Right-wing writer and Fox News contributor Nile Gardiner is going for the hyperbole gold on this one.
The Secretary of State, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain.
Hillary Clinton’s dire performance in Buenos Aires was not only an appalling display of appeasement towards a corrupt and authoritarian anti-American regime, which barely has the support of 20 percent of the Argentinian people. It was also an astonishing betrayal of the United Kingdom by her closest ally, and yet another slap in the face for Britain from the Obama administration.
Clinton has demonstrated, not the first time, strikingly poor judgment as Secretary of State. …
All righty then.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And we agree. We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.
QUESTION: (In Spanish) Interpreter: The journalist was just asking how the U.S. intends to negotiate to get the United Kingdom to sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue.
SECRETARY CLINTON: As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.
The “Malvinas issue” is the Falkland islands, specifically, the plans of the Brits to excavate and drill for oil in these islands. But using the term “Malvinas” is upsetting to Brits, though it’s how Argentinians refer to them, as they try to nudge involvement of the U.S., which is never going to happen and everyone knows it. Argentina also boasting they have the support of “33 foreign ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean,” according to reports, that side with Argentina over the British over the issue.
As for Chavez’s two cents? Here’s a sampling, to which Mr. Gardiner referred.
In recent days and during yesterday’s summit, most of the regional leaders backed Argentina’s claims. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez addressed Britain’s Queen Elizabeth directly on his weekly television programme, telling her to return the Malvinas to Argentina. He repeated his claims late Sunday when he arrived in Mexico for the summit.
“We support unconditionally the Argentine government and the Argentine people in their complaints,” Chávez told reporters at the airport.
“That sea and that land belongs to Argentina and to Latin America.”
He even pledged to send his armed forces to Argentina’s defence if Britain attacks, telling his allies they can “have the security of knowing they aren’t alone” against what he called British threats.
Expect the usual suspects to weigh in on this one.
The Falkland Islands and the current situation between Britain and Argentina is none of our business.
The right and other critics of Clinton are saying, by her weighing in that the Brits and Argentina should simply “sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue,” that Sect. Clinton has waded in where we don’t belong, her critics going so far as to say she’s taken sides. Perhaps because while in Argentina she said “Malivinas issue” instead of Falkland Islands.
Nuts! This is much ado about nothing. But that never stopped anyone before.
The nature of diplomacy is to make no waves, which in our current hyper-partisan media environment is impossible. Just take a look at the comments attached to Mr. Gardiner’s piece.
… Part of the reason that Clinton has gone to Latin America is to see President Lula of Brazil. The US is trying to get the UN security council to adopt new sanctions against Iran and Brazil, which is on the 15-member council, is reluctant to back sanctions. The British government rejected Clinton’s offer to mediate, and the US will accept that, more concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia than the islands of the South Atlantic. – Why Clinton won’t take Argentina’s side
Why has Hillary made it her life’s work to screw with the Iranians? Could it have anything to do with the fact that she’s a pro-Zionist, Israel firster? This woman is becoming very, very tiresome. Peace
Oh but Imhotep the “idealistic one”(put upon by all the evil Washington insiders who won’t let his true light shine) CHOOSE her as his SOS and by all accounts they get along famously.
…Um… How’d you get from the Falklands to Iran, Imhotep? Not even right-wingers make that jump.
Hiya LakeL.
Why has imhopless made it his life’s work to screw with the reality? Could it have anything to do with the fact that he’s a anti-hillary, anything but her firster? This poster is becoming very, very tiresome. PieceOcrap
Nile Gardiner is the Dick Morris of Great Britain.
Her use of the term “Malvinas issue” was probably due to a) she was in Argentina and despite Obama’s claims of a new start in Latin America, we’ve fallen back on the usual policy of being condescending and meddlesome and b) our relations with Argentina have been a bit rocky of late, unlike with the Brits. It was diplomatically smart for her to risk ruffling a few feathers in Britain while shoring up a few symbolic diplomatic points from Argentina. More interesting than her terminology was the fact that she made the *very* last minute swing through Argentina, something that seems to not have been lost on Argentina’s President (I’m guessing they felt a bit snubbed at being left off the Latin America tour) based upon her joint presser with SOS Clinton.
Because……the only reason for Hillary’s trip to South America was to visit Brazil. The Brazilians are sitting on the UN Security Council and Hillary wants to strong-arm them into voting for her sanctions against Iran. Any good Leftist can tell which way the wind blows. Peace
Well, this particular lefty knows that Latin America has been disappointed (join the club) with Obama’s pledge of a fresh start with the region, particularly after how the US handled the coup in Honduras (or didn’t handle it, depending on how you look at it). So, it’s a bit of an oversimplification to say that Brazil was the *only* reason for the trip. Is Brazil a big part of it? Sure. The usual suspects in Congress are pushing hard for much, much broader sanctions against Iran (including, unwisely in my view, gasoline) than most in the international community are willing to sign on to. In fact, they seem to want harsher sanctions than the Obama admin. does. And SOS Clinton is also paving the way for visit from Obama to Brazil in the not-too-distant future.
Oh, and Joshua Keating over at FP agrees with Taylor that the controversy over Clinton’s statement in Argentina is a bit of much ado about nothing:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/02/clinton_on_the_falklands
secyclintonblog, have you noticed that those who are pushing the hardest for santions are all very strong, even obsessive, supporters of Israel? These are the very same people who, for the most part, signed up early and often in support of bush’s “crusade” against the “Islamofascists.” The one’s who are cultlike in their need to win at any cost in Afghanistan. That our foreign policy is, and has been, in the hands of these lunactics for so long is shameful. And dangerous. Peace
Imhotep says:
03 March 2010 at 11:43 am
It’s about OIL, not Israel. Sheesh.
Heya secyclintonblog. Another State dept. official said basically the same thing before Hillary said it.
As for Iran, that’s another issue entirely.
Taylor, it was about Israel well before it was about oil. Until Carter, we imported all the oil that we wanted for $1 dollar a barrel. Then the Arabs who were educated in the West wised up. Now we have to pay a resonable price for all the oil that we want. Only now we have the right wing nut-bags like bin Laden pissed off at us because the Israelis keep killing and enslaving the Palestinians. This has never been about oil. Geopolitically speaking that is. Peace