Britain made string of protests to US over Falklands row

www.timesonline.co.uk...

British diplomats have expressed serious concerns to the US State Department at least three times over Washington’s response to the latest dispute over the Falkland Islands, The Times has learnt.

In telephone calls and meetings, senior diplomats and specialists were forced to restate Britain’s position on sovereignty over the islands and seek clarification of the US position after a State Department spokesman in February answered a question about the Falklands by saying: “Or the Malvinas, depending on how you see it.”

British anger over the Obama Administration’s apparent indifference to the issue mounted when Hillary Clinton endorsed President Fernández de Kirchner’s call for talks on sovereignty while she was in Buenos Aires last week, State Department sources said.

The new details of British complaints emerged as influential conservatives in Washington described the Administration’s handling of the dispute as offensive, ignorant and a reflection of a lack of enthusiasm for the idea of a special relationship between the two countries.

British officials in Washington say publicly that the Falklands issue has been raised only in “friendly conversations in the course of normal business” between the Embassy and the Administration. Privately, however, there is a sense that the Obama Administration has not taken on board British sensibilities and that it has been too dismissive of points raised in London. Officials said that several phone calls were made and an e-mail was sent after the State Department spokesman called the islands the Malvinas.

Asked why the US chose to remain neutral despite Britain’s longstanding claims, the spokesman twice avoided calling them the Falklands, first saying “whatever you want to call them” and then using the Argentine name. US sources described the calls and meetings as demarches — in diplomatic parlance, formal protests. A British official insisted that “nobody’s been writing any formal letters”, adding that Britain was “genuinely quite relaxed” about the American position.

The same cannot be said of President Obama’s critics in Washington. The Pentagon official primarily responsible for providing the British Forces “with whatever they needed” in the Falklands campaign in 1982 yesterday accused the Administration of insulting Britain. Richard Perle, then assistant Secretary for Defence said: “I think using the description Malvinas is offensive to British interests.”

Yesterday David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who has made much of his close personal relationship with Mrs Clinton, flew to Boston, where he will give a speech today on Afghanistan. Washington is not on his itinerary and he will return to London without meeting his opposite number.

The State Department denied last night any friction with “our British friends” over the Falklands but stood by everything Mrs Clinton said in her meeting with Mrs Kirchner.

The Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley said: “The Secretary said we stand ready to help if that is desired.” Mr Crowley acknowledged “conversations” with British officials over the dispute with Argentina but said that he was not aware of ill-feeling.

Officially all is well, and unoffically diplomats are seething.

How about using dual-names for Hawaii. Any Japanese names for the Island? Didn't the Spanish lay claim to California before the white European settlers, and what about the indigenous who lived there before anyone else?

What's in a name?

Falkland Islands From Falkland Sound, the channel between the two main islands, which was named in 1690 by John Strong, a British mariner, after his patron Anthony Cary, Fifth Viscount Falkland

Islas Malvinas The Spanish name is derived from the French name, Îles Malouines, given to the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers — mariners and fishermen from Saint-Malo

Sorry Argies, we beat you to it, now bugger off!

reply to post by john124


Its an embarrassment. I'd like to know what, if anything, went through the collective minds in this administration when they thought up this ridiculous stance on the issue. They've got their priorities all screwed up on this issue and a number of others. You always stand behind your closest ally, especially when that ally happens to be right.

But welcome to 2010 America, where up is down and down is up.

never had lots of positive or lots of negative thoughts about any US administration.. Bush was Bush.. Blair was his puppy dog.. As frustrating as that was I never considered the US administration as truly unfriendly..

But I do consider this adminstration very unfriendly, and I never thought I'd say that about a US administration.

this is not a US matter.

It is between Argentina and England.

Why is Britain getting its crumpets all soggy over what we think about some islands that you guys jacked hundreds of years ago.

Seems like England needs America's approval more and more.

reply to post by mahtoosacks

It is between Argentina and England.

Argentina and Britain, you mean.

Seems like England needs America's approval more and more.

The response would be the same from Britain if any country called the Falklands the Malvinas. Why doesn't the US just state this is a matter for Britain and Argentina then, instead of butting in as usual and trying to be world police, but this time just more incompotent than usual.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by john124]

As i posted in another thread The Falklands are British and will remain that way.

No oil in Afghanistan, Oil in the Falklands, do the math.

If we have to fight for the Falklands with no support from the rest of the world then so be it.

We will pull all of our forces from Afghan, Most of our Navy from the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Lets see how Obama and Clinton swallow that.

If Argentina even comes close it will be considered provocation.

If they do then these things will happen,

Britain will keep the Falklands and destroy all Argentinian military-ALL.

Israel will strike Iran.

N Korea will invade S Korea.

China will invade Taiwan.

Iran will strike Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The US will be stretched having to fight on six fronts.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Cosmic4life]

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by mahtoosacks

 

It is between Argentina and England.

Argentina and Britain, you mean.

Seems like England needs America's approval more and more.

The response would be the same from Britain if any county called the Falklands the Malvinas. Why doesn't the US just state this is a matter for Britain and Argentina then, instead of butting in as usual and trying to be world police, but this time just more incompotent than usual.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by john124]

i didnt see anything correlating to "world police".

nice try tho.

i do agree, that our politicians need to stay out of it, but when do they ever do what americans really want?

Why is it said that the governments of Britain and USA have a special relationship when in reality what seems to happen is if the USA wants something from us we oblige but when we ask for a return of that favour they snub us?

The evidence of this is clear enough in the attitudes of most US citizens towards Britian... they think we are a weak nation, a lapdog to the US administration. Now it seems they won't even back us up in the protection of land which we have held for generations and whose people wish to remain under our protection?

The whole Falklands argument is still completely irrelevant until someone can show us a poll that the people of the island now want to be governed by Arengtina, not Britain. As long as we are protecting the people's choice not even the might of the USA is going to convince this British man that we are in the wrong because we are protecting the will of the people!

To the intelligent Americans I say every day more and more people of the world are realising what a bad example the USA is setting and how selfish it has become, get more involved in your politics and win the support of the confused and uneduacted and in twenty years time you may be able to save the reputation of your nation and replace the people at the top who do your country so much damage.

Mrs. Clinton's words will be remembered and made known to every British soldier. The next time you want our support in a war the government may say 'yes' but will you be able to trust our boys in a fight? Why should we look out for you and yours when you cast our nation's interests to the wolves so quickly? British army forces are stationed in the Falklands aware of the total lack of support from the USA, those same men from the same army that has fought by your side so may times in the east and you will not show them your support or say what would happen if the Argentine forces repeat history and invade again? Don't worry I'm sure our guys in Afghanistan will never find out how easily you would betray us... I'm sure this won't cause any increase in the friction between our forces in the region at all... maybe next time you pick an ally you will understand the meaning of the word, perhaps check the definition in the Oxford dictionary as we British seem to have a different understanding of what it means.

With friends like the U.S, who needs enemies. I can understand the average American not really understanding or particularly caring about the fate of a small group of islands a long way away but the administration has no excuse. A gesture of solidarity by way of a statement is all that was needed but no, can't go upsetting Argentina at the expense of your longest standing ally, heaven forbid.

Cheers Obama, Clinton et al. This will not be forgotten.