Obama’s Falklands Failure

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by peck420

 

How let down must they feel ?

I don't know, but I have sent some letters to my MP (Canada) to support International Law and UK.

Not that that actually matters, but it did make me feel better.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


This issue has many facets. In the past a UN brokered sit down to resolve the issue may have been viable but the current UN decolonization committee membership, certain to favor Argentina, is;

Antigua & Barbuda
Bolivia
Chile
China
Congo
Côte D'Ivoire
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
Ethiopia
Fiji
Grenada
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Mali
Nicaragua
Papua New Guinea
Russian Federation
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sierra Leone
Syrian Arab Republic
Timor-Leste
Tunisia
United Republic of Tanzania
Venezuela

Another point is the current and potential future US trade balance with Latin America versus the UK! Love makes the world go round but it's money that greases the wheel.

Another point is that China has made considerable inroads in Latin America which the US must counter.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by LeBombDiggity

 

Of course the US wants it negotiated peacefully. What other option does the US have?

They can't pick sides between two important allies (in their respective spheres), and they can't rely on a treaty clause to 'force their hand' (no US treaty covers this).

So, yea, the US would like to see its two different friends talk peacefully, nothing overly wrong with that approach.

Of course the US wants it negotiated peacefully. What other option does the US have? Plenty.

In the (first) Falklands war, the US supplied the UK with tactical satellite data... among other things.

The notion here is obvious; to drive wedge issue between US and UK users and create strife that does not exist. It's a standard propaganda approach... and should be expected as thing progress.

The UK is not going to walk away or share sovereignty of the Falklands, just as they have held firm on Gibraltar. No amount of political subterfuge will accomplish this end. Only a vote by the people of this locations to exit British rule, will lead to that end. Unless, or until that happens, the UK will defend each with every ounce of blood and toil and sweat she has to put forth.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity

The islands were first landed by an Englishman before the United Kingdom even existed.

The first permanent settlement on the islands was in 1766 and was led by John MacBride who was born in Scotland but whose family moved to Northern Ireland when he was very young.

The Act Of Union was signed in 1707.

That's important as a constituent nation of the United Kingdom decides whether to leave that union because, ultimately, those islands will be an English problem.

If the UK does indeed break up then I'm sure England will still maintain the islanders Right To Self-Determination.
But that's a massive 'if'.

I suspect you, as a Frenchman, may be partaking in a bit of wishful thinking....but we'll see when the Scots exercise their Right To Self-Determination that you so vehemntly support whilst seeking to deny other people the self same right.

You're another one who glories in slaughter

You assume much.
War disgusts me to the core.
Which is why I'm at a loss to explain Kirchner's refusal to accept the UK's very generous offer and her deliberately aggressive stance.
By the same token I'm more than aware that unfortunately sometimes in this life there is no option but to fight for what is right.

And there is no need to preach to me about Thatcher's duplicity.
She was an evil woman and this country is only now feeling the full effect of her policies.
And I am very much aware of the circumstances prior to the '82 conflict and how she used it to further her own political ambitions.....much the same as Kirchner is doing now.

But none of that alters the islanders Right to Self-Determination.

The Argentine claim to the islands dates from 1812.

Argentina didn't declare independance until 1816.

There has never been an Argentinian settlement on the islands.

The islands weren't even populated by the English until 1833.

Wrong.

Just give them back

How can we 'give back' something that never belonged to someone?

History & world opinion is against colonialism.

A pretty ironic statement given Argentina's history and their treatment of the indigenous people's, but I agree, which is why Kirchner's neo-colonialism will resisted at all costs.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Oh, and as for Obama's refusal to recognise people's Right To Self-Determination...who cares what he thinks, it's irrelevant.
The UN Charter clearly backs the Right To Self-Determination as does international law.

reply to post by Freeborn


"There has never been an Argentinian settlement on the islands."

Who was it the Brits drove out in 1833?

The Falklands are an Overseas Territory. If the UK were to lose them what might be the implications be for the other OTs being;

Anguilla
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
St Helena
Tristan Da Cunha
Turks & Caicos Islands

What is the UN stand, if any, on decolonization versus self determination?

reply to post by oghamxx


Yes, there does seem to have been a ragtag settlement that had been there since 1829.
There is much confusion as to the full extent of this settlement but it is generally regarded as being very small in numbers and wasn't regarded as permanent.

None of which alters the facts that since then people of British origin established a permanent settlement which has lasted approximately 180 years.

The UK will not 'lose' them and events in the Falklands are completely independant of events etc in other UK Overseas Territories.

Originally posted by oghamxx
reply to post by Freeborn

 

"There has never been an Argentinian settlement on the islands."

Who was it the Brits drove out in 1833?

An Argentinian garrison and penal colony.

