Argentina and the Falklands: A background post

posted at 8:00 am on June 11, 2011 by Fausta Wertz

There has been a lot of reaction, both at my blog and at my Facebook page, to Wednesday’s post on the USA’s statement at the Organization of American States siding with Argentina on Argentina’s demand for negotiations over the Falkland Islands.

Pablo Kleinman, commenting on Facebook, linked to his 2007 article, ¿De quién son las Malvinas? (Whose Falklands?) (link in Spanish), which sheds light on the islands’ background. Kleinman wrote the article on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war. I translated it, so please, if you use any of this translation, link to this post and credit me (emphasis added):

Most Argentinians do not know today, and did not know in 1982, that the Argentinian colonization of the islands is little more than fiction, and when it took place it lasted barely longer than the Argentinian dictatorship than started the 1982 war. The fact that the Falklands are part of the American continental platform, or that are 500 kilometers away from the Argentinian coastline, two of the most used rationalizations when trying to claim Argentinian sovereignty over them, lacks weight in International Law.

During the lengthiest period of time when any Argentinian inhabited the Falklands, between 1826 and 1833, there never was any government representation in the islands. There was a governor only between 1829 and 1831; back then there were only some 40 people, workers at a fishery owned by the “governor”, a French entrepreneur from Hamburg named Louis Vernet.

Vernet had been ceded Soledad Island (East Falkland) for commercial exploitation as payment for a debt the Buenos Aires Government owed him. Aside from Vernet’s worker, among which Argentinians were a minority, a few gauchos and adventurers lived in the Falklands.

Vernet’s daughter was the only person born in the Falklands during that precarious settlement. “Precarious” since there was no town hall, no churches, nor any civil society of any type. Aside from the couple of years of the Frenchman’s enterprise, there was nothing more than a pirate encampment.

In 1833 the Falklands had some 20 inhabitants of various nationalities. All were expelled by the British. Interestingly, shortly after, dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas offered more than once to cede the islands to the United Kingdom to pay off a debt Buenos Aires owed British banking institutions. However, London ignored the Argentinian claim or offer.

The United Kingdom founded a colony in the Islands 165 years ago. That was when, for the first time in history, a constant human presence was established permanently in the Falklands. Generationally speaking, the Falklanders have been longer in the Falklands than the majority of Argentinians in Argentina. There should be no doubt, then, that the Falklanders are the legitimate masters of the Falklands, and that their will is to be respected, within the framework of the right of self-determination recognized by international law.

Clearly, Argentina’s claim is a nationalistic mirage, not based in historical facts, but used for propaganda – and possibly economic – purposes.

NOTE:
In my original translation I used Malvinas; after consulting with Pablo Kleinman he said he would use the English term Falklands throughout the English text rather than Malvinas, so I changed the text above, and corrected the name of Soledad Island to East Falkland
.

Cross-posted at Fausta’s blog.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

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

Falk-lands? Maybe that’s where Weiner should retire.

honsy on June 11, 2011 at 8:09 AM

KARMA…the UK has been siding with the Arabs and against the Jews forever with only a few exceptions. Now they can learn what it is like be on the wrong side of a myth..

georgealbert on June 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM

I was there, the people there are VERY British and have zero affinity to Argentina. Their spirit there reminds me a little more like the mavericks in Australia, but make no mistake, they are Brits.

karenhasfreedom on June 11, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Is the interest in this resurfacing for a a reason? What do the inhabitants of the Falklands have to say about all of this?

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2011 at 8:16 AM

It’s the Obama “who feels more sympathetic” style of diplomacy. This is the kind of deep thinking pontificated in coffee shops around campuses across the country.
Doesn’t make for good foreign policy in the real world.

lowandslow on June 11, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Is the interest in this resurfacing for a a reason? What do the inhabitants of the Falklands have to say about all of this?

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2011 at 8:16 AM

They are overwhelmingly British. They consider themselves British and consider England to be “home”.

itsspideyman on June 11, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Obama clearly has a personal beef with the British that compels him to stick a thumb in their eye every chance he gets. It’s one more sign of his immaturity and unfitness for office.

