So much for the “special relationship“:
There seems to be no reason for the Obama administration to back a demand for negotiations over the Falklands, unless it’s just to curry favor with anti-American regimes by tossing our allies under the bus as appeasement. It’s an absurd stance and an insult to the British, as well as to the actual people on the islands themselves.
There must be some reason, but I doubt if it’s a good one.
Do you think this was Hillary Clinton’s idea or that it was done over her objections? If the latter, I think she should seriously consider resigning over it, otherwise she’s going to be forced to defend it.
Obama will side with anyone, anything, anywhere, any time that is NOT the norm or not typically American in thought. This is just the latest example.
Actually, I wonder if this isn’t more an issue of consistency. If the British can ‘have’ the Falklands, then it could be argued that the Israelis have an equal claim to land that they have acquired. While I doubt that this matters much to most of the real players in the area (almost all of whom have shown a fine disregard of consistencies, etc. in the past), some of the academics in the administration (idiots like Power, in particular) do often fixate on such things….
I absolutely support the British position, and I think that President Obama should do the same. But to put Obama’s position in perspective, it gives me great pleasure to cite something posted on Reason magazine’s website last year:
Obama’s Falklands Neutrality: Positively Reaganite
Michael C. Moynihan | February 26, 2010
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/26/obamas-falklands-neutrality-po
(This is surely the first time I ever cited Reason magazine on this website, and that’s the source of my pleasure. I’m not pleased with Obama on this issue.)
By the way, the analogy with Israel is flawed, at least, if you’re talking about the West Bank, due to the lack of Falkland Islanders in the equivalent position to the Palestinians, much less natives without rights who outnumber the colonizers. The Sinai is slightly better analogy, but even the Sinai, which was given back to Egypt with the nutty Israeli settlers forcibly evacuated by Israel, had natives. (Of course, the Sinai natives said they would fight for Israel if Israel ever invaded again, although this position might have changed in the new post-Mubarak era.)
The Dutch, French, and Spanish would have a better claim to the islands than Argentina does, about on par with Iceland claiming ownership of North America because a Viking once set foot here.
Considering the fact that the natives of the Faulkland Islands are proud British citizens and neither originated nor support the changes that Obama and Chavez are proposing, Obama’s foreign policy skills are breathtakingly stupid. Just when you think you have seen it all, he throws yet another trump card on the table and says “I got PLENTY more where that came from.”
Obama is not an American (and no this is NOT a birther thing). His formative years were in Indonesia and his mindset is not aligned with the American way.
Consider the case of the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, just 16 miles from Canada. Although controlled by Vichy France early in WWII, Roosevelt and the Canadians opposed the islands’ liberation by the Free French. In Roosevelt’s case, his opposition was due to concerns about the Monroe Doctrine, which does twist US foreign policy in a knot sometimes.
Saint Pierre and Miquelon are still French — they use Euros, etc. Despite my pro-British position, I think it would be funny if any negotiations over the Falkland Islands were co-hosted by the Canadians and the French, and took place on Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
I think it’s possible Hillary Clinton signed off on this, and is perhaps at least a co-author of the hostility towards the English. Bear in mind her pop comes from Welsh coal-mining immigrants — not exactly friends to the English, eh?
Plus my vague impression from her life history is that she had problems with conservative authority, particularly that of her conservative English/Welsh dad. (She started off a conservative herself, was a Young Republican and worked for Goldwater’s 1964 campaign, where she might have crossed paths with a young Ann Coulter. She only turned hard left in her last years in college and particular in law school. Plus a fair amount of her early career work is along the lines of replacing parental authority over children with the state. Both suggest a significant and unhappy rebellion.)
I don’t think it’s all that unlikely that she feels a personal sense of hostility towards the English and certainly towards the English arch-conservative, Maggie Thatcher, whose legacy the Falklands is.
worked for Goldwater’s 1964 campaign, where she might have crossed paths with a young Ann Coulter.
That would have been a very young Ann Coulter — something shy of three years old.
I think it is entirely unlikely that any personal feelings toward the UK (or America) play any role in this. I point to Reagan and Roosevelt as examples of leaders who went against standard American ideology in favor of maintaining the US position vis-a-vis the rest of our hemisphere. (Did you know Saint Pierre and Miquelon actually prepared for a pro-Vichy American invasion?!)
I think what you see here is Obama’s belief that sitting down with people and talking can’t hurt — he’s pro-negotiations, but not anti-British. Sitting down to negotiate doesn’t mean that you’ll give away the store — sometimes negotiations are just for domestic consumption, and sometimes negotiations are just a way to lower tensions and create trust. (The Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams are famously on very good terms with each other, even while their people are killing each other.)
If Obama really wanted to screw the British over, you wouldn’t see scenes like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzAfuaQ0l1A (Cameron and Obama playing ping pong two weeks ago, but you have to watch the video to appreciate the personal chemistry — uncharacteristic for the usually cool Obama.)
Oops, you’re right Rand. Thanks.
I think it is entirely unlikely that any personal feelings toward the UK (or America) play any role in this
And aside from vague twitching in your gut, do you have any evidence whatsoever for this quite remarkable statement? I’ve yet to know any human being whose decisions on complex and ambiguous matters are not strongly informed by his personal feelings.
I mean, after all, here you are, making assertions about the motivations of the President and Secretary of State based pretty much on your personal feelings.
sometimes negotiations are just for domestic consumption
Who exacty is your “consumer” Bob?
and sometimes negotiations are just a way to lower tensions and create trust.
But… TRUST is being established. You see.
Bob, with that kind of spin, how do you keep from getting headaches?
The US has been trying to get Argentina and the UK to negotiate over the Falklands since Reagan put Al Haig on it in 1982.
Negotiations mean just that – negotiations. They don’t mean giving anything away. For example, negotiations may lead to an agreement for the local inhabitants to take a vote on the matter.
Curt, I would look to domestic Argentinian politics for the answer. Which players in Argentinian politics are looking for a resumption of a conflict over the Falklands? Which players aren’t really interested in the Falklands, but are whipping up nationalism to get their party support? As with Israel, is Obama supporting negotiations as “window dressing” so that moderate parties have an answer when hardline nationalists ask how they are addressing a hot button issue?
Independently: what concessions (perhaps involving oil drilling, fishing, etc) might the Argentines be looking for?
I don’t know the answer to any of the questions I just asked, but instead of trying to psychoanalyze Obama, I’d ask questions about Argentinian domestic politics, US preferences for various Argentinian factions, and if domestic politics isnt’ the issue, then I’d next ask questions about motives involving natural resources rather than motives involving sovereignty.
—
Carl, my answer to you is that I think Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Executive branch of the US government is decidedly more serious about contributing toward running the country than I am about posting on Rand’s blog. And yet, you don’t hear me praising Obama here — I think he is wrong on this one. I just don’t think it means much. Like the squabbling over Saint Pierre and Miquelon in 1941, there’s lots of symbolism here, but little substance. There won’t be another war over the Falklands, period.
my answer to you is that I think Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Executive branch of the US government is decidedly more serious…
Er, yes. Got that the first time. The question is why you think their personal feelings aren’t any influence. Any evidence that they aren’t members of the human race? My impression of both Obama and Clinton is that if anything their personal issues dominate their public decisions even more than for most people.
There won’t be another war over the Falklands, period.
Nobody thought there’d be a first war, either, Neville.
A good point, how about Obama simply support democratic principles?
I don’t get the idea of supporting negotiations simply to keep people talking, as it does more than just that, it also makes them believe there goals are realistic when they may not be.
Andrew, I’m arguing that fruitless negotiations can be a fig leaf to keep hardliners out of power in the short term. In the long term, that tactic might blow up in the moderates’ face, but on the other hand, in the long term, hardliners might wither away due to a re-emergence of sanity, as in, say, Northern Ireland.
I think at some point you end up with so much window dressing that you no longer can see out the window. And you leave your successor with a Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega that are even bigger pains in the ass than when you arrived. Which may be the point.
Think people! Obama has just shown himself to be THE most patriotic and American president evah! Stands up against British oppression just like the founding fathers and defends American (well, South American anyway) interests vs effete Euro colonialism. The man’s a terrorist killin’ American patriot!
Obama is awesome!
Seems to me that this is consistent with Obama’s returning the Churchill bust within days of taking office. Essentially, he hates us British because we were nasty to his terrorist grandad.
I think what you see here is Obama’s belief that sitting down with people and talking can’t hurt
You mean the same Obama who went out of his way several times to insult the British? Maybe he should have followed his “belief” then? My belief on the matter is that “wasting time” is a harm and Obama is proposing yet another vast waste of time.
link
Karl, Obama apparently didn’t like Brown. He likes Cameron. Enjoy the ping pong video.
Of course Obama hates the British–they supported the wrong side in the Cold War!
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/06/re-more-foreign-policy-insanity.html