The new US secretary of state John Kerry made it clear today that when the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands go to the polls to determine their future relationship with the United Kingdom their voice will fall on deaf ears in Washington. Not only has the Obama administration been calling for a negotiated settlement over the Islands, but it has also refused to say that it will recognise the outcome of next month's referendum. If this policy sounds familiar, it's because it's the same policy as Argentina.
If the UK wants to see a change in US policy then David Cameron and William Hague will have to raise the issue publically. It is true that raising the issue publically might rock the boat a little between Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, but the relationship between the US and the UK is too strong for it to have any serious negative affect. If the Suez Crisis in 1956 or the US invasion of Grenada in 1983 couldn't damage Anglo-American relations then asking the US to support the right of self-determination for the Islanders is hardly going to do so.
Raising the issue publically would accomplish three things. First, it will finally get the point across to the White House that the Falkland Islands are an important issue in the UK. Secondly, it would force president Obama to pick between the Falkland Islanders or Argentina. It's not about the islands, it's about the people living there - either President Obama supports the right of self-determination or he doesn't. Thirdly, public pressure placed on the US administration from Downing Street is likely to raise awareness and encourage more support from Congress and other decision makers in DC.
Not only is the U.S. position over the Falkland Islands a betrayal of the Special Relationship it is also hypocritical. America is a country founded on the rights and ideas of self-determination so it is preposterous to think that the US will not back the right of self-determination of others. Last November, the right of self-determination was exercised by the people of Puerto Rico (a US Commonwealth similar in status to a British Overseas Territory) when voters there went to the polls in support of U.S. statehood for the first time in history. If self-determination is good enough for the Puerto Ricans then why not for the Falkland Islanders?
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that President Obama is on the side of Cristina Kirchner and her cronies and not on the side of the Falkland Islanders and the UK. Defenders of the White House say that President Obama's position is simply a continuation of US policy from previous administrations. This is wrong. Previous US administrations took a position of neutrality over the status of the Islands. Obama has clearly ended his neutrality by supporting Argentina's calls for negotiations between the London and Buenos Aires.
Since the upcoming referendum in the Falkland Islands is the first of its kind there is no US precedent for the administration to follow. This is why President Obama needs to exhibit some leadership and let the people of the Falkland Islands know that their voice will be heard by America.
The strongest argument the United Kingdom has for its claim on the Falkland Islands is the inhabitants' right to self-determination. The fact that President Obama cannot bring himself, or his State Department for that matter, to publicly support Britain's policy of self-determination for the Islanders is, at best, embarrassing for David Cameron and, at worst, damaging to Anglo-American relations.
During John Kerry's visit to London the Falkland Islands should have been high on the agenda for the UK. Instead, David Cameron did not raise the issue during his meeting with John Kerry. The UK and the people of the Falkland Islands should expect nothing less than a public commitment that US will recognise the outcome of the referendum. By failing to support the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination the US is on the wrong side of history, and David Cameron should use every opportunity to remind Barack Obama of this.
Follow Luke Coffey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lukedcoffey
Falkland Islands | UK news | The Guardian
'Taking no position': US refuses to back Britain over Falkland Islands sovereignty
John Kerry ducks Falkland Islands issue during London visit
Falklands will be under our control within 20 years, says Argentina
John Kerry urges Britain and Argentina to resolve Falklands dispute
UK 'disappointed' as Argentina turns down talks over Falklands
like all bullies they love giving it ,but go wild when attacked ......America is a fascist state
HAHAHAHA!
Just kidding. I'm really not.
Sounds like a private enterprise if I ever I heard one!
And of course, the freedom to make lots of money from suckers.
Sponsored by the pay-day loans companies!
Motto:
"You make 'em poor and desperate, we'll finish them off!"
Generally speaking democrat governments loved the IRA especially the Kennedy's. But lets be honest when it comes to Americas track record of supporting terrorism and carrying it out itself the IRA is small potatos.
ie: 911 1973.
Also, the US and Britain did not respect the rights of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1971, who were removed against their will in 1971. This was wrong. Britain won't make the same wrong again, but what about the USA?
If Argentina had a genuine claim to the Falklands they would take their case to the Courts of International Justice and seek a judgement (just like any other sane government). The fact is their case is less than weak.
What matters is who lives there now, and whether they have the will and the means to defend it from those who want to take it from them.
Should we keep the Falklands yes we have had a battle with a lot of deaths, but we all know what our government are like.
Will Cameron decide to let it go if no Oil is found and so far nothing much has been found, the Falklands of course trades with the countries around it, if they have a trade ban then sadly it will not take long for Miliband Clegg or Cameron to say that's it.
I am trying to figure out why Britain who considers themselves to be a world power (lol) needs America’s blessing on the Falklands. If the Falkland’s was an American issue you can be your last penny they would not give one slice bread what you think… Anyway I think that referendum cannot solve this issue since this issue is not only about the 2,841 Brits living on the island.
- Voted No.1 Soft Power last year (by a leading US political magazine)
- No. 1 financial centre in the world - London NOT New York
- London is an Alpha++ city in terms of global influence. The only other is New York.
- The UK has the 5th highest military spending in the world
- The 8th largest economy
- The UK is a permanent member of the UN security council
...and you question the UK's place as a global power? You're still thinking of the size of the country aren't you? Well, it was that size when we ruled the world - before you did.
Now we have a whole unit of SAS and RAF, the old saying if you think your good enough come and try