Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over Falklands

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Times

March 2, 2010
Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over Falklands


http://www.timesonline.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/multimedia/archive/00691/Hillary_Clinton_691944a.jpg

(Picture Alliance/Photoshot)
Argentine President Fernandez de Kirchner and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
shake hands after a meeting at the presidential palace in Buenos Aires

Giles Whittell, Hannah Strange, Catherine Philp and Martin Fletcher in Stanley

Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup today in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after an extraordinary two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and the country’s President Fernández de Kirchner.

Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton said she agreed that negotiations were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.

Her intervention defied Britain’s long-standing position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands’ 3,000 inhabitants asked for them.

It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands. Britain insisted there was no need for mediation as long as the islanders wanted to remain British. “We don’t think that’s necessary,” a Downing Street spokesman said.



Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

[Enrique]

1. coup might not be the best choice of words

in that region.

[sasquatch]

15. +1,000

[dipsydoodle]

37. + Graham's Number

.

[Sultana]

51. LOL, true

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's the oil resources around the Falklands. The Falklands people voted to be British, but

how far that extends into the ocean remains to be seen.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. To be fair, there were no "Falklands people", and Britain filled them with Britons. -nt

[pampango]

3. Negotiating is better than stonewalling, UK. And negotiations can go on for years, just look around

the world, and not accomplish much. Use this chance to prove your case that the Falklands, at least its people (who should matter more than the dirt and rocks that make up the island), are British. It's a golden opportunity for some education.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. There's nothing to prove about the people being British

It's so damn obvious. The people themselves will tell anyone, at any time, that they're British. It's not controversial.

The only question is whether neighbouring countries should have vetos over offshore oil exploration or not. You might say there's a case that the US, for instance, should have the OK of Cuba and Mexico before further drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

[hack89]

9. Does Cuba and Mexico also need our permission? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. That would make sense if this were the international regime one wanted

I'm not convinced it would be a good idea, but there might be an environmental case for it, I suppose. Still, Argentina is going to explore for oil in its own waters near the Falklands exploration, so it seems they don't object to oil exploration even close to their shores.

[liberation]

10. Well, no shit... when you kill off the natives and replace them with expats

that is one of the reasons why international law came into play. Because referendums like those are akin to ask a person of British descent if they feel British. Well, no shit Sherlock.

As long as the British have more firepower than the Argentinians, any demands by Argentina are moot and a waste of time.

[naaman fletcher]

13. you are totally factually wrong. There were no natives.

How hard is it to know what you are talking about before you post? The islands were empty when discovered.

[cali]

16. no natives were killed off

The islands were uninhabited when Europeans first colonized them.

The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers, but there is evidence that Patagonian Indians may have reached the Falklands in canoes.<16> Artifacts including arrowheads and the remains of a canoe have been found on the islands.<17> There is also the presence of the Falkland Island fox, or Warrah (now extinct), but these may have reached the islands via a land bridge when the sea level was much lower during the last ice age

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

[Socal31]

5. Why in the heck would the UK negotiate?

What does Argentina have to bring to the table?

It seems like Argentina just wants some of that oil $$.

If they have any legal standing in any jurisdiction, take it to court.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Key point...there is no win-win here. Argentina wants something they never owned given to them

against the wishes of the residents. It should be a non-starter.

Now if there was an option by which Argentina would renounce all claims...then they might be a way forward.

[CynicalObserver]

52. Argentina is the country that still sticks a big chunk of antarctica on

its official maps as part of its territory. This country rabble-rouses its people every time it gets into domestic difficulty. This is far more absurd that the spain/gibraltar issue, which spain at least owned before ceding VIA TREATY to GB.

They have no valid claim to the falklands, despite what some history illiterates here seem to think.

[vadawg]

54. lets be honest the UK has more of a claim over the original 13 colonies of the US

more importantly if argentina invaded again would the US be honor bound to fight alongside its ally the brits...

[CynicalObserver]

56. The Brits formally recognized the United States after the war, thus forfeiting all claim to the US.

Britain does have a perfectly valid claim to Gibraltar, since spain ceded it to them via the Treaty of Utrecht. Wasn't the treaty of paris the one that ended the revolutionary war?

If you are going to debate under the assumption that treaties made between sovereign powers are not legally valid and binding, then what criteria do you use? The wishes of the residents of the falklands? Not convenient, I assume.

I am utterly baffled on how anyone will logically argue Arg. has any rational claim to the falklands. Aside from poking another stick in the eye of the UK, I assume there is monetary motive possibly behind the scenes, given the oil issue.

