Obama refuses to support UK sovereignty over Falklands

[Hansmeister]

From the London Times:

US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

Giles Whittell, Washington and James Bone, New York Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain's close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain's claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

Argentina appealed to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, last night to intervene in the dispute, a move Britain adamantly opposes.

"The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening," Jorge Taiana, the Argentine Foreign Minister, said after meeting Mr Ban in New York.

"We have asked the Secretary-General, within the framework of his good offices, to stress to Britain the need to abstain from further unilateral acts."

A top UN aide acknowledged, however, that Mr Ban would not be able to mediate because of Britain's opposition.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's Ambassador to the UN, said: "As British ministers have made clear, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands . . . We are also clear that the Falkland Islands Government is entitled to develop a hydrocarbons industry within its waters, and we support this legitimate business in Falklands' territory."

Senior US officials insisted that Washington's position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.

"We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality," a State Department spokesman told The Times. "The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party."

Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan's support for Britain in 1982 "irked a lot of people in Latin America".

The Obama Administration "is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region", he said.

British officials in Washington said that they were comfortable with the US response to the dispute, but indicated that any American support for mediated negotiations would not be well received. It was "up to the islanders whether they want mediation or not", one official said.

Britain has boosted the islands' defences since the conflict, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said last night. "We have built a massive runway. We have emplaced forces on the ground, we have sophisticated early warning systems. It is a different package. To compare the way we dealt with the issues in 1982 with today is nonsense," he said.

The Obamateur is voting "present" again!  he really hates the British, doesn't he?

[Hansmeister]

Now we know why the new US Embassy needs a moat!

[Neil]

Maybe Obama is a Larouchite.

[CountDeMoney]

Monroe Lives!

[Ed Anger]

Good.

[Warspite]

IIRC he's just continuing the standard US policy towards the dispute?

[DGuller]

Appalling!

[Ed Anger]

IIRC he's just continuing the standard US policy towards the dispute?

THE SPECIKAL RELATIONSHIP IZ DESTRYED!

Please panic appropriately.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253878/The-Falklands-betrayal-U-S-fails-British-oil-claims-row-American-torture-secrets.html

[jimmy olsen]

Disgraceful

[garbon]

No blood for oil.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.

[Ed Anger]

I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.

Steaks.

[Caliga]

Hot chicks?

[grumbler]

I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.

As far as I can see, the existing US policy on the dispute has served the US well and shouldn't be changed without a necessity.  I see no reason why the US should reverse itself at this point and agree with Britain's claims.

[Fate]

I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.

As far as I can see, the existing US policy on the dispute has served the US well and shouldn't be changed without a necessity.  I see no reason why the US should reverse itself at this point and agree with Britain's claims.

Do you mean Hans and Tim are trying to stir up controversy where none exists? Say it ain't so grumbles!