US “remain neutral” in Malvinas dispute, following referendum announcement
The US has stated that it will remain neutral in the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom, said the spokesperson of the US State Department’s Victoria Nuland after the announcement that the Islanders will hold a referendum in 2013 to decided whether they want to remain British or not.
“Our position remains one of neutrality,” Nuland said during the State Department’s daily press briefing.
“We recognize the de facto UK administration of the Islands, but we don’t take any position regarding sovereignty claims,” she added, and rejected to comment on whether the US would change its position on the matter, which she called “hypothetical.”
However on the insistence of the question about the (hypothetical) result of the referendum, Ms Nuland finally admitted she would “be delighted” to take the question, basically “whether the US will respect the results of the (Falklands’) referendum and whether if that will inform your position, that would be very handful”.
The journalist who insisted on the issue argued that “the results of a referendum that is overwhelmingly going to come out in favour of the Falklands remaining British, that’s going to be a problem” for the US.
The Falklands government announced on Tuesday it will hold a referendum on the “political status” of the Islands in 2013 in order “to eliminate any possible doubt about our wishes”, announced the Falklands Legislative Assembly member Gavin Short.
“We are holding this referendum not because we have any doubts about who we are and what future we want, but to show the world just how very certain we are about that”, said MLA Short.
According to the official release the referendum will be organised by the Falkland Islands Government and will take place in the first half of 2013. Independent, international observers will be invited to follow the process and verify its outcome.
The decision comes only two days from the 30th anniversary of the end of the brief (74 days) South Atlantic conflict when a British Task Force defeated and ousted the invading Argentine forces.
June 14 is remembered in the Falklands as Liberation Day, precisely following the unconditional surrender of the Argentine forces.
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2013
Falkland Islands wish for normal neighborly relations with all South American neighbors
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 20th 2013
Falkland Islands: Argentina blasts UK’s ‘double standard’ on self determination right
-
May 20th 2013
Polynesia in decolonization list; Pacific islands proposal supported by 193 votes in UN General Assembly
36 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Divot!
1) the British way:
The USA recognises the de facto administration but remains neutral on the question of sovereignty.
2) The Malvinista way:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BRITISH LIARS!!!!! LOSERS!!!!!!! PIRATES!!!!!!! CATAGORICAL PROOFS THAT THE USA HATE AND ARE AGAINSTES YOU AND SUPPORT ARGENTNAS!!!!!!!!! MALVINAS SON AREGENTINAS!!!!!!!!!! DEATH TO BRITISH PIGS!!!!!!!!!!
I have a feeling they may change there position, to back the islanders, after the next US elections no matter who wins.
Although i know someone who is in the navy, and apparently Obama will offer the same support as we had in the last Falklands war, should another conflict arise.
The text is at:
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/06/192146.htm
Enjoy the squirming of a spokesperson who knows what they are saying sounds bad from about 24:30 onwards on the video and trying desperately not to comment.
Just to be absolutely clear: these are US journalists giving the State Department a hard time over this and insisting on answers.
At some point there is going to be the realisation that neutrality is not a sustainable position.
This is the position of the USA.
They do not give a damn about MAlvinas
Just to be absolutely clear: these are US journalists giving the State Department a hard time over this and insisting on answers
US main interest is a “stable Argentina”, warns Falklands Task Force head
The head of the Royal Navy Task Force that recovered the Falkland Islands during the 1982 South Atlantic conflict has warned about UK defense cuts and underlined that United States has little interest in supporting Britain in any conflict since a stable Argentina is more important to the State Department
en.mercopress.com/2011/06/13/us-main-interest-is-a-stable-argentina-warns-falklands-task-force-head
'That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.,
Grow a pair Obama, you don't need to be afraid of tin pot South American countries.
And, surely, there is already a “stable Argentina”. It is, after all, full of horsesh*te. As you have just demonstrated!
sorry, just wanted to know what its like right stupid statements like 11 Malvinero1 (#) does....
I'm guessing the Argies are aware of this too.
@ 11 79 year old Admiral Sir John “Sandy” Woodward doesn't seem to understand that we are now in the 21st century and “a substantial task force of two aircraft carriers, a dozen frigates and destroyers, four submarines and a total of 100 surface ships along with 25,000 servicemen”, is no longer required in order to “deal to” any military threat from Argentina.
Somewhere, a long way away, some “intelligence” operative is sure to have logged the co-ordinates of desirable targets - just in case any of them look like moving in a militaristic manner ... :-)
As for America, if it ever comes down to it they will do what they did last time. Supply, support and keep their mouths shut.
I have absolutely no doubt that the US wants a stable Argentina in a stable Latin America. Sadly what they have is an increasingly unstable Argentina with an increasingly erratic government in a Latin America increasingly falling into the clutches of nationalism combined with socialism.
Do you really think that the State Department is looking at the flag burnings by masked men, bombs outside offices, pot banging demonstrations, nationalist rhetoric, corruption probes, corporate expropriations, anti-competitive trade policies, rampant inflation, strikes and love-ins with Venezuela, Iran etc and coming to the conclusion “stable country: no risk to US interests here”? Or do you think they might be thinking “this is a country not conforming to international norms and whose government behaves irrationally: treat with caution and don't get too close”.
Just remember that this is election year: Obama's primary objective is to get elected again. To do this he needs to both look like a strong and principled leader of the free world and minimise the opportunity for the the media to beat him up on foreign affairs gaffs. It doesn't look like neutrality is doing that at the moment... it looks like at least some in the US media are scenting blood. This is what I thought was interesting: I was expecting it to be the Times or BBC asking the questions...
Lets see what happens over the next few days.
I actually agree with you for once, the US do want a stable Argentina and South America. The best way of achieving that is to tell the world the US supports the Falkland Islanders self-determination, end of problem. This Argentine madness needs stopping before things get out of hand.
Anyway I am super confident the US will support the results of the referendum.
Treaties are interesting; just like contracts. Any party that fails to live up to their obligations can be held responsible. I feel a lawsuit coming on...
CFK lost whatever minor support we showed Argentina when they boarded our military jet.
They lost trade benefits, will lose IDB and WB loans and I bet they will lost all US foreign aid shortly. If USSC rules the BCRA reserves are attachable ARG will go into free fall immediately.
Payback is a b*tch.
Argentina poses zero threat to the UK in any fashion and the UK is going to keep ignoring Argentina's attempts to deflect attention from its failed country other than to school Argentina every so often on politics.
The referendum is a master stroke since it forces Argentina to show it doesn't respect the UN's charter and it also doesn't respect human rights.
CHECKMATE!
www.facebook.com/Britain1592
The lease for a further 2o years extension has to be settled by 2014
I would definitely play hard ball with the b****ers - especially if Obama wins a second term - looking more unlikely
@20 No, no, no. There is a stable argieland. It's full of horsesh*te.
Tired of my family being deployed.
The US has lost thousands of Servicemen and women, even the most advance armed forces in the world can lose....
I feel for the lost lives of those who accompanied the US around the world during invasions, but most of us here opposed the aforementioned invasions which causes the loss of lives.
When the presidential election is over, the US will suddenly remember the special relationship between the US and the UK, no matter who is elected.
So dont care what they say now, want to be friends but shouldnt have to jump thru hoops like a small child trying to impress a parent that is not interested.
Where some of the anti-Falklands talk is emerging in the US Latino-sphere might be with media opinion-leaders like Andres Oppenheimer, Miami's El Nuevo Herald columnist (link below).
Oppenheimer makes no bones about his sympathies with Argentina's “Malvinismo” idea , but as he is a very conservative commentator, he disagrees with CFK's position on mostly everything, including her anti-Falklands strategy, and like those 17 Argentine intellectuals (Una visión alternativa), would propose seducing Falkland Islanders with services, no blockades, etc.
In weird twists of election-year politics, Obama's political sense might be to distance US policies from Oppenheimer's anti-Castro, anti-Venezuela position, which could mean distancing US from Oppenheimer's pro-Malvinista stance too.
Reference:
Argentina debería seducir a las Malvinas:
www.elnuevoherald.com/2012/03/31/1167368_p2/oppenheimer-argentina-deberia.html
I am well aware of Obama's political move for young illegal Latino immigrants but he needs every single latino vote he can get.
I agree with 'Una visión alternativa' and Oppenheimer, if Argentina wants the Falkland Islands to become a part of Argentina, the only remedy is a long charms offensive, demonstrating that Argentina is friendly.
Two problems:
1. After the war in 1982 the islanders severely distrust Argentina's intentions. Many still remember the invasion and it is part of history, which the young islanders learn - never trust Argentina.
2. The islands are British and Argentina recognized this in 1850 (peace treaty), 1866 (vice president) and 1869 (president), but when Britain seemed to loose WW2 Perón grabbed the opportunity to try and force the islands to become Argentino, which is something the British find it hard to forgive. Also every time Argentina is close to or in a severe crisis, the “Malvinas Argentinas” is used to raise nationalism and of course .
However, CFK has roused emotions of Argentines so much its now impossible for her to engage in any charm offensive that could suggest to these zealots that Argentina would be just “pandering” to the “kelpers” who they now see as criminal usurpers-piratas-colonistas.
Similar double-sided tactic when she is vocal about denouncing future military adventures to recapture the Falklands, but with subtle innuendo so that Britain really does feel need to keep a deep military investment active in Falklands - thus spending enough British taxpayers money, resulting in pressure to negotiate with Argentina.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!