RadClown on June 11, 2011 at 8:27 AM

“Precarious” since there was no town hall, no churches, nor any [formal] civil society of any type.

The entrepreneur “governor” would have held the strong man leadership role to keep the population under his control.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 8:28 AM

This is just another area where our dear half-Kenyan president is overly influenced by the “dreams” of his anti-colonialist (and rabidly Communist) father.

Never mind the actual facts of the matter, or what simple fairness or even law dictates, in a dispute between First World (i.e. westerners) and Second or Third World types, Barry will always side against the First Worlders — even when the First Worlders are U.S. citizens (as shown by Barry’s consistently siding with Mexico and its interests rather than defending the rights of AZ citizens).

AZCoyote on June 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Falk-lands? Maybe that’s where Weiner should retire.

honsy on June 11, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Why do you hate them? The only place that you can relocate Weiner is – GITMO.

antisocial on June 11, 2011 at 8:31 AM

It’s not just that we’re signed on to the OAS declaration demanding that the British negotiate on the question of giving up territory that doesn’t want to be given up; we’re even endorsing Argentina’s blustering insistence on calling the islands by the prior name. All in all, this is a fairly significant change: the question is, why?

The answer is in two parts, both of them easy to grasp: first, President Obama doesn’t particularly like the British. It’s largely a racial thing, alas: the President’s grandfather had personal issues with the British colonial government, and the President has never really forgiven them for it*. Second, and probably more importantly (for Obama, at least**): Argentina will probably offer the President a better deal for the Falklands’ resources. And before you say “What, sheep?” …nope. Oil. It’s confirmed now that there’s oil there.

See? Easy to understand: President Obama hates one side, and the other side will be happy to kiss up to to the President in exchange for the opportunity to get a hold of several billion dollars’ worth of oil revenue. If you have the kind of mind that the President does, it’s practically a no-brainer… which I suppose could also describe my reaction to this, if not in the way that the term is usually used…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Yes, that’s a fairly immature reason for pursuing a particular foreign policy. Been not following international politics for long, have you? Also: as the date on that link may suggest, I didn’t need Dinesh D’Souza (who I’ve never read) to tell me that the President has an inherited chip on his shoulder when it comes to the British. It was already fairly obvious.

**This is where the President’s basic problem with relating with the rest of us is clearest: he really, truly, honestly does not understand why normal people get disgusted by this kind of petty backstabbing of a key American ally.

Moe Lane at RedState.

Wethal on June 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM

itsspideyman on June 11, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Is there a chance that Argentina might do anything or is these conversations being stirred up by The Won pandering?

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM

During my Air Force years, I was blessed to be stationed in the UK during the Falklands’ War. I remember marveling at the Iron Lady’s superb leadership. Even more astounding, however, is the clueless-ness of the Obama team.

itsnotaboutme on June 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Wethal on June 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM

This is for oil? How do environmental nuts rationalize evil oil from there but not here?

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM

The Won is attempting ” watch my right hand” while he does nasty things with his right hand.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 8:42 AM

georgealbert,
Interesting point. I like your style.

ConstantSorrow on June 11, 2011 at 8:42 AM

The most transparent President in history is a Marxist, hiding in plain sight.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 8:44 AM

The Brits should sell the Falklands to China to help pay their debts.

slickwillie2001 on June 11, 2011 at 8:45 AM

The Won is attempting ” watch my right hand” while he does nasty things with his right hand. Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Transparency?

Akzed on June 11, 2011 at 8:48 AM

As a lawyer I say International law is a joke. The Sarkozy-Obama-Cameron Libya UN Resolution is but the latest proof. What UN representative is going to step up and arrest Obama for going well beyond the authority of the resolution- which is mere window dressing in any event?

I would take the views of a common sense conservative over an internationalist every time. The only opinions that matter here are those of the people living on the Falkland Islands.