Argentina has never had an official "settlement" on the Falklands.

reply to post by peck420


Sounds like a settlement to me. From www.globalsecurity.org...

WAR IN THE MODERN ERA SEMINAR
The Argentine Seizure of the Malvinas [Falkland] Islands:
History and Diplomacy
Lieutenant Commander Richard D. Chenette, USN
4 May 1987
Marine Corps Command and Staff College
Marine Corps Development and Education Command
Quantico, Virginia 22134


The new Government of Buenos Aires appointed its first
governor of Puerto Soledad in 1823. Three years later it granted
an enterprising business man of French origin named Louis Vernet
substantial rights to commercial development of territory in and
around the Islands including exploitation of the wildlife and sea
life. This was done to settle a rather large debt that the
government owed Vernet's wife. In 1826 he established a colony
on the Islands comprised of 90 settlers.(13)
Vernet was appointed governor in 1829 under protest from the
British consul in Buenos Aires who took that opportunity to
reassert the British claim to the Islands but without taking
further action. Vernet proceeded to impose restrictions on the
mariners in the area who had been slaughtering the seal
population.(14) His efforts to consolidate control over the
Islands culminated in July 1831 with the seizure of three United
States vessels on the grounds that they were engaging in illegal
fishing. One captain was permitted to continue fishing only
after agreeing to share profits with Vernet. The second vessel
escaped. The third was commandeered by Vernet and sailed to
Buenos Aires to put the captain on trial for illegal fishing.(15)
The incensed American consul in Buenos Aires dispatched the
United States warship Lexington to Puerto Soledad to seek
restitution for sealskins and other property which Vernet had
confiscated from the commandeered American ship. Upon arriving
there in December 1831, Lexington's captain, Silas Duncan, not
only recovered the sealskins but also destroyed Argentine guns
and settlement buildings, arrested numerous Argentine
inhabitants, and declared the Islands free of all government.
Vernet resigned as governor and never again set foot on the
Islands.(16)
The Government of Buenos Aires then decided to establish a
penal colony on the Islands, presumably because most of the
Argentinians left by Duncan were convicts. The new civil and
military governor, appointed in the fall of 1832 to run the penal
colony, was murdered upon his arrival there by mutinous
soldiers. The Argentine government responded by dispatching
troops commanded by Don Jose Maria Pinedo to restore law and
order. In January 1833, while Pinedo and his troops were
pursuing the murderers, British Captain James Onslow arrived at
the Islands on HMS Clio, under instructions to take and hold the
Islands for Britain. The British had ordered the expedition after
receiving word from their consul in Buenos Aires of the unstable
situation in the Islands.(17)
The arrival of the British forces caught the Argentines by
surprise. According to historian W. F. Boyson, Clio's presence
constituted "the embodiment of dazzling order, discipline and
restraint." Onslow convinced outnumbered Pinedo to quit the
Islands under protest but without firing a single shot. Except
for two months in 1982, Britain has maintained control of the
Islands ever since.(18)

Obama just doesn't care for the UK particularly, certainly not any more than other EU nations. Its pretty obvious from his various statements and behaviour.

But, in truth, its not important. Presidents and administrations come and go. Shared national interests and shared language/cultural cross pollination will ensure that the USA/UK will remain allied for the foreseeable future.

Its probably sensible that the majority of US diplomatic horsepower is directed towards the pacific basin. Thats where the competing centre of power is and thats where diplomacy will have to be effective to avoid conflict.

With regards to the Falklands, all we British expect is the USA to remain aloof and leave it to us. The Argentines are unable to back their bluster with any effective action and their president is widely regarded as a rambling populist loon.

She is quite welcome to continue waving her handbag in gestures of impotent fury. Its entertaining.

reply to post by oghamxx


The settlement that you (and the Argentinians) are claiming, was destroyed by the US in 1831, and confirmed by Vernet himself when he made a claim against the US government.

After that settlement's destruction is when the penal colony was setup (1832).

Keep in mind that throughout this entire pissing match, I am 100% certain that the original French, English, and Spanish that lived in the Falkland country side would have continued to exist and procreate.

The islands have had humans on them since they were first settled, but that is a far cry from a full on 'settlement'.

reply to post by peck420


Your claim (source?) that the settlement was destroyed in 1831 is not supported by a very enlightening
en.wikipedia.org...
which states

"The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed.[4]"

I also found the following of interest

"In 1823, after its war of independence against Spain, the United Provinces granted land on East Falkland to Luis Vernet, who first travelled to the islands the following year. That first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and a second attempt, in 1826, sanctioned by the British (but delayed until winter by a Brazilian blockade), also failed after arrival in the islands. In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland, including all its resources, with exemption from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. He took settlers, some of them British, and before leaving once again sought permission first from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. After receiving consent, Vernet agreed to provide regular reports to the British consul and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands.[3]"