangled?

LarryD on February 26, 2010 at 5:20 PM

V-rod on February 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

It’s comments like that,that leads us in the u.k to question our ‘special relationship’

‘Doesn’t affect us’

It was America that was attacked on 9/11. It didn’t affect
some countries but they still supported you.

mags on February 26, 2010 at 6:19 PM

The problem is that Argentina and the leftist Latin American countries are threatening the UK with war. They will board any ship carrying drilling equipment into the Falklands. Will “the one” protect the high seas from acts of war. Not likely.

Califemme on February 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3