Basilsbest on June 11, 2011 at 8:51 AM

What’s strange about posts like these is that half the commenters condemn Obama for throwing Britain under the bus whereas the other half are glad and hate Britain either because the British people voted in Obama or some historical or other grievance (colonialism etc.)

How do the people who feel that Obama’s betrayal of the British is an embarrassment/disgrace feel about the extreme vindictiveness of their fellow conservatives? Is that bad as well? I think it is. I think it’s very bad.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM

This process of reasoning for British Rights is convoluted.

Vernet had been ceded Soledad Island (East Falkland) for commercial exploitation as payment for a debt the Buenos Aires Government owed him.

So the government of Buenos Aires did not cede Vernet the property, only the right to exploit the property.

Even were Vernet ceded title to the property, at what point did either Vernet or the government of Buenes Aires cede the Falkland Islands to Britain?

In 1833 the Falklands had some 20 inhabitants of various nationalities. All were expelled by the British.

Numbers aside, by what right did the British Empire take the Falklands and expel its inhabitants? The parasitic British Empire used its Military to “colonize” NYC from the well established Dutch colony, and to “colonize” South Africa from the well established Dutch colony in like manner. Abscond. Usurp.

Interestingly, shortly after, dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas offered more than once to cede the islands to the United Kingdom to pay off a debt Buenos Aires owed British banking institutions. However, London ignored the Argentinian claim or offer.

The United Kingdom founded a colony in the Islands 165 years ago.

Gathered from the information posted above this thread, Britain refused to “purchase” the Falklands from Buenos Aires, and simply founded their own colony in order to claim ownership as if that proves the Falklands belong to Britain instead of the prior existing government authority of Buenos Aires.

Though won through wars fought protecting American colonization of the Great Southwest after Mexico reneged property rights treaties with colonials, the US Congress had the good sense to go the extra mile and purchase our gained lands from Spain and from Mexico, and to seal the deals with signed treaties from those Governments.

The American negotiators offered the Spanish a deal: $20 million dollars for the Philippines. The Spanish accepted this offer.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
The major consequence of the war was the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the U.S. in exchange for $18 million. In addition, the United States forgave debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its national border, and the loss of Texas.

The Gadsen Purchase, completing the final territorial border between Mexico and AZ/NM, was accomplished through Mexico’s desire for safety from bandits for the commerce trade route via the Rail Road.

In the end, territory for the railroad was purchased for $10 million ($243,629,630 today)

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:05 AM

I suppose the USA should make a grab for Bermuda under the same “logic” used by the Argentines.

Whoops … no one mention that the One.

tryptic on June 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM

It’s the Obama “who feels more sympathetic” style of diplomacy.

lowandslow on June 11, 2011 at 8:16 AM

I was thinking more the Obama “if we just sit down and talk about it, we can work it out.”. Think beer summit.

If the Argentinians can claim islands 300 miles away as their own, I say let’s annex Cuba, which is only 90 miles away. Invade, make it the 51st state, no problem. Alternative plan: beer summit with the Castro brothers.

Paul-Cincy on June 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM

The Brits should sell the Falklands to China to help pay their debts.

slickwillie2001 on June 11, 2011 at 8:45 AM

Heh, before the UN determines they’re not British.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Hm, my critique of the article is in comment limbo.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Could you point out the comments show hatred for Britain?

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Falk-lands? Maybe that’s where Weiner should retire.

honsy on June 11, 2011 at 8:09 AM

It’s hard to teet a sheep.

katy the mean old lady on June 11, 2011 at 9:14 AM

KARMA…the UK has been siding with the Arabs and against the Jews forever with only a few exceptions. Now they can learn what it is like be on the wrong side of a myth..

georgealbert on June 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM

Bingo!

Tasha on June 11, 2011 at 9:15 AM

The article above does not stipulate any treaty transferal of property title rights from the Government of Buenos Aires to anyone.

The article does not stipulate any transfer of property rights from Vernet to the British Government, either.

Whatever debts existed, no title transfers occurred, and there was no sale or purchase of the Falklands.

The British Empire assumed control through military conquest.

