US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

[AtW]

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falklands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London and Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close military alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

Argentina appealed to the UN Secretary-General last night to intervene in the dispute - a move Britain adamantly opposes.

“The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening,” Jorge Taiana, the Argentine foreign minister, said after meeting Ban Ki Moon, the UN chief, in New York.

More here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7040245.ece

[Peoplesoft bloke]

This is another reason we shouldn't be supporting the septics in their daft wars - they don't give a tulip about us, never have. I bet those ABE shirts would do well in the States if anyone knew where England was.

[lightng]

God bless our 'special' friendship with the US.

[TimberWolf]

The only time there was special relationship was under Thatcher, when she ruled the world.

[Moscow Mule]

God bless our 'special' friendship with the US.

To be fair, they were a lot of help behind the scenes the last time the Argies overstretched themselves.

Diplomacy - saying you're doing nothing, whilst doing everything.

[TimberWolf]

Who votes we send Gordon (or Bl*ir) to the negotiating table. And if so what are the odds that he comes back having bailed out Argentina to the tune of £billions and given away the Falklands?

[AtW]

Look at the map - Falklands can't be held in current situation: you can't expect Argentine to hold Isle of Man and provide offshore tax "avoidance" schemes can you?

If Hong Kong (surely much more valuable?) was let go, then how can you hold on to Falklands?

Negotiating a decent deal is in order - particularly if oil is involved.

[Spacecadet]

Who votes we send Gordon (or Bl*ir) to the negotiating table. And if so what are the odds that he comes back having formed a stgrategic synergistic relationship with the Argentine people which will help power Britain through these globally hard economic times by enabling both sides to gain equally from the new found oil wealth that the labour goverment found and would never have been discovered under the tories?

FTFY

[Spacecadet]

Look at the map - Falklands can't be held in current situation: you can't expect Argentine to hold Isle of Man and provide offshore tax "avoidance" schemes can you?

If Hong Kong (surely much more valuable?) was let go, then how can you hold on to Falklands?

Negotiating a decent deal is in order - particularly if oil is involved.

Hong Kong wasn't let go, our lease was up and china didn't want to renew.

[AtW]

Hong Kong wasn't let go, our lease was up and china didn't want to renew.

Hong Kong could not have been held - that's the main reason, and this was like what 20 years ago?

The one great thing about Britannia is that she managed roll back of the Empire in a way that is a great model - Commonwealth that mostly contains friendly states, you simply can't hold far away islands like Falklands - negotiation is the best way forward.