Considering that Britain has, rightly, stood side by side with its supposed ally the United States in the War on Terror, you would think that the US would be more supportive of Britain regarding the possinble Falklands War II against Argentina.
Ever since 1941, Britain and America have been fighting shoulder to shoulder against the evils of this world.
Britain and the US have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else. Apart from speaking the same language and the fact that Britain is America's mother, we share a belief in liberal democracy, in freedom, and it is largely thanks to our willingness to commit ourselves to the defence of those ideals that the world has not been engulfed by fascism, communism or Islamofascism.
But why is Obama - the man who removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office when he came to power - taking a neutral stance over the Falklands, a group of islands which justifiably and democratically belong to Britain but which the Argentines are now, again, saying that they want ownership of (not suprisingly, just when a British oil rig is due to start drilling off the islands). After all, Reagan supported Thatcher after Argentina, then a dictatorship, invaded the Falklands in 1982.
And if Obama wants to end America's close relationship with Britain, who does he thynk will replace Britain as America's closest partner. Italy? Spain? France?
Et tu, Barack? America betrays Britain in her hour of need
By Toby Young
February 25th, 2010
The Telegraph
Barack Obama has taken a neutral stance on the Falklands (Photo: Getty)
It was a headline I never expected to read: “US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” Washington has declined to back Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. President Obama’s position is one of strict neutrality, refusing to take sides. According to the State Department:
No matter how often he claims it was because he believed it was “the right thing to do”, we all know what was really going on in his head. He simply didn’t want to break ranks with the United States. The Atlantic alliance has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy since 1941, when Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt joined forces against the Axis powers. Dean Acheson may have declared that Britain had lost an empire and yet to find a role, but successive British Prime Ministers have know what their role is and, by and large, it has been to stand shoulder to shoulder with America, presenting a united front in a series of global conflicts, from the Cold War to the Gulf.
Steel helmets abandoned by Argentine armed forces who surrendered during the Battle of Goose Green against the British in 1982. Photograph: PA
It is not just cynical realpolitik. Our two nations have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else. We share a belief in liberal democracy, in freedom, and it is largely thanks to our willingness to commit ourselves to the defence of those ideals that the world has not been engulfed by fascism, communism or Islamofascism.
For this alliance to survive, both countries must recognise their obligations and, from time to time, that involves one of us setting aside more localised concerns for the sake of the cause. Tony Blair would have preferred it if President Bush had been prepared to wait for a second UN resolution before launching the invasion of Iraq, but he decided that Britain should follow America into battle nevertheless. He recognised that the preservation of the Atlantic alliance had to be prioritised above all else, both for our sake and the sake of the world.
Unmistakeably British: A red London bus in the Falkland Islands' capital Port Stanley. Britain will continue to own the Falkland Islands, regardless of what the UN or a motley crue of Latin American countries say, as long as that is the democratically expressed wish of the Falkland Islanders
In return, we naturally expect America to side with us when it comes to our own territorial disputes — and this element of quid pro quo was recognised by Ronald Reagan when he backed Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands War. It wasn’t in America’s regional interests to side with us, but Reagan knew the terms of the deal: It was your country, right or wrong. You don’t abandon your closest ally in her hour of need.
So it is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history and insist that we have to fight this battle on our own. Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him? Do the sacrifices Britain has made in defence of the Atlantic alliance count for nought? Who does he think will replace us as America’s steadfast ally when she finds herself embroiled in a territorial dispute of her own — possibly with the very same motley crew of Latin American rabble rousers? Spain? Italy? France? Good luck with that, Mr President.
You’d think that having made his bones in Chicago, Obama would know the Chicago Code of Honour: When someone picks a fight with a friend of yours, they pick a fight with you.
It is at times like this that I remember the words of Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s unofficial emissary to Britain during the Second World War. In our darkest hour, when we stood virtually alone against Hitler, Hopkins was dispatched to Britain to assess our situation. Did we have the will to remain in the fight? Was this a country that America should risk its national interest to defend?
Before Hopkins returned to deliver his verdict to Roosevelt, Lord Beaverbrook gave a small dinner party for him and it was there that he rose to give a toast. “I suppose you wish to know what I am going to say to President Roosevelt on my return,” he said. “Well I am going to quote to you one verse from the Book of Books: ‘Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.’”
Amen.