[vadawg]

67. no my point is that once the colonies belonged to britain, the falklands have never been argentinian

thats what i was saying, the falklands are as much part of the UK as any other territory in the UK

[CynicalObserver]

73. Sorry, I misunderstood your post! There are a number of posters

on this forum who do seem to believe that argentina has a valid claim to the islands or that they should be given them anyway despite lack of said claim, so it can be confusing sometimes.

I was in arg. 9 years ago during their memorial date for falklands war dead, they make a really big deal of it still. Total bread and circus political misdirection, it was really quite stunning.

[damntexdem]

6. Well, personally, I hope they have talks over the Malvinas, not the Falklands.

;-)

[naaman fletcher]

7. Why?

It was uninhabited when the British first claimed it, and not a single Argentinian lives there. What do you have against people choosing their own government?

[liberation]

11. Actually there were a few French and Spanish settlers when the British "claimed it"

if you meant uninhabited as "the previous settlers were killed off" then you are correct.

The British have a long tradition of doing this: Step 1, kill all the natives or previous settlers, Step 2 fill the newly "vacated" place with expats, Step 3 ask the descendants of those expats if they are British.

Use answer in Step 3 as the justification. Never mind the intellectually disingenuous use of "democratic" vote as a justification in this instance. The British crown is far more civilized and knows far better than the previous people running the place anyways. So it is the "civilized" way you know...

[naaman fletcher]

12. And no Argentinians..

Argentina has no legitimate claim. Not a single person living there wants to be Argentinian. Get over your hatred of the British empire and realize that this is not Ireland or India.. there are no indigenous people there.

[bigworld]

20. Ok -- educate us.

I've always been pretty sure that the UK claim on the Falklands is pretty rock solid -- but please, let us know why you think the Malvinas should be Argentinian.

[AlphaCentauri]

33. "What do you have against people choosing their own government? "

Texas, Montana,some Native American tribes mmmm, why are we against secessionist?

[No Elephants]

40. The Falklands is not the same situation as Montana.

[AlphaCentauri]

49. their wish to self determination n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. No such place. Argentinian claim has no valid historical support , just macho nationalism

[DavidDvorkin]

25. And distraction of the electorate

Juice them up so that they'll ignore domestic problems and support the government.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Indeed a classic bread and circuses move to distract the populace

Common in south and central American nations. Baby Hugo is good at it too

[scottsoperson]

8. i presume the brits brutally stole the falklands a long time ago...

...

[naaman fletcher]

14. Nope. There are/were no indigenous people there. /nt

[dipsydoodle]

38. I'm pleased to say I agree with you

:hi:

[bemildred]

17. With a bit of luck, we can have a full scale international crisis over this.

The most expensive sheep in the world.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

22. So you favor Argentina's claims?

It looks to me like two monkies arguing over a coconut.

[No Elephants]

43. And the RW couldn't understand what a PEACE prize had to do with Gore's environmentalism.

Thank heaven Reagan was so disdainful of Jimmy Carter's goal of energy independence for the United States.

Department of Energy, my ass. Let's figure out how the Department can speed consumption instead.

:sarcasm:


Wait until it is actually a coconut that we're fighting over again. Oil is one thing. Food is another.

Just occurred to me: Maybe that, and not obesity, is the reason Big PHRMA is obsessed with appetite suppressants?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. The Royal Navy and UK government is not what it was back then

I find it hard to see anything but appeasement in the future. Even if there is a desire to take a hard line, it would be much harder to dislodge another Argentine invasion. However, the UK still has considerable firepower it could expend on Chile directly to discourage them, and some of it is on station today.

[bemildred]

28. True. I will be real surprised if this gets physical.

On the other hand, it can be used as a political football indefinitely.

[DavidDvorkin]

29. On the other hand, Brown is facing a close election

An opportunity to fire up the electorate's nationalism could look like a godsend to him.

[bemildred]

32. Perhaps we will have the spectacle of Brown bravely resisting "pressure" from Ms Clinton.

That would be a godsend indeed.

[No Elephants]

44. Why does that seem so familiar?

[rabs]

31. Blow Chile to smithereens? Why?

Okay, just a hiccup :-)

Btw, during the Malvinas/Falklands war, Chile allowed British warplanes to land on Chilean territory near Punta Arenas.

Pinochet was a big fan and pal of Thatcher.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Indeed it was...mea culpa

[hack89]

35. On the other hand, the UK has Tomahawk cruise missiles

that they can launch from nuclear submarines. They have a power projection capability they didn't have before - they could take the war to the Argentinian mainland with impunity. How many carefully selected targets would it take to leave the Argentinian economy literally in the dark?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. And to make it more interesting, conventional TLAMs have a submunition/bomblet variant as well as a

unitary one. If any of the former get used...

