Speaking With The (Customary) Forked Tongue

Not that many days ago President Obama was in London.  He spoke at some great length and with all apparent warmth and sincerity regarding the special relationship between the US and UK.  Long and loud were Mr Obama's praises of the relationship between we former colonials and the Mother Country.  He even took pains to distort and warp history so as to present a smooth and attractive face of relations unmarred by differences or disagreements.  All in all it was a typical bravura performance by a man for whom words trump actions.

As the mood music played Prime Minister David Cameron and his fellow ministers seemed to take it in.  Smiles and gestures of appreciation all over Westminster.  The shake and grin of the year went well as did the State Banquet at the royal palace.  The president and his "team" undoubtedly boarded Air Force One secure in the belief that they had pulled a successful fast one on the Brits.

Like a pirate ship lowering its false colors and raising the Jolly Roger, the true face of the Obama administration's view of the UK and its "special relationship" came to the fore mere hours later.  While the diplomatic protocols demand forewarning, the hoisting of the skull and crossbones at the meeting of the Organization of the American States (OAS) must have sent a chill through Her Majesty's Government nonetheless.

On 7 June 2011 the US joined all the other members of the OAS in approving a draft declaration on "the question of the Malvinas Islands."  The draft declaration demands that the UK negotiate the status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas, if you are pro-Argentinian) with Buenos Aires.  With this move the US not only linked itself with such profound anti-American regimes as that of Hugo Chavez but stiff armed the British with great gusto.  The US is quite well aware that the UK is not willing in the slightest to negotiate with Argentina or to compromise its long standing sovereignty over the islands.

The US position is not new.  Secretary of State Clinton put it forth back in March 2010 against the backdrop of shrill protests coming from Buenos Aires over the impending arrival of an exploratory drilling platform prospecting for oil in the 200 mile exclusive economic zone surrounding the Falklands.  At that time Her Majesty's Government made their displeasure known, directly and firmly.  It is clear that Mr Obama and his "team" value our alliance with the UK very little regardless of the splendid torrent of oratory poured by the president in the halls of Parliament.

The stance taken by the Obama administration at San Salvador on 7 June serves the US ill.  The demand for negotiation supported by the Clueless Man in the Oval not only devalues the link between the US and the UK, it ignores completely the right of self-determination for the people of the Falklands.  The residents of those faraway and lonely islands have made it quite clear time after time that they are not only British but they desire to remain under the governance of the UK.  There is no desire on the part of the islanders to speak Spanish or live under the sway of the Argentine government.

Any possible questions of sovereignty were settled back in 1982 when the government of Argentina, a military junta, ordered the invasion of the islands after having ended the ongoing and quite desultory negotiations of that distant day.  Much to the surprise and dismay of the generals running Argentina, the British did not accept the accomplished feat but chose to fight back.

In the resulting Falklands War the US after a short period of sitting astride the fence came down flatly on the side of the UK.  Swimming against the tide prevailing at the OAS, the Reagan administration took the position that Argentinian aggression must not be allowed to stand.  The US provided important intelligence to the UK as well as assorted munitions.  When night finally fell on the war, Britannia was victorious.  Aggression had not been allowed to stand.  Most importantly, the Falkland islanders were confirmed in their right to be British.

The Britishness of the islanders is the bedrock of Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the islands.  Put in terms that even the Obama administration might be able to comprehend: The Britishness of the islanders is non-negotiable.

For a very long while the government(s) of Argentina accepted the verdict of war.  But over the past few years the Argentinian government has been seized by an every growing yearning to plant their flag on the islands regardless of the desires of the locals.  The reason is simple, consisting of three letters: O I L.  There is a chance that a significant oil field exists far below the cold and stormy waters surrounding the Falklands.  With dollar signs in their eyes and envious of the new Brazilian offshore fields, the fine folks at the top of the Argentinian political and financial trees now covet the Falklands.

