British irate over Hillary comments on Falklands
posted at 10:12 am on March 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The Obama administration continued its “smart power” efforts with America’s closest ally by demanding that the UK negotiate with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Hillary Clinton appeared with Argentina’s President Kristina Kirchner yesterday for a press conference in which she pushed for talks to settle the status of the islands — which the British already consider completely settled now. Nile Gardiner calls Hillary’s comments a “slap in the face” to the UK.
First, the transcript of the presser:
QUESTION: (In Spanish)
And for the Secretary, it’s about the Falklands. The – President Fernandez talked about possible friendly mediation. Would the U.S. be considered – would the U.S. (inaudible) consider some kind of mediation role between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands? Thank you.PRESIDENT DE KIRCHNER: (Via interpreter) (Inaudible) what we have (inaudible) by both countries as a friendly country of both Argentina and the UK, so as to get both countries to sit down at the table and address these negotiations within the framework of the UN resolutions strictly. We do not want to move away from that in any letter whatsoever, any comma, of what has been stated by dozens of UN resolutions and resolutions by its decolonization committee. That’s the only thing we’ve asked for, just to have them sit down at the table and negotiate. I don’t think that’s too much, really, in a very conflicted and controversial world, complex in terms.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And we agree. We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.
And another:
QUESTION: (In Spanish)
Interpreter: The journalist was just asking how the U.S. intends to negotiate to get the United Kingdom to sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue.SECRETARY CLINTON: As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.
Except, of course, that Britain doesn’t believe there is any need to talk about it at all. Until a few decades ago, no one seriously challenged British sovereignty on the island. Argentina started a war over them in the 1980s, which Margaret Thatcher ended decisively. As far as London is concerned, that ended the discussion rather neatly, especially since the residents of the Falklands apparently prefer the status quo.
Gardiner wonders what Hillary was thinking:
Clinton has demonstrated, not the first time, strikingly poor judgment as Secretary of State. While currying favour with a third rate kleptocracy in Latin America, she is alienating America’s most loyal and valuable friend at a critically important time. She also underestimates the resolve of the British people, who will never negotiate the future of the Falkland Islands. If the Argentines want the Falklands they will have to fight for them, and if they choose to do so they will be emphatically defeated, just as they were in 1982. Hillary Clinton can cry for Argentina if she wants to, but the Falklands will be forever British.
Maybe this White House hasn’t recalled this yet, but the British are fighting alongside of us in Afghanistan, where we desperately need them to stay. If Britain suddenly discovers a need to deploy to the Falklands, especially because of American meddling, I’m quite certain London would need little encouragement to redeploy from their NATO commitment to do so.
When Obama ran for office, he claimed he wanted to restore our standing with our allies. Who knew he was such a history buff? It seems that Obama wants to restore our standing with the British to its status … in 1812.
Update: Reader Sajid A corrects me on a point originally in this post, which is that the British were not the first to occupy the Falklands:
“France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland‘s Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name Îles Malouines was given to the islands – malouin being the adjective for the Bretonport of Saint-Malo. The Spanish name Islas Malvinas is a translation of the French name.”
I’ve removed that passage. Thanks to Sajid for the correction.









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: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Score another negative for foreign policy under the Obama Administration.
Not that I can recall even one positive.
Very simple: Obama always insults our allies and always without fail supports our enemies, directly or indirectly or both.
Churchill`s bust should have remained in place; I cannot say the same for Obama.
An aside:
Met a fellow from Poland the other day and felt compelled to apologize for reneging on the missile defense plan.
Sherman1864 on March 3, 2010 at 5:35 AM
Her comments require a willing suspension of disbelief. Incompetent old hag.
TrickyDick on March 3, 2010 at 8:31 AM
I would say the fact that the Argentinians are celebrating this announcement is all the evidence that we need to know that this is not the “neutral” position that some here want so desperately to believe.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 10:07 AM
And if the US gets credit in Latin America for calling for negotiations, and Britain keeps doing as it pleases, who’s been damaged?
Chris_Balsz on March 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM
You’re a shoe-in for the Obama foreign policy team.
Short answer: America directly, Britain indirectly, and Argentina if this encourages them to do something stupid.
jarodea on March 3, 2010 at 12:16 PM
How are we directly damaged?
How is Britain indirectly damaged?
Chris_Balsz on March 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM
This isn’t just about the Falklands folks. Argentina has wanted to grab all of the islands leading from the tip of South America — which they share with Chile — to Antarctica.