The British Empire had no more legitimate “right” to colonize the Falklands from Argentina than they had to colonize/usurp the Dutch South Africa or the Dutch New Amsterdam (NYC), etc.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Could you point out the comments show hatred for Britain?

Well I was had the last thread in mind. This one hasn’t filled up in quite the same way.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM

The British Empire had no more legitimate “right” to colonize the Falklands from Argentina than they had to colonize/usurp the Dutch South Africa or the Dutch New Amsterdam (NYC), etc.

What about the British Empire’s other colonies in North America, originally held by indigenous Indians (or “Native Americans”, if you like) who didn’t have the military power of the Dutch?

And what should we take from all this? If New Amsterdam etc. isn’t going to be returned, why should the Falklands be?

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Finally, there is no comparison between the British Empire militarily usurping the territories of other governments for exploitation, and the US Congress protecting American colonists and signing peace treaties accompanied with purchases of lands already won from Wars with Mexico and with Spain.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:21 AM

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM

There was never any natural population on the Falklands.

There was no one to negotiate with when the British colonized the island.

There was only 150 military police when the Falklands were invaded by the Argentinians, so there was no military conquest until the British threw them off the island.

To pay for the islands at this point is to pay protection money for the use of the island.

The people of the Falklands are British and refer to England as “home”.

If the Argentinans wish to get their ass kicked by the British again they can go right ahead.

itsspideyman on June 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Here’s the real reason we’re even talking about the Falklands:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8550987/Rockhopper-shares-jump-on-Falklands-oil-test-success.html

itsspideyman on June 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Obama clearly has a personal beef with the British that compels him to stick a thumb in their eye every chance he gets. It’s one more sign of his immaturity and unfitness for office.

RadClown on June 11, 2011 at 8:27 AM

BINGO!

disa on June 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM

and the US Congress protecting American colonists and signing peace treaties accompanied with purchases of lands already won from Wars with Mexico and with Spain.

The entire North American Continent wasn’t obtained by way of peace treaty from Mexico and Spain.

Even with the parts won by peace treaty from Spain (and Spanish-descended colonists in Mexico), that’s still “receiving stolen goods” since the Spanish didn’t acquire their territories from the native peoples honestly.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Is the interest in this resurfacing for a a reason? What do the inhabitants of the Falklands have to say about all of this?

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2011 at 8:16 AM

The Agentinianss smell blood. Knowing the British Navy is a shell of what it was (even in 1982) and their more ‘progressive’ stance on world politics over the past 20 years.

They figure a little testing the waters by sabre rattling could give them a feel if the time is ripe for another move on the islands.

The attention Britain is giving Libya now (also with the tie up of British military force there right now) makes them want to stretch their wings a bit, see what they can get away with.

catmman on June 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM

aengus be advised that HA is lousy with closet liberals and sleepers posing as conservatives.

Compare them to the English speaking Nazis dropped behind allied lines prior to the Battle of the Bulge.

Both share the same mission.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Your argument is a mere perpetuation of the convoluted, projecting itself further as if the only acceptable rationale.

If Britain never purchased the Islands, then they don’t have legal precedence over Argentina on ownership.

As far as indigenous peoples are concerned in the Falklands, the article intimated that it was not populated.

American Colonists fought and won TWICE our own independence from Britain in 1776 and 1812. We don’t owe Britain a damned penny. Nor do we owe anything to Europe, having saved its authoritarian ass twice at massive costs in life and limb, and paid for its reparations, still stuck with the finance and provisions for the NATO military defense of Europe. A NATO lesson for Americans illustrates how far “winning the hearts and minds” of our own allies goes, and stop short squandering efforts to win the hearts and minds of enemies.

The article would have the reader assume that the British Empire legitimately took control of the Falklands, smearing Argentina’s point as disengenous. And I stipulate that what comes of the Falklands remains between Argentina and Britain. And if Britain wants to claim the high ground of “any civil society of any type” then make payment and arrange the treaty of peace with property title. And do it without a bail-out paid for by US Taxes.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

A Constitutional Conservative is not a closet liberal or Marxist sleeper.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Ah, it finally showed up late above @ 9:05.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:52 AM

maverick muse, why are you so defensive?