Apparently following his default position of appeasement brings friends and influence, Mr Obama and his people have thrown the lot of the US behind the ambitions of the Argentinians.  As Mr Obama declared his willingness for We the People to become the best customers of Brazil's new fields, so also must he believe that we should purchase oil from the liberty loving democrats in the country which brought the world Juan Peron and his lovely wife, Evita.

There is no doubt but Ms Clinton or one of her smooth talking subordinates can give a fine sounding justification for this reversal of American policy.  They would invoke the magic of "stability" and hint that the democratically elected government might be replaced by one more junta if the civilians do not redeem the lost patrimony of the islands.  Conceivably the lads and lassies of Foggy Bottom might question the ancient claim exercised by the UK over the islands and choose to ignore the outcome of the more recent war thus concluding the Argentinian claim to be more valid.  Or they might simply say the OAS is the vox populi of the hemisphere and its will is binding upon us--and the UK.

Any such pettifoggery is, beyond question, a crock of caca.  The real deal--other than Obama's reflexive need to stick it to the Brits whenever given a chance--is the conclusion that the UK no longer has the military capacity to defend the Falklands successfully.  That conclusion has a corollary.  Any future passage of arms over the Falklands will necessitate an American participation.  Such participation will be far more extensive than was that of twenty-nine years ago.

The sad reality is the UK lacks the resources it deployed back then.  It no longer has the aircraft carriers and other naval assets which allowed it to mount an amphibious operation over the monumental distance which separates the UK from the Falklands.  Simultaneously, it is true that the Argentinian military is stronger today (at least on paper) then it was.  Moreover, it is probable that Buenos Aires could count on the active support of Hugo Chavez and other leaders for whom the West is a nest of capitalist, imperialist exploiters.

In the event the Argentinians get muscular over the Falkland Islands, the US will have to choose sides.  If it honors both its values and global interests Washington must align with London and be the outsider at the OAS.  If, to the contrary, the administration goes with its ideological predilections and personal prejudices, it must line up with the OAS majority in support of Buenos Aires.  In that event the close, long standing, and quite critical relationship between the US and the UK will be as dead as George III.

Mr Obama has been a one man disaster area in US foreign relations.  Compared to Obama the days of the Bush/Cheney regime constitute a high point of American diplomacy.  In no area has the Obama approach to foreign affairs been more fraught with long term injury than the corner into which the president and his "team" have painted the US over the Falkland Islands.

In essence the Nice Young Man From Chicago has pointed a loaded gun directly at the guts of Uncle Sam's foreign relations.  And he has placed the trigger in the hands of the less than rational Argentinian government.  Get a grip on it: By the action of 7 June the Obama administration has set the stage for a blunder compared to which the invasion of Iraq seems almost like an act of brilliant strategic statesmanship.

Little Words Equal Big Change?

The central reality of diplomacy is words. Diplomats parse language with an intensity surpassing that possessed by English teachers--or even lawyers. Since Hillary Clinton is both a lawyer and, courtesy of her current job, a diplomat, she must be aware of this foundation truth.

It is for this reason that consternation is running rampant in Whitehall following SecState Clinton's meeting with Argentinian president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Buenos Aires the other night. Ms Clinton used the Argentinian name for the islands, Las Malvinas, as well as the English term, Falkland Islands.

It is arguable that Ms Clinton employed the dual formulation in order to underscore the neutral role in the current oil exploration driven dispute over who owns the islands. The Obama administration for reasons not yet articulated has adopted the pose of disinterest in the affair even while offering its good offices in facilitating negotiations between the two parties.

The British government had already declined the offer (with appropriate protocol based expressions of gratitude) with Gordon Brown taking the lead. The assorted statements from Whitehall and Downing Street make it abundantly clear that not only does Her Majesty's Government not want American "facilitation," but does not trust the Obama administration in the matter.

Why, you might ask, would the British suddenly be so skeptical of American policy?

The answer comes in one word: Israel.