That includes South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands as well.
I wonder what Chile has to say about this? Hmmm?
Thanks for mentioning it before I did. Hillary should have said, the U.S. supports “discussions” over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as long as Argentina supports “discussions” over the sovereignty of Bermuda, Martinique and — of special interest to George Soros’s offshore accounts — the Netherlands Antilles. (Time to “in-shore” those perhaps??)
RD on March 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM
And to echo Chris Balsz’s point, how would Britain, or France, or Holland, or Argentina be damaged if we knocked these balls into play and got Argentina on the record as not condemning it? I mean c’mon, seriously… /
“If you gotta ask what jazz is, you ain’t never gonna know.”
RD on March 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Also read on Wikipedia that the peat bogs move, tending to relocate or bury the mines over time, thus making it impossible to use old maps to find them (if they ever existed to begin with). Presumably those would be Argentine maps of the mine fields? :-)
And thank you for clearing up who laid the mines. After reading Wikipedia, you’d think the Brits did it. At the very least the Wikipedia entries are “a bit hazy in the middle” on the subject: they decry the situation with the mines, call it a humanitarian disaster, etc. etc., but fail to actually identify who laid the da-n things.
Like all leftist lies by omission, it led me right away to suspect Argentina, the highest-ranking “victim” in the left’s ontology of (self-proclaimed) victimization. Turns out I was right.
And given how politically ‘hot’ and P.C. the topic of land mines has become these last 20 years or so, and how much flesh activists usually like to take from the hapless perpetrators, it’s not a big surprise to find out they’re their pulling their punches on this one.
So, one wonders, can Argentine culpability now be edited into the Wikipedia entr(ies) without someone crying “racist” or trying to delete it?
RD on March 3, 2010 at 4:25 PM
Your statement advocating neutrality is inconsistent with your statement preferring active U.S. involvement of the kind you suggest; both cannot be true simultaneously.
The neutral position is NOT to advocate that the U.K. allow Argentina to open up sovereignty for discussion. The neutral position is to articulate no preference at all on whether sovereignty should be opened up for discussion.
The neutral position is to stay out of it while Argentina and the U.K. figure out whether the sovereignty question should be broached.
So which position do you really favor: neutrality, or U.S. activism?
Your statement is inconsistent with itself. By definition, if the dispute is “minor”, then how can it possibly “flare up” or present a “risk” serious enough to fret about?
Note, I’m not saying the conflict is “minor” — you are.
No, your positon is that we take Argentina’s side on the issue of “talks”, over the U.K.’s side, which rejects those “talks”. That is not neutrality. If your position was truly neutral you would mind your own business while Argentina and Britain figure out how to deal with each other.
So it follows that you do not follow your own advice.
“Letting” Argentina talk to somebody? Are you suggesting that Argentina (or Britain for that matter) is under our sovereign control?
It’s not in our power to “let” anyone — or prevent anyone — from talking to one another.
Don’t you think the U.K. and Argentina are better judges of whether it “costs them” something than you? At best, your “costs nothing” assertion is a hypothesis.
“We avoid starting”? Your words continue to suggest some sort of activist mentality.
RD on March 3, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Recovered? As in, the economy’s back to its prior-to-meltdown sheer awesomeness? :)
“I’m told Wagner’s music isn’t nearly as bad as it sounds.”
RD on March 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM
As a Brit: the Falkland Islands people are Brits and wish to stay that way, end of as far as I am concerned.
We know that Obama doesn’t like us, the Churchill bust gesture was understood loud and clear. I suggest, as we are stretched to the limit, that if we need to defend the Falklands again, the first troops we withdraw to send be those supporting US troops in Afghanistan.
What does Obama suggest, that the Falklanders be forcibly stripped of their nationality and forced to speak Spanish?
What the actual people concerned think seems to be no part of Obama’s calculations.
Real Democrats are for the self determination of peoples.
Hope on March 4, 2010 at 5:49 AM
Hear hear
At the time we had an ally called the US of A.
Hope on March 4, 2010 at 5:55 AM
There’s no discussion in the Falklands either. I don’t see why people in Argentina should get to “talk” about what country the Falklanders belong to?
Hope on March 4, 2010 at 6:04 AM
when you wake up one morning to find your home occupied by foreign soldiers, it tends to p**** you off.
The Obama admin is so shallow. On every issue they seen to come down on the side people who know b****r all about it woud.
Hope on March 4, 2010 at 6:17 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5