READERS' COMMENTS
Ho hum. I hated almost everything that Mrs Thatcher did and stood for, but she was right to take the Falklands back in the way she did. The Argies took them by force, and that is no way to solve a territorial dispute. Once they had invaded, the UK was wholly within its rights to reciprocate in kind.
And I don't buy the "some tiny islands in the south Atlantic that most people had never heard of" argument against going to war. Does this mean that if the French were to invade the Isle of Wight, we should let them stay there? Where do you draw the line? There was a principle at stake, that of sovereignty. Besides which, the vast majority of the islanders wanted to remain British, and they are the ones whose views should be paramount.
richardrj
***************************************************
Please understand that this is Barry Obama, not the US. We’ll get rid of this socialist fool in 2012.
Be patient with us while we work to defeat our comrade president. And don’t forget that he’s a democrat… this is important.
Our sincere apologies Great Britain; you deserve better.
GhostDance
*********************************************************
Britain does not need America’s backing in her hour of need over the Falklands. We last liberated the Falklands on our own. If we need take action to protect the islands again, it will be with a Tory prime minister in office, not the bullying braggart Bottler Brown.
We did not need America’s backing in our last hour of need, when we stood alone against Hitler. The Battle of Britain was won. The Royal Navy was intact. Ultimately we would have prevailed. American entered the war only after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and U-boat periscopes started popping up off the coast of California. She acted only when her own interests were directly threatened, as she acts always only in her own interests.
But I hope when next Uncle Sam needs our military or diplomatic or moral support for one of his belligerent adventures, Britannia reminds him of his long record of fair-weather friendship, and shoves her trident where it hurts most.
junius
**************************************
re the Belgrano: it's a war, that's what happens in a war. Sometimes events are confusing and judgement calls have to be made. Did the Argentinians lay down their weapons on that day when "a peace plan seemed to be on the table"? No. Did the peace deal involve a settlement ensuring the islanders could remain British as they wished and the complete withdrawel of Argentine troops? No.
All in all, Argentina had never colonised the Falklands and they had been in British hands since the 1830s. "we're nearest" isn't a proper claim.
pdmalcolm
************************************
It can not concievably been about self-determination.
1. In 1980 Nicholas Ridley was in talks with the Argentinians about shared control of the islands.
2. Scaling down Britain's military presence in the south Atlantic invited an invasion.
3. Err, Chagos?
ThatRichardSmith
*************************************
Oh sorry, my mistake, by taking military resources away from the Falklands we brought it on ourselves? We are a naughty bunch aren't we?
So keeping a garrison there would be bad as the islands weren't ours, and taking them away left Galtieri with no option but to invade?
Talks about shared control were indeed underway but fell down time and time again on the problem that the islanders representatives had no interest in shared control.
Admittedly had the game played its course this wouldn't have mattered. But it did not, Argentina threw up a grandstanding invasion they thought they could get away with. It was nothing short of piracy.
pdmalcolm
********************************
Because the kind of belligerent behaviour displayed by the Argentinians in invading was simply unacceptable. As pdmalcolm says, it was sheer piracy. And because there was no other way of restoring the status quo. What were we supposed to do, say "Yep, fair enough, you've walked in uninvited but you can stay there now"?
richardrj
*****************************
It's worth pointing out that the 'peace plan' supposedly on the table when the Belgrano was sunk was tabled by Peru, a country that provided political and military support for Argentina. It was a transparent attempt to delay the recovery of the islands until the South Atlantic winter would have made it more difficult. It also ignored UNSC resolution 502 calling for an Argentinean withdrawal.
Additionally, the reason the Belgrano was at sea was as part of a planned Argentinean attack on the British fleet which was only postponed because the wind wasn't strong enough for their aircraft carrier to launch planes. Clearly the Argentineans weren't impressed by the 'peace plan' even if Roger Waters was.
CharlieTheMagicCat
************************************
What is even sadder is that the Obama Administration would remain just as strictly neutral in a sovereignty dispute between the USA and Mexico over Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico.
stuiec
*******************************
Truly shocking? No, Mr Young – fairly predictable, I would say, Regrettably, with regard to the attitude of the White House’s present incumbent to Anglo-American relations, the words ‘chip’ and ’shoulder’ immediately spring to mind. Something to do with Kenya, I believe.
chezz
*******************************
Mr Young ,
That was in the days when men were men and honour meant something. Not today. We will be told by the EU the UN or any other tin pot organization or country that wants to put the boot in that we, the British, have no right to defend our Islands. I hope Obama lives to regret not coming out on our side
alane4570
telegraph.co.uk
Ever since 1941, Britain and America have been fighting shoulder to shoulder against the evils of this world.
