cedars, point taken - over and out - appt with my gym
Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?
by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
-
-
besty
hence all the diplomatic noise, it's their only outlet.
its their chosen outlet - qcmbr outlined an alternative strategy its not too late to pursue
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
A JWN poll on this issue! You'll get two guesses as to who is the one in the Malvinas column, but you'll only need one!
The American and British relationship during the conflict seemed to be not as close as it was made out to be as later sources indicated. By 'sources', I mean Nicholas Henderson, Thatcher's ambassador in Washington during the war. US UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick was a staunch anti-communist and valued the training and supplies Argentina was supplying the Nicaraguan Contras. If it were up to her, all Argentina would have gotten was stern diplomatic language but absolutely no action whatsoever. Secretary of State Al Haig was more in the middle on the issue, but privately just wished Britain would turn round and accept leaseback. Reagan, however, seemed to not care much about the issue and was disinterested. In other words, Reagan could have been talked into either position. The British in Washington feared Kirkpatrick would influence Reagan due to their shared anti-communist ideology. Thus the British settled on Al Haig, who was the lesser of the two evils for them. Thatcher was annoyed with Haig and his shuttles between Buenos Aires and London, but accepted that he was the best hope to turn Reagan. The worst thing for Argentina was the foreign minister they sent up against Haig, Costa Mendez. There were other parties to the discussion, but since Mendez was the only one who spoke English fluently, the others were not a factor and Mendez dominated the discussion. Mendez was of a more professorial and legalistic mindset, rather than diplomatic. He annoyed Haig by his petty comments, such as which flag would fly higher than the other in a temporary 'joint sovereignty' solution which was being proposed by Haig. Haig eventually got tired of Mendez and informed Reagan that no agreement was possible, and in lieu of such, Reagan would be best advised to come down firmly on the British side. This he did, and the most valuable American assistance was use of the US-leased base at Ascension Island, and providing weapons, especially the Sidewinder missles which the British really used with effectiveness. But it took him a month to do so, and Thatcher held it against Reagan. This was the reason she came down hard on him privately and publicly when the US invaded the British Commonwealth country of Grenada later in the decade.
-
besty
A JWN poll on this issue! You'll get two guesses as to who is the one in the Malvinas column, but you'll only need one!
Rule 1 - don't insult your audience.
Most people on JWN are American and have no particular vested interest on this issue - you might be surprised at the results :-)
-
panhandlegirl
As an uninterested Ameican, I will always take the British side because we are long time allies. Most Americans would be just like me (and I am interested in politics): ''where the hell are the Falklands/ Las Malvinas and what's all the fuss about/or "who the hell cares." Sorry, that's how it is or how I see it. I did get a history lesson and will pay more attention to the issue now that I am informed.
-
panhandlegirl
I just found the Falkland Islands (Las Malvinas) on my iPAD National Geographic app. Under the name of the place it has: Administered by United Kingdom (claimed by Argentina). I also found South Georgia. When I read one of the posts about Argentina maybe someday wanting South Georgia, I thought they were talking about the SG in the USA (where I live) and wondered what claim they might have to it. That's what happens when you don't know World Geography!! I am learning something on this site.
-
Diest
I also think most Americans would agree with the self-determinism arguement.
-
tim hooper
Cedars said:
I'm no longer contributing to this thread, but I thought I'd just interject and tell you you're correct. The recent film "The Iron Lady" with Meryl Streep playing Maggie has a few scenes portraying the conflict from a British perspective. An American ambassador approaches Maggie telling her to get round the table with the Argentinians because the islands are so far away from the UK. Maggie has none of it - reminding the ambassador that the US didn't turn its back on Hawaii at Pearl Harbor just because those islands were far away from the US mainland. (I'm sure LMSA will love that analogy, lol!)
Here's the link:
-
panhandlegirl
Good trailer/scene. Must watch the movie.
-
cedars
For those of you who are interested in the islanders' rights to self-determination, you might be interested to know that a formal referendum on sovereignty is to be held next year.
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16245858
Cedars