[No Elephants]

45. Oh, goody gumdrops.

[vadawg]

55. i would think that as the brits are the US allies in Iraq and Afganistan that the US would be honor

bound to support the Brits if they had to fight of an invasion, at least i would hope that would be the case...

[bemildred]

57. What is this "honor" thing of which you speak? nt

[vadawg]

61. the fact that the US and Britain are allies in two wars would make you think that if one of them was

attacked then the other should come to the other ones aid.. can you envision what would happen if the argies invaded and then the US stood on the sidelines whilst the UK went to war while british troops are still serving alongside US s=troops in Afganistan and Iraq.. I wonder how much value people would put in americas friendship if that came to pass. Though i would fully expect the US to support her allies though it may be behind closed doors and in materiel...

[bemildred]

62. Well, it does sound unpleasant. People could become disillusioned.

I was interested in Ms Clinton jumping into this dispute precisely because of such considerations.

[vadawg]

63. seems kinda dumb for her to have even got involved,

the falklands are pretty much guarenteed to be protected militarily if invaded, i cant envision a scenario where the UK would not defend its territory and i would pretty much expect her allies to gave aid and support..

[bemildred]

64. Well, I disagree with several of your premises.

I can envision all sorts of things.
We will have to see what happens.

[vadawg]

66. well you definetely take it to the bank that it would be considered and act of war

and there is no way the british public would let it lie, the falklands are no different than the isle of wight...

[bemildred]

68. Yeah, but acts of war get ignored all the time when it's not convenient.

That's the trouble with war, just being in the right doesn't mean you win.

[vadawg]

69. do you really think that if the argies invaded again that the UK would turn a blind eye

hell no chance, as people have stated this is as if the argies invaded the isle of wight. Any government that allowed an invasion of their soil without doing something about it would be toast..

[bemildred]

70. I'm not suggesting they would ignore it.

I'm suggesting they are already spread around a lot, and it might be difficult to take effective action. Argentina has a shorter supply line. Meanwhile the USA and UK are hamstrung by the need to manufacture a "wins" in Iraq and Afghanstan, and bankrupt to boot. And Argentina seems to have a good deal of political support close to home.

But I think all that is unlikely, the issue is much more useful to Argentina as a political football than it could ever be as a war. And the same could be said of the UK. So as I said first, I expect lots of heat and noise and very little military action.

[vadawg]

71. yup hopefully just noise but my money would be on the marines and infantry of the British army

hopefully the US carrier group in the carribean would help out as well... i think if the argies tried to take advantage of the UK currently fighting in iraq and afganistan would be seen as such and would steel the sinew of the british military.

[bemildred]

72. Please don't call them "argies".

I don't share your enthusiasm for the utility of military force, but I don't see why we need to settle that dispute now either.

[bemildred]

65. I do agree there was no need whatsoever for her to get involved. nt

[No Elephants]

41. +1

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

48. I believe Eddie Izzard referred to it as "strategic sheep purposes". nt

[bemildred]

58. Sheep covert cyber-terror networks!!11!

[AlphaCentauri]

30. Does Hillary agree that Las Malvinas are part of Argentina?

or is she playing softball to Mrs Kirchner

[rabs]

34. Naw, basically what Hil is saying is ...

... we will provide the table, the legal pads and the pencils. Then we will leave the room and you guys work it out yourselves.

[No Elephants]

42. Next up. Impasse over the shape of the table.

So, Argentina and UK can't pool their resources to come up with pencils and legal pads without us? Well, then, our getting involved makes perfect sense.



I remember when the late Saddam Hussein asked Poopy Bush's administration how the U.S. would feel if Saddam moved on a long standing border debate between Kuwait and Iraq.

And Poopy Bush's administration replied, in essence, "We have nothing to say about a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. Your borders are your business. Leave us out of it."

Then, Poopy changed his mind.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pampango]

47. How about an International Sovereignty Resolution Tribunal to resolve the Falklands/Malivinas

dispute between the UK and Argentina and similar sovereignty disputes between countries?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7832908

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Effectively that has already been done by the UN some time ago, Argentina did like the terms

[UTUSN]

59. I smell PEACE PRIZE!1 n/t

[Psephos]

60. This is the opposite of smart diplomacy.

Flipping off our oldest and staunchest friend the U.K. without provocation is stupid. Sticking our nose into a conflict where it has no business, and where no benefit accrues to the U.S., is reckless.

[CynicalObserver]

74. I am under the distinct impression that the current administration is

not amiably disposed towards great britain. The region-1 dvd boxed set was only the first in a series of what can only, viewed in aggregate, be called snubs. No political advisor or protocol officer is capable of allowing so many apparent slights or snubs or whatever you call this falklands thing get past them unchecked.