Britain and the US have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else. Apart from speaking the same language and the fact that Britain is America's mother, we share a belief in liberal democracy, in freedom, and it is largely thanks to our willingness to commit ourselves to the defence of those ideals that the world has not been engulfed by fascism, communism or Islamofascism.
But why is Obama - the man who removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office when he came to power - taking a neutral stance over the Falklands, a group of islands which justifiably and democratically belong to Britain but which the Argentines are now, again, saying that they want ownership of (not suprisingly, just when a British oil rig is due to start drilling off the islands). After all, Reagan supported Thatcher after Argentina, then a dictatorship, invaded the Falklands in 1982.
And if Obama wants to end America's close relationship with Britain, who does he thynk will replace Britain as America's closest partner. Italy? Spain? France?
Et tu, Barack? America betrays Britain in her hour of need
By Toby Young
February 25th, 2010
The Telegraph
Barack Obama has taken a neutral stance on the Falklands (Photo: Getty)
It was a headline I never expected to read: “US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” Washington has declined to back Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. President Obama’s position is one of strict neutrality, refusing to take sides. According to the State Department:
We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.
Has it come to this? Tony Blair sacrificed his political career and jeopardised Britain’s international standing by making common cause with America in the War on Terror.
No matter how often he claims it was because he believed it was “the right thing to do”, we all know what was really going on in his head. He simply didn’t want to break ranks with the United States. The Atlantic alliance has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy since 1941, when Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt joined forces against the Axis powers. Dean Acheson may have declared that Britain had lost an empire and yet to find a role, but successive British Prime Ministers have know what their role is and, by and large, it has been to stand shoulder to shoulder with America, presenting a united front in a series of global conflicts, from the Cold War to the Gulf.
Steel helmets abandoned by Argentine armed forces who surrendered during the Battle of Goose Green against the British in 1982. Photograph: PA
It is not just cynical realpolitik. Our two nations have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else. We share a belief in liberal democracy, in freedom, and it is largely thanks to our willingness to commit ourselves to the defence of those ideals that the world has not been engulfed by fascism, communism or Islamofascism.
For this alliance to survive, both countries must recognise their obligations and, from time to time, that involves one of us setting aside more localised concerns for the sake of the cause. Tony Blair would have preferred it if President Bush had been prepared to wait for a second UN resolution before launching the invasion of Iraq, but he decided that Britain should follow America into battle nevertheless. He recognised that the preservation of the Atlantic alliance had to be prioritised above all else, both for our sake and the sake of the world.
Unmistakeably British: A red London bus in the Falkland Islands' capital Port Stanley. Britain will continue to own the Falkland Islands, regardless of what the UN or a motley crue of Latin American countries say, as long as that is the democratically expressed wish of the Falkland Islanders
In return, we naturally expect America to side with us when it comes to our own territorial disputes — and this element of quid pro quo was recognised by Ronald Reagan when he backed Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands War. It wasn’t in America’s regional interests to side with us, but Reagan knew the terms of the deal: It was your country, right or wrong. You don’t abandon your closest ally in her hour of need.
So it is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history and insist that we have to fight this battle on our own. Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him? Do the sacrifices Britain has made in defence of the Atlantic alliance count for nought? Who does he think will replace us as America’s steadfast ally when she finds herself embroiled in a territorial dispute of her own — possibly with the very same motley crew of Latin American rabble rousers? Spain? Italy? France? Good luck with that, Mr President.
You’d think that having made his bones in Chicago, Obama would know the Chicago Code of Honour: When someone picks a fight with a friend of yours, they pick a fight with you.
It is at times like this that I remember the words of Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s unofficial emissary to Britain during the Second World War. In our darkest hour, when we stood virtually alone against Hitler, Hopkins was dispatched to Britain to assess our situation. Did we have the will to remain in the fight? Was this a country that America should risk its national interest to defend?
Before Hopkins returned to deliver his verdict to Roosevelt, Lord Beaverbrook gave a small dinner party for him and it was there that he rose to give a toast. “I suppose you wish to know what I am going to say to President Roosevelt on my return,” he said. “Well I am going to quote to you one verse from the Book of Books: ‘Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.’”
Amen.
READERS' COMMENTS
Ho hum. I hated almost everything that Mrs Thatcher did and stood for, but she was right to take the Falklands back in the way she did. The Argies took them by force, and that is no way to solve a territorial dispute. Once they had invaded, the UK was wholly within its rights to reciprocate in kind.