The manner in which the Obama administration has handled affairs with the government of Israel gives pause, great pause even for thought on the part of any country which has believed for decades that it enjoys a "special relation" with the US. The Obama administration has done much in its treatment of Israel to cause concern on the part of long-standing American allies. The roster of shifts is too lengthy to allow even summary consideration in a single post, but the aggregate amounts to a definite fraying of any "special relation."

The British foreign ministry and government generally has to consider and interpret Ms Clinton's unprecedented use of the term "Las Malvinas" not only in the context provided by the (mis)handling of Israel but also in that provided by the numerous snubs of UK sensibilities executed by the administration and Mr Obama personally during the past year. To the mandarins of British policy the Clinton formulation hints of a shift in American policy. The shift portends nothing good for the UK or for the continuation of the "special relationship" believed to have existed since the days of FDR.

If the Obama administration expects the possible tilt toward Argentina in the current contretemps will purchase any general good will south of the Rio Grande, it is whistling past the graveyard. The turning away from Washington by the LatAm nations epitomized by the agreement to form a new regional association without the US and Canada has been driven by a nearly universal view of US obtuseness and neglect of regional concerns. It has been aided powerfully by a broad sense of American global decline.

Much of the responsibility for the eroding of the US position in Latin America dates from the embrace by both Presidents Clinton and W. Bush of "globalization" and "privatization." The results of this particularly as enforced by the IMF and World Bank have been disastrous at best and catastrophic at worst for most Latin Americans.

At the same time the emergence of a near universal democracy has provided fertile soil for demagogic and "populist" politicians who find many a vote in bashing the Yanquis. The Bolivarian trio has used this reality with great and growing success which alarms other, somewhat less immature governments including those of Brazil and Argentina. This implies the leaders of these states must move out smartly lest they be ground into a mudhole by the louder shouting anti-Americans of the hard left regimes.

In short, truckling to presumed South American interests in the Falklands matter will not purchase the US either stature or influence. It will, however, cause ever greater doubts about the constancy of the US in London--and other capitals.

The worst course of action for a Great Power is that of change. Other powers predicate their policies and positions on what the Great Powers have been and continue to do or, at least, say in diplomatic fora. While this does not imply that a Great Power cannot or should not change policy direction, particularly when the policy has proven itself a failure, it does imply that no change should come suddenly in an apparently impromptu fashion and without consultation with other involved governments.

Presumably Ms Clinton knows this. If she personally is unaware of the consequences of seeming small alterations in diplomatic language she does have the resources of the State Department available to her. Mis-speaking oneself is quite common and acceptable in domestic politics (after all that's why flacks and spin doctors exist,) it is not in international relations.

If Ms Clinton had a momentary lapse of reason, she should be counselled. If her remark presages a shift in policy--the administration should be fired.

The Great Anglo-Saxon Conspiracy Defeated Again

It's tough to be a native English speaker nowadays. It was bad enough a while back as one French intellectual after another lambasted the great Anglophone conspiracy--only to be followed to the cameras and microphones by a parade of Parisian politicos doing the same.

The Spanish (Socialist) government took up the bash-the-Anglos cudgel late last week. Madrid has blamed their homegrown fiscal crisis on the Anglo-Saxon gang, alleging assorted sinister but unspecified actions undertaken by this secret cabal which have intentionally undermined the solvency of Spain (along with, presumably, the rest of the "PIGS" group.)

Now, the one time colonies of Spain have entered the lists. The thirty-three countries south of the Rio Grande have resolved to form their own Latin America/Caribbean group of nations. Pointedly excluded were the more or less anglophone states of Canada and the US. (It appears that the Spanish and Portuguese speakers of the region were willing to allow Jamaica and other residue of the old British Empire hang around in the new and so far unnamed group.)

The US State Department viewed the move which was spearheaded by Brazil and Mexico with apparent equanimity. Probably the folks at Foggy