What makes you think I was referring to you?

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

The Argentinians have about as much claim to the Falklands as the US does to Bermuda.
Which is to say, none.

Count to 10 on June 11, 2011 at 9:55 AM

What makes you think I was referring to you?

The current dialogue coincided with your post.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Stop with the “projecting”.

You have nothing to fear if you are honest.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 9:58 AM

And if Britain wants to claim the high ground of “any civil society of any type” then make payment and arrange the treaty of peace with property title.

Why should they? If it wasn’t for Britain, Argentina would probably be a Nazi puppet state. Since the current owners of New Amsterdam don’t need to pay restitution to the Dutch Empire because they saved their authoritarian ass for services rendered in WWII and beyond, Britain can refuse to pay for the same reason.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Argentina has no claim to the Falklands, and the UK still has the will and the means to tear them a new azzhole should they try.

They did not need our help in 1982, and our allies know what Obama is.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 10:02 AM

aengus be advised that HA is lousy with closet liberals and sleepers posing as conservatives.

On the contrary, conservatives take the same position as Obama not because they are liberals/mobys but because they share his views. Obama’s Third Worldist resentment of European/British colonialism is the mainstream conservative position. Conservatives don’t need to have had a grandfather mistreated in Kenya, they just pop open their history books at the chapters marked “1776″ and “1812″ and they see red.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Argentina has no claim to the Falklands, and the UK still has the will and the means to tear them a new azzhole should they try.

But President Reagan covertly helped the British and publicly did not interfere with their efforts. President Obama and his conservative supporters may be bring strong diplomatic pressure to bear on the UK this time around.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 10:07 AM

aengus – it is ignorant to believe conservatives agree with obama on anything.

This is the problem we have with RINO’s like Romney. They say they are conservative but look like Democrats.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM

aengus – it is ignorant to believe conservatives agree with obama on anything.

I don’t know what to tell you. The evidence is right here on this thread.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM

aengus – it is ignorant to believe conservatives agree with obama on anything.

I don’t know what to tell you. The evidence is right here on this thread.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM

I see a “no true Scotsman” assertion coming.

Count to 10 on June 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM

I don’t know what to tell you. The evidence is right here on this thread.

aengus on June 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Huh? Where.

katy the mean old lady on June 11, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Huh? Where.

katy the mean old lady on June 11, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Maverick Muse, presumably.

Count to 10 on June 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Couple of observations……

…..I thought I heard a while back that there was offshore Oil possibly at stake (ala Brazil and Petrobras drilling)?

……could there be a Soros desire to “develop” those resources?

……yes, note the Brits have been Anti-Semite for generations (govt policy). So is it ironic that their push to force the Jews to give up land has seen their own Empire shrivel?

……guess Obama is still pissed about that whole Grandpa put in jail by Churchill thingy?

PappyD61 on June 11, 2011 at 10:20 AM

When does Ogabe plan to start negotiations over the status of Texas and New Mexico with Mexico?

quikstrike98 on June 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM

yep, Count to 10…. everything you see on the Internet is just as it appears.

At least that’s how it appears when I post as a “dissapointed and confused” liberal on the far left blogs.

You should read more Saul Alinsky.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Perhaps you’ve also taken offense where none was directed.

If you mistook the clarification, that a constitutional conservative is not a closet liberal or Marxist sleeper, as anything more than that, then I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

Regarding projections, recall motes and beams. Why play the “who is being honest need not fear” card here as if we are not all being honest in this discussion?

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM

guess Obama is still pissed about that whole Grandpa put in jail by Churchill thingy?

PappyD61 on June 11, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Yeah, poor grampy the Mau Mau. Why Kenya is a paradise now that those evil Brits are gone.

katy the mean old lady on June 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM

If the Argentinans wish to get their ass kicked by the British again they can go right ahead.

itsspideyman on June 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Exactly.