And I don't buy the "some tiny islands in the south Atlantic that most people had never heard of" argument against going to war. Does this mean that if the French were to invade the Isle of Wight, we should let them stay there? Where do you draw the line? There was a principle at stake, that of sovereignty. Besides which, the vast majority of the islanders wanted to remain British, and they are the ones whose views should be paramount.
richardrj
***************************************************
Please understand that this is Barry Obama, not the US. We’ll get rid of this socialist fool in 2012.
Be patient with us while we work to defeat our comrade president. And don’t forget that he’s a democrat… this is important.
Our sincere apologies Great Britain; you deserve better.
GhostDance
*********************************************************
Britain does not need America’s backing in her hour of need over the Falklands. We last liberated the Falklands on our own. If we need take action to protect the islands again, it will be with a Tory prime minister in office, not the bullying braggart Bottler Brown.
We did not need America’s backing in our last hour of need, when we stood alone against Hitler. The Battle of Britain was won. The Royal Navy was intact. Ultimately we would have prevailed. American entered the war only after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and U-boat periscopes started popping up off the coast of California. She acted only when her own interests were directly threatened, as she acts always only in her own interests.
But I hope when next Uncle Sam needs our military or diplomatic or moral support for one of his belligerent adventures, Britannia reminds him of his long record of fair-weather friendship, and shoves her trident where it hurts most.
junius
**************************************
re the Belgrano: it's a war, that's what happens in a war. Sometimes events are confusing and judgement calls have to be made. Did the Argentinians lay down their weapons on that day when "a peace plan seemed to be on the table"? No. Did the peace deal involve a settlement ensuring the islanders could remain British as they wished and the complete withdrawel of Argentine troops? No.
All in all, Argentina had never colonised the Falklands and they had been in British hands since the 1830s. "we're nearest" isn't a proper claim.
pdmalcolm
************************************
It can not concievably been about self-determination.
1. In 1980 Nicholas Ridley was in talks with the Argentinians about shared control of the islands.
2. Scaling down Britain's military presence in the south Atlantic invited an invasion.
3. Err, Chagos?
ThatRichardSmith
*************************************
Oh sorry, my mistake, by taking military resources away from the Falklands we brought it on ourselves? We are a naughty bunch aren't we?
So keeping a garrison there would be bad as the islands weren't ours, and taking them away left Galtieri with no option but to invade?
Talks about shared control were indeed underway but fell down time and time again on the problem that the islanders representatives had no interest in shared control.
Admittedly had the game played its course this wouldn't have mattered. But it did not, Argentina threw up a grandstanding invasion they thought they could get away with. It was nothing short of piracy.
pdmalcolm
********************************
Because the kind of belligerent behaviour displayed by the Argentinians in invading was simply unacceptable. As pdmalcolm says, it was sheer piracy. And because there was no other way of restoring the status quo. What were we supposed to do, say "Yep, fair enough, you've walked in uninvited but you can stay there now"?
richardrj
*****************************
It's worth pointing out that the 'peace plan' supposedly on the table when the Belgrano was sunk was tabled by Peru, a country that provided political and military support for Argentina. It was a transparent attempt to delay the recovery of the islands until the South Atlantic winter would have made it more difficult. It also ignored UNSC resolution 502 calling for an Argentinean withdrawal.
Additionally, the reason the Belgrano was at sea was as part of a planned Argentinean attack on the British fleet which was only postponed because the wind wasn't strong enough for their aircraft carrier to launch planes. Clearly the Argentineans weren't impressed by the 'peace plan' even if Roger Waters was.
CharlieTheMagicCat
************************************
What is even sadder is that the Obama Administration would remain just as strictly neutral in a sovereignty dispute between the USA and Mexico over Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico.
stuiec
*******************************
Truly shocking? No, Mr Young – fairly predictable, I would say, Regrettably, with regard to the attitude of the White House’s present incumbent to Anglo-American relations, the words ‘chip’ and ’shoulder’ immediately spring to mind. Something to do with Kenya, I believe.
chezz
*******************************
Mr Young ,
That was in the days when men were men and honour meant something. Not today. We will be told by the EU the UN or any other tin pot organization or country that wants to put the boot in that we, the British, have no right to defend our Islands. I hope Obama lives to regret not coming out on our side
alane4570
telegraph.co.uk
