Latest step in the Obama administration’s ongoing war against Britain
It has become impossible to dismiss the idea that the Obama administration has decided that Britain is no longer to be treated as our ally. A series of disses, beginning with but hardly limited to the return of a bust of Churchill (one of the very first acts of the Obama presidency), the giving of a thoughtless and insulting gift to Prime Minister Brown, as well as inhospitable treatment on Brown’s visit to the US a year ago, have put the Brits on notice that they are no longer our special friends.
Now it’s become even more serious. Hillary Clinton—who, when I last checked, was still President Obama’s Secretary of State—has taken Argentina’s side in its long-lasting dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands:
Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup yesterday in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and President Cristina Ferné¡ndez de Kirchner.
Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.
Her intervention defied Britain’s longstanding 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.
Possible reasons for the Obama/Hillary stance include:
(1) Obama’s oft-repeated love of dialogue and talks without any preconditions or regard for the negative consequences.
(2) The desire to suck up to still another leftist leader of a Latin American country.
(3) Female-power bonding.
I am not completely joking about number three, either. Back during our own 2008 primaries, when Hillary was still officially running for president, I had prepared a draft of an article on Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner, known at the time as “the Argentine Hillary.” I never did post it—too many more important events and subjects seemed to intervene—and I finally deleted it from my drafts folder, so it’s gone now. But I was reminded again of the similarities between the two when I saw this photo (powerful husband who has been in the number one spot, leftist sympathies, see this for more):
The Falklands may be small and relatively insignificant compared to all the other problems areas of the world. In fact, the 74-day 1982 Falklands War was treated almost as a joke by many people who heard of it. But it was certainly no comedy to the “255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and three civilian Falklanders” who died during the conflict. And to the inhabitants of the Falklands, who overwhelmingly wish to remain British, it is also no laughing matter:
In the Falklands, reaction to the meeting ranged from dismay to fury. “It’s outrageous after all the support we have given the United States,” said Hattie Kilmartin, a sheepfarmer’s wife. “They are not looking at the people who are actually living here and what they want, and it’s crazy that they are even contemplating going against us.”
Yes Mrs. Kilmartin, get used to our outrageous and crazy president, who couldn’t care less about you and your neighbors, or even the over-two-hundred-year special relationship between the US and Great Britain.
This is no accident, either. It is part of Obama’s carefully planned program of topsy-turvy diplomacy. As far as I’m concerned, 2012 cannot come fast enough. How much damage will be done by then?
I wonder if there are any “Miss me yet?” billboards in UK. 🙂
My dismay is tempered by the knowledge that so many Brits, as well as continental Europeans and other fashionistas, wanted the Messiah as President. They knew better than we unsophisticated rubes who voted for Bush and McCain. (Remember when Europeans were babbling about how they should have a vote in American elections, because the outcome affected them too?)
Well, now they’ve got their wish: the Messiah was elected. And they’ve got three more years during which to reflect on their judgment.
I just hope He doesn’t do too much damage to the Special Relationship in the meantime. How could anyone not anticipate that a galloping narcissist would sell out anyone and everyone at the drop of a rag, if he thought it in his interest?
It’s getting crowded under that bus, not just Obama’s granny and his religious mentor but several nations too. I think there are more people below the chassis than riding the seats. I wonder if that bus is a GM product?
But don’t you see? The Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina and 8000 miles from England. And they are a reminder of the odious British Empire of old – and of American reach today.
Obama is so wrapped up in his fair and nice vision of the world that this comes as no surprise.
Neo. I believe it was around 200-300 British soldiers killed. Are you sure it wasn’t 255?
Obama comes out in favor of off-shore drilling!
By Argentina
In the Falklands.
At least Obama didn’t mention “God” 3 times like Sarah did.
I’m so glad we have Obama because Palin is scary.
And if you try to give me perspective it is anti-Palin derangement syndrome…
/stepping off the N soapbox 😉
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Sir Winston Churchill
Churchill’s aphorism fully applies.
Obama is just getting started, he shall leave a very long line of bodies in his wake before he is done.
In November, many Democrats will ‘walk the political plank’ that reconciliation and astronomical deficits built.
As for nations, wait till he throws Israel under the bus, the ‘opportunity’ of which, he will actively seek out and of course, Australia should the occasion permit.
Everyone is fair game when ideology and self-preservation are all that matter.
Don’t forget his gift of an Ipod filled with his speeches to Queen Elizabeth. Fun. Who wouldn’t love that as a gift? He should have given her a mustang pony. The Queen loves horses, and is a great rider. He’s a clown and his power is weakening daily. It’s over. Everyone knows it and that’s why they’re freaking out. He does’t even seem like he likes being President anymore. Well, he’s probably getting a little bored now, what’s his resume again? A new “job” every year or so, going on to the next plum.
Baklava: yes, I fixed that typo. Thanks.
He’s going to need a whole fleet of buses…:)
There is a point where incompetence becomes funny. This is such a case partially for the reasons Occam mentioned. Now throw in Hillary’s vast foreign affairs background and demonstrated competence, Obama’s profound insights and Gibbs explaining it all and you get the Marx Brothers “Duck Soup” without Groucho’s wit.
It is as funny as a barrel of monkeys because it is a barrel of monkeys.
Bob, my metaphor for the Obama Administration is Laurel and Hardy trying to paint out the same bucket.
Next thing you know, Obama will be giving Quam to the Philippines followed by independence for Hawaii.
Neo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
My questions are, if you read the last section of the wikipedia article:
Will we be handing Puerto Rico over to somebody or allowing autonomy?
Why wouldn’t they want to enjoy the protections afforded by the U.S?
Would we being giving Guam to Guam? These territories are crucial in our foreign policy because it EXTENDS our military presence and I’m starting to worry about the future of our power economically and militarily.
The brilliant Mr. Frank beat me.
Puerto Rico:
On June 15, 2009, the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization approved a draft resolution calling on the Government of the United States to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.
There is some irony here, given that Nestor Kirchner, Evita III’s husband and predecessor as President, is from Santa Cruz Province in the Patagonia region of Argentina. He was the Governor of Santa Cruz province.
Argentina claims possession of the Falklands on the basis of righting some alleged wrong nearly 200 years ago. When Britain took over the Falklands in the 1830s, Patagonia was not under control of the Argentine government. In fact, the frontier of European settlement did not extend south and west of Buenos Aires province until the 1870s.Think Wyoming in 1805. It was not until the
Conquest of the Desert in the 1870s that Argentines of European descent moved to Patagonia. The Wiki article talks of genocide. When I worked in Argentina, I was told of “poisoned asados”- poisoned barbecues, where the Indians of Patagonia would be invited to barbecues to celebrate “peace” between the Indians and the Europeans, only to be served poisoned meat. The Wiki article does not mention the poisoned barbecues.
As Nestor is from Patagonia, I find it ironic that his wife is trying to right some historic wrong regarding the Falklands, while her husband’s residence and her residence in Patagonia was based on a much greater historical wrong.
There should be a statute of limitations.
Will we be handing Puerto Rico over to somebody or allowing autonomy?
Allowing them autonomy? We should be kicking them out.
OK, here’s another possible scenario for Obama’s abandonment of Britain on the falklands issue.
The British forces are necessary to our strategy in afghanistan.
By either;
a) pissing the British off totally so they withdra tehir troops, or
b) forcing them to remove their troops from Afghanistan to defend the Falklands,
our position in Afghanistan is substantially weakened by the loss of a critical ally and the argument to leave and abandon the country to the Taliban will have another talking point.
Additionally, it weakens and further isolates America in the international community, which is what Obama and his ilk really want anyway. So from their point of view, what’s not to like?
TimP,
I think you take them for much more Machiavellian politicians than they are. For a strategy like that, Obama has to be playing some sort of ….3D chess!
It looks to me more like a knee-jerk reaction of a lefty to anything resembling to him (or her) a “colonialism”.
Mr. Frank wrote:”Next thing you know, Obama will be giving Quam to the Philippines followed by independence for Hawaii.”
Probably, Obmessiah will need an encore to Healthcare.
My home computer is blocked so I couldn’t post this earlier, ya it seems like the figure for UK dead should be in the hundreds. I remember that missile that struck that one British ship … now I need to look it up. The HMS Sheffield and 258 United Kingdom casualties.
This was another very poor showing by Hillary. You would think that after Honduras and all the other foreign affairs misfires that she would stand on her own two feet and resign her position if she disagreed with these foolish policies. Hillary has not distanced herself from this administration’s mess, consequently she is toast with many voters.
The irony is when you compare the Falkland constitution (by George III, they put that one in writing!) and the Argentine one regarding the Falklands, it becomes clear: The Falklanders are champions of self-determination, the Argentines are fascist colonialists. Being closer to their prey than the UK means nothing.
nyomythus You are right about the number of British KIA. The Brits also lost four warships and some other craft, including a merchantman. Wikipedia has it all.
Mmmmmm…asado…
But seriously, why are European Argentines any more native to the area than are the British?
I mean, “Kirchner” does have sort of an Inca or Aztec flavor, no?
/sarc
I don’t think that Obama is anti-British or that he has any plans for downgrading the US-UK alliance. It will just sort of happen.
My working hypothesis for Obama’s Master Narrative is that he is a Decolonialist/Multiculturalist. This predicts that on any issue in foreign affairs, Obama will start from an orthodox, academic decolonialist and multiculturalist perspective and then spin and trim to fit domestic political realities.
Given a conflict between any member of the Global South and a former imperialist power, Obama’s default position will be to appease and accommodate the former. Given the choice between a Western imperial power and a non-Western imperial power, he will choose the non-Westerners, be they Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Syrian, whatever.
The best way to do so is by keeping the US from doing anything, and he is in a good position to do that.
Yackums: Good point. I’ve also never understood why Iberians are less tainted by the imperialist label than other Europeans (or Americans).
Oblio: glad to see us in agreement
Occam wrote:”Bob, my metaphor for the Obama Administration is Laurel and Hardy trying to paint out the same bucket.”
Gibbs: The middle class is revolting!
Obmessiah: They certainly are.
I respect your analysis Occam, but I am going to have to stay with the Marx Brothers. Certainly not the Keystone Cops who exhibited a professionalism far in excess of the current administration.
Let’s hope we get additional comments on this timely and relevant subject.
When the inappropriate gifts (DVD movie series and iPod filled with the Won’s speeches!) and other snubs against the UK first began early last year, I chalked it up to thoughtless inexperience in the protocol game.
Now I think it’s probably all part of the same game as the middle finger salute that Obama likes to sneak into certain photo opps, or public debates with someone who actually knows what he is talking about, like Paul Ryan in the recent health care “summit.”
The middle-schooler-in-chief.
I read FerFAL’s survival blog. He lives in Argentina and is coping with the destruction the Ks (Kirchners) have done to his country.
His blog deals with how to live when society exists, but the middle classes are being destroyed (sound familiar), not TEOTWAWKI as 98% of the other survival blogs do. His poor command of English makes it an endearing blog. I am going to post a link on his blog, and I suggest that others take a look at some of his political and economical posts.
1054 days and counting… the Longest Kiloday in American History…
Wolfhowling suggests that this may derive from sheer and total ignorance of the history of the Falklands, from thinking that their possession of the islands is yet another legacy of British colonialism.
He details out that it is, indeed, a completely faulty and defective view of the British ownership of the FI — Argentina has NEVER controlled the islands, its citizens have no connection of any kind to Argentina, and Argentina’s claim rests, apparently entirely, on the fact that they’re the nearest major nation to the islands.
More at Wolfhowling:
A Foreign Policy 180 Degrees of Wrong – The UK’s Falkland Islands
the over-two-hundred-year special relationship between the US and Great Britain.
How long has the special relationship really been special? Surely not during the revolution, or the war of 1812. Maybe not even during the Civil War, when British sympathies were more with the Confederacy. I’m thinking the Spanish-American War, highlighting the rise of the USA as an imperial power would not have met with general approbation in England, either.
Surely since WW2, though. Maybe WW1? So many decades, perhaps close to a century?
I know, I know, needlessly pedantic and not to the point of the blogpost, but such things catch my brain. Just a proofreader at heart.
rafinlay: actually, I meant “almost-two-hundred-year.” I did think about the War of 1812, but I had a little brain glitch there. I didn’t think about the Civil War, though. It’s my impression that once the 1812 war was over we were relatively cozy with Britain, but I can’t say I know for sure. This Wiki article focuses on the 20th century, but mentions the 19th as the beginning of the relationship.
The Special Relationship started becoming obvious in the 1850’s and was always the special work of the Whigs and then their successors, the Republicans. The Democrats, by contrast, had more complicated and occasionally hostile relations until FDR, and even then FDR was noteworthy in his unrelenting hostility to the British Empire as the post-war settlement began taking shape.
Of course the same picture does go back to the 1790’s, when the Hamilton and then Adams and the Federalists were distinctly pro-British in their sympathies, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans (ancestors to today’s Democrats) were violently anti-British and pro-French. When the Democrats got the US into war with Britain in 1812, Federalist New England threatened secession.
On balance, neo, you are completely in the right about the longevity of the Special Relationship.
It is not that there was not a relationship before the 20th century, but what made it “special”? The same kind of relationships existed with,k for example, France, which was an ally in the revolution. Jefferson and Franklin were francophiles. Before WW1, there was a lot of anti-UK sentiment, as well. In other words, opinion in the US was divided vis-a-vis Britain. Nothing wrong with that, but not the “special relationship” the way it has been understood recently. Sure, the US and UK cooperated during the 19th century, so did other nations. I think it is plausible that the “specialness” was promoted by Churchill to put the industrial power of the US (and Canada, Australia,…) to use for Anglosphere ends. It was the only way for England to remain a significant world power after WW2.
And all-in-all, I don’t disagree with the strategy.