And yes, the significance of oil production and more particularly placement of missiles is of strategic concern to the US. But if it’s BRITISH property rights, then it’s not the duty of American tax payers to provide.

And that’s the point. This is between Britain and Argentina. Military aside, Argentinians must debate the most eloquent at that art.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM

And if Britain wants to claim the high ground of “any civil society of any type” then make payment and arrange the treaty of peace with property title. And do it without a bail-out paid for by US Taxes.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Too late, baby. Now it’s “spoils of war”. Ever hear of it?

katy the mean old lady on June 11, 2011 at 10:38 AM

The bad apple doesn’t fall far from the Marxist Kenyan.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Gathered from the information posted above this thread, Britain refused to “purchase” the Falklands from Buenos Aires, and simply founded their own colony in order to claim ownership as if that proves the Falklands belong to Britain instead of the prior existing government authority of Buenos Aires. – “maverick muse”

Why would you pay somebody to buy something you believe they do not own and never have owned?

Knott Buyinit on June 11, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Empire bears its own sins.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:40 AM

The dangerous part of this is that the British have been using their blood and treasure to help us in the war on terror, as well as Obama’s war in Libya. They also have HUGE debt that they didn’t have back in 1982. They may not have their own resources to take back the falklands on their own and our crazy marxist president may just try to invoke some kind of mutual defense of OAS for Argentina. This could be a huge problem before we can get this dangerous man out of the white house.

And since there is OIL involved and george soros has his dirty fingers all over oil in brazil, he is probably somewhere involved in this. Spooky dude.

karenhasfreedom on June 11, 2011 at 10:40 AM

But if it’s BRITISH property rights, then it’s not the duty of American tax payers to provide.

And that’s the point. This is between Britain and Argentina. Military aside, Argentinians must debate the most eloquent at that art.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Um, does the word “ally” mean anything to you?

Count to 10 on June 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM

katy the mean old lady on June 11, 2011 at 10:38 AM

You speak of too late, and “spoils of war”.

I already wrote of America’s own traditions pre-NATO.

Though won through wars fought protecting American colonization of the Great Southwest after Mexico reneged property rights treaties with colonials, the US Congress had the good sense to go the extra mile and purchase our gained lands from Spain and from Mexico, and to seal the deals with signed treaties from those Governments.

The American negotiators offered the Spanish a deal: $20 million dollars for the Philippines. The Spanish accepted this offer.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
The major consequence of the war was the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the U.S. in exchange for $18 million. In addition, the United States forgave debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its national border, and the loss of Texas.

The Gadsen Purchase, completing the final territorial border between Mexico and AZ/NM, was accomplished through Mexico’s desire for safety from bandits for the commerce trade route via the Rail Road.

In the end, territory for the railroad was purchased for $10 million ($243,629,630 today)

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:05 AM

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Count to 10 on June 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM

“Um”

You’d better read from my first post before jumping to an ignorant conclusion.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Obama has created so much instability in the world!

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 10:55 AM

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:48 AM

So blackmail is OK with you?

katy the mean old lady on June 11, 2011 at 10:55 AM

HMMMM. Pick either the “poor people of color” of Argentina or the lily white people of England. Gee I wonder which one Obama will pick? I think he has some deep psychological issues with his upbringing. He’s angry that his white mother and grandparents took care of him and raised him while his black father roamed around the world. He’s bitter about it and that influences his decisions on a lot of things.

Hummer53 on June 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM

I made a point when this development happened a few days ago, but in short it remains irrelevant. As a native Argentinean I can tell you that Argentineans don’t care about the Falklands. They get riled up about them whenever they get used for political reasons such as was the case almost 30 years ago. All of this just came to light as a result of the OEA’s resolution, but that’s not new. Chavez and co. always find ways to attack the north with these “resolutions”. Obama just legitimized an irrelevant issue, once again meddling in issues he shouldn’t have nor he understands (neither does Hillary and co).

