A year ago I wrote a post on "Where Will the Next Crisis Come From?" I gave an example of the kind of situation which can lead to a crisis: A country with economic problems so bad the government fears for its survival. The government generates a crisis, maybe a foreign crisis, to gain support or at least distract the people.
The example I used was the Falklands war in 1982:
"The Argentine military government had been in power since 1976, and it was in deep trouble. Argentina’s economy was a mess; the government’s popularity was worse. A president had resigned in March of 1981. Another [president] was forced out in December of that same year. A new economics minister imposed harsh economic policies. Protests were growing. There were even calls for Nuremberg-like trials for those allegedly involved in the disappearances of people during the military’s rule. So, in an effort to distract the people’s attention from all of these problems, the military government decided to invade the Falklands, known to the Argentines as the Malvinas."
And now, 28 years later, it may be happening again. Argentine Presidents Kirchner (first Nestor and now his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner) have increased the level of diplomatic protests over the Falklands since Nestor was first elected in 2003. With new oil drilling starting up near the Falklands and with Argentina having economic problems*, Argentina has raised the level of their protests yet again.
Even though nobody thought Argentina would invade in 1982, fortunately it seems even less likely now. Argentina has not significantly modernized its armed forces since 1982, and the British, unlike 1982, are actively defending the islands. Over 1,000 troops are garrisoned on the islands along with four jet fighters Also, the British have recently built a new airport, and there are regular RAF flights to Britain.
But it is not the military situation that I wanted to comment on. Rather, it is the response of the Obama administration. At a recent summit meeting of the Rio Group in Cancun, 32 Latin American and Caribbean leaders backed Argentina’s claims to sovereignty over the islands. Even the members of the Commonwealth from the Caribbean voted against Britain.
And what has been the response of the Obama administration? According to The [London] Times:
"Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. …
‘We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,’ a State Department spokesman told The Times. ‘The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.’"
That is appalling. Great Britain is our friend. There are probably no closer allies than Britain and the United States. Regardless of what you think about the war in Iraq, Britain was there with us. 179 British soldiers died in Iraq. And they are with us in Afghanistan (the war of "necessity," according to our President). The British have the second biggest contingent of forces in Afghanistan – and they are allowed to fight, unlike the troops from some other countries.
And what do we do when Argentina threatens the Falklands? We merely say that we "recognize de facto British administration". On the key question of sovereignty, we’re "neutral". When our friend needs help, we "take no position".
Maybe the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to support Britain and this is what they need to do in public to protect those efforts. If so, then I withdraw my criticism. But if not, then it stands, and I am appalled.
Let me make it clear that the Reagan administration did not cover itself with glory during the early stages of the Falklands crisis in 1982. Jean Kirkpatrick, our UN ambassador, sided with Argentina. Secretary of State Alexander Haig took a middle position way too long. Eventually, President Reagan came around, and the United States fully supported the British. But from the beginning, it was only Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger who was doing what was right, supporting and aiding the British behind the scenes.** (And the British remembered. I can assure you Secretary Weinberger did not get that honorary knighthood from the Queen in 1988 because of his service as Secretary of HEW during the Nixon Administration.)
In 1982 I was embarrassed by the Reagan administration’s initial lack of support for the British. And I am embarrassed by the Obama administration’s statements today.
There is a saying, "A friend in need is a friend indeed." The Obama administration needs to act that way.
-----------
* The government of President Fernandez is unpopular. It lost its legislative majority in elections last year. Taxes have been increased on farmers, and last year the government nationalized private pension funds. Earlier this month President Fernandez ordered $6 billion of foreign-currency reserves be transferred from the Central Bank to be used to service the public debt. (See The Economist, January 7, 2010 and February 4, 2010.)
** The Economist, "Blood and bloddy noses," July 16, 2005; Chicago Tribune, "U.S. helped win Falklands war: British paper," March 3, 1984.
Comments