Right-wing writer and Fox News contributor Nile Gardiner is going for the hyperbole gold on this one.
The Secretary of State, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain.Hillary Clinton's dire performance in Buenos Aires was not only an appalling display of appeasement towards a corrupt and authoritarian anti-American regime, which barely has the support of 20 percent of the Argentinian people. It was also an astonishing betrayal of the United Kingdom by her closest ally, and yet another slap in the face for Britain from the Obama administration.
Clinton has demonstrated, not the first time, strikingly poor judgment as Secretary of State. ...
All righty then.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And we agree. We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.QUESTION: (In Spanish) Interpreter: The journalist was just asking how the U.S. intends to negotiate to get the United Kingdom to sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue.
SECRETARY CLINTON: As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.
The "Malvinas issue" is the Falkland islands, specifically, the plans of the Brits to excavate and drill for oil in these islands. But using the term "Malvinas" is upsetting to Brits, though it's how Argentinians refer to them, as they try to nudge involvement of the U.S., which is never going to happen and everyone knows it. Argentina also boasting they have the support of "33 foreign ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean," according to reports, that side with Argentina over the British over the issue.
As for Chavez's two cents? Here's a sampling, to which Mr. Gardiner referred.
In recent days and during yesterday's summit, most of the regional leaders backed Argentina's claims. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez addressed Britain's Queen Elizabeth directly on his weekly television programme, telling her to return the Malvinas to Argentina. He repeated his claims late Sunday when he arrived in Mexico for the summit."We support unconditionally the Argentine government and the Argentine people in their complaints," Chávez told reporters at the airport.
"That sea and that land belongs to Argentina and to Latin America."
He even pledged to send his armed forces to Argentina's defence if Britain attacks, telling his allies they can "have the security of knowing they aren't alone" against what he called British threats.
Expect the usual suspects to weigh in on this one.
The Falkland Islands and the current situation between Britain and Argentina is none of our business.
As for Clinton's visit to Latin America, it certainly isn't about putting the U.S. in the middle of the Brits and Argentinians.
The right and other critics of Clinton are saying, by her weighing in that the Brits and Argentina should simply "sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue," that Sect. Clinton has waded in where we don't belong, her critics going so far as to say she's taken sides. Perhaps because while in Argentina she said "Malivinas issue" instead of Falkland Islands.
Nuts! This is much ado about nothing. But that never stopped anyone before.
The nature of diplomacy is to make no waves, which in our current hyper-partisan media environment is impossible. Facts always take second place to ideological rants.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research cringes at SoS Clintons appalling statement that "The Honduras crisis has been managed to a successful conclusion, " ... [and] "it was done without violence." In his review of Clinton he notes various actions as "rubbing salt into her hosts' wounds", "insults," "undiplomatic efforts," "diplomatically clumsy" showing "unusual level of disrespect for the elected representatives of one's own political party."
Hillary Clinton should simply stick to the smile and greet, tourist in chief script that she is qualified to deliver. The U.S. needs to repair the international damage of the Bush years, not exacerbate it with careless rhetoric and personal ego trips.
"Hillary Clinton's "Damage Control" Trip to Latin America
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/comment_41657015
This really IS a storm in a teacup, though. Madame Kirchner won't be a political player for much longer, and once the noisy electioneering is over (including the extremely disparaging remarks she continues to make about the USA, and President Obama in particular) we can all go back to normal.
Until her successor's popularity starts to slide in the polls, that is.
All righty then.
As a diplomat she's clearly wanting to keep a low profile on this issue, so as not to upset either party. The Argentines were clearly looking for more support on their position, but they didn't get it.
The UK has thanked Mrs Clinton and politely declined any offer of mediation.
At the moment it looks as though the Argentine ruling party is in trouble with the voters, so we should expect the usual distractions.
Of course, if the oil exploration companies *do* discover several billion barrels of oil, then it might get interesting....
We live in interesting times.
However, Margaret Thatcher asked for US military intelligence, and for the stocks of sidewinder missiles to be replenished at an accelerated rate; the UK also requested the use of the US airbase on Ascension Island. All of these requests were complied with.
President Reagan also imposed economic sanctions against Argentina.
The US was not militarily involved, but certainly was not 'neutral'.
HELLO!
Argentine kids are raised believing the Malvinas are Argentine. This, unfortunately could cause a fair number of them to be martyred in a similar fashion to the prior generation of young conscripts who gave their lives in the last conflict with Britain, along with a number of British dead, defending their nation's sovereignty.
Britain & Argentina should sign a treaty agreeing to disagree. The last thing either party needs is another armed conflict. It is stupid and unneccessary. That being said, the prospect of oil being pumped from the shelf around the Falklands in massive quantities is more than enough to set the greedy into action.
Every time Argentina has a domestic crisis/failure their leaders always divert the nations attention to .... "the Malvinas!!!!" How predictable and transparent.
That still goes without saying.
Ask any islander who they want to be governed by and the resounding answer will be the UK. The Argentines aren't too interested in listening to them as they conveniently classify them as squatters despite the fact they've lived in the Falklands for 150 years.
The only real issue here is a British oil company is doing the exploration not Mobile and Obama has post colonial hang ups due to his Kenyan ancestry.
So much for backing the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, if the UK had any sense it would be looking for more reliable allies in the world.
My point really was, who needs the yanks? Certainly not the UK in this one sided you give we take relationship. We get absolutely nothing out of being allies with the united states, particularly under the current regime.