For those wondering who has the true “right” to the islands, let me just use an example to illustrate the dynamic Argentina had towards the islands. Imagine you move to a neighborhood, buy a lot and build your house. The small lot next to you is empty, and you just ignore. You live in your new house for a while when you see somebody starting to build a house in that small lot. Only then you start to scream that it belongs to you. That pretty much sums it up- Argentina never gave a crap about the Falklands until they were needed to rile up the mass and “unite” the country to distract for internal conflicts. Argentineas love to find bogey men to justify their own deficiencies (I.e. it’s the USA’s fault the country is in bad shape and not the policies of corrupt, socialist governments).

In perspective, Argentineans wanted for years to have “free travel” to the Falklands. Inthe late 90′s England finally granted authorization to do so. After a first day of cheers and the first Argentinean Airlines flight to the island… nobody else ever cared to go again. There isn’t even a flight from Argentina anymore.

This is an issue brought up by a president (Obama) who has to be involved in everything to fill his ego but has no perspective about priorities. After all, the economy here is “just fine” and we are just facing “head winds”.

ptcamn on June 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM

He’s angry that his white mother and grandparents took care of him and raised him while his black father roamed around the world. He’s bitter about it and that influences his decisions on a lot of things.

Hummer53 on June 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM

With Michelle waiting for him at home, I am surprised Obama is not sexting 17 year olds.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 11:34 AM

This is an issue brought up by a president (Obama) who has to be involved in everything to fill his ego but has no perspective about priorities. After all, the economy here is “just fine” and we are just facing “head winds”.

ptcamn on June 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Very well stated.

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 11:35 AM

ptcamn on June 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM

ptcamn, I think you should have the last word on this.

itsspideyman on June 11, 2011 at 11:42 AM

He’s angry that his white mother and grandparents took care of him and raised him while his black father roamed around the world. He’s bitter about it and that influences his decisions on a lot of things.

Hummer53 on June 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM

His mother abandoned him just as his father did. This has to have caused him mental problems, as well as being left in the care of the nutball communist Davis, a likely child molester.

slickwillie2001 on June 11, 2011 at 11:44 AM

This has to have caused him mental problems, as well as being left in the care of the nutball communist Davis, a likely child molester.

slickwillie2001 on June 11, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Obama has Weiner’s back

Roy Rogers on June 11, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Horses love carrots, so do goats. The Argentine government knows this well.

Limerick on June 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM

So the UK has its hands full with Libya, why would Argentina be a walk in the park?

El_Terrible on June 11, 2011 at 2:01 PM

“Um”

You’d better read from my first post before jumping to an ignorant conclusion.

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:50 AM

What “ignorant conclusion”? When someone makes threats toward an ally, even just diplomatically, you back up your ally. You don’t join in attempting to strong arm them, particularly in something as baseless as this.

Count to 10 on June 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I think we are getting used to our ‘allie’ not supporting
us.
Recently Congressman Peter King a strong supporter of I.R.A
terrorist would not condemn their actions.

Even claiming it was all o.k because they didn’t attack America.

mags on June 11, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I think we are getting used to our ‘allie’ not supporting
us.
Recently Congressman Peter King a strong supporter of I.R.A
terrorist would not condemn their actions.

Even claiming it was all o.k because they didn’t attack America.

mags on June 11, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Reagan had exactly the same policy and that did not hurt the relationship. Peter King is a King Sized A-Hole and so was Gorgeous George Galloway… so what? The British know that the US wants to be seen to be evenhanded and that is fine. The US isn’t ‘siding’ with Argentina over the Falklands. The US position on the subject is irrelevant and there is enough at stake for the British to contest any challenge to sovereignty over the islands.

lexhamfox on June 11, 2011 at 3:29 PM

In that long ago galaxy, far, far away, when Reagan was Prez, the US voted with the OAS on the UN resolution calling for a negotiated settlement to the Falklands dispute. Reagan and Thatcher had quite the tiff over their policy differences on it.

The US preference of “the Americas for Americans” goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. That said, the challenge of European colonialists to local sovereignty in this hemisphere has long faded, and the last two generations of Americans have been taught in school that their nation is ranged historically with the colonial empires of Europe, rather than with the independence movements of the New World.

But that is a revisionist view. In 1982, Americans did not, by and large, see the US as either bound to side with the colonial power, or needing to make expiation for colonial-era enormities of our own. The populace was torn, as Reagan was, between the traditional American stance of supporting local sovereignty — especially that of our Latin American fellows — in disputes over colonial holdings, and the strength and importance of the US relationship with Britain.

With Obama, though, people detect something different. They detect that he is not torn, because he doesn’t see the relationship with Britain has having strength or importance. They detect, noreover, that he conceives himself to be atoning, with his current policies, for a posture of colonialist exploitation that the US never even assumed — and one that, in the generic, is largely fabricated to begin with.

People detect these things because they are there. Obama supported the radical leftist Zelaya, pal and client of Hugo Chavez, in Zelaya’s assault on the Honduran constitution — in a nation that has long been one of America’s best friends in Central America. Obama has supported the petroleum industry in Brazil while stifling its operation in the US and driving up the price of gas for his own people. He has apologized for America to the UN and the Arab world, while subjecting our actual allies to repeated diplomatic disrespect.

Obama can’t do what Reagan — or any previous president — did, and still appear to be a friend to our closest allies (e.g., Britain, Israel, Japan), because the context of his policies and positions makes its crystal clear that he isn’t one.

J.E. Dyer on June 11, 2011 at 3:56 PM

J.E., you do manage to leave out of your comments that when guns were drawn, the U.S. took the side of Great Britain against Argentina.

Given that Chavez is clearly a big part of this latest uprising, it’s no surprise that Obama has allied himself with the socialists. It would actually be a surprise if he chose the correct side of a foreign policy situation, given his consistency of late.

Freelancer on June 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM

J.E. Dyer on June 11, 2011 at 3:56 PM

The policy has been in place for a long time and hasn’t changed even if you and a handful of others feel differently about it. The big difference is that when Reagan had the policy, Argentina was a murderous dictatorship run by goons.

lexhamfox on June 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM

lexhamfox on June 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Try reading what I actually wrote.

J.E. Dyer on June 11, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Nice post Fausta!..:)

Dire Straits on June 11, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Generationally speaking, the Falklanders have been longer in the Falklands than the majority of Argentinians in Argentina.

Then it appears the Falkland Islanders have a greater claim to Argentina than vice versa.

Argentina is a creepy, nasty country full on big-headed jerks with delusions well above their station. They are always one loony leader away from a full on dictatorship.

Always has been, always will be.

Jack Bauer on June 12, 2011 at 5:40 AM

Thanks for the background. Added it to the discussion thread on my own backwater forum, linked back here as requested.

Cylor on June 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM

No one takes Argentina seriously. Any country that would elect an absurd Peronista, such as Cristina Kirchner, deserves to live with the consequences. The Peronistas are true fascists in the style of the jackass Benito Mussolini, who was greatly admired by crazy Juan Peron (Juan also thought the social system of Nazi Germany was pretty terrific when he went to study it in the early 1940’s). It’s all quite a shame, as Argentina was a decent, prosperous country until Peron gained prominence in the 1940’s. Frankly, you might as well have the ex-hooker Eva Peron running the country! The South American military are competent only as riot police. If they wish to again take on real armed forces, such as those of the British, the result will be the same.

John Adams on June 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 9:05 AM

maverick muse on June 11, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Apples — Oranges.

Different situations. Different populations. Different strokes.

Spoils of war it is.

Solaratov on June 12, 2011 at 11:00 AM

The Faulklanders should just declare independence from the British and Argentina. They have a clear geographic and cultural case against Argentina rule. Then they can turn around and ask for an alliance with Great Britain. That should shut up the lefty idiots in the Americas (including the Alinskyite in chief).

LakeLevel on June 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM

lexhamfox on June 11, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I am in the U.K and nobody here is saying Obama/U.S should be more evenhanded.
George Galloway was thrown out of the Labour party and has lost his seat in Parliment.

Peter King is now one of the most vocal anti-terrorism(but just Islamic) in the U.S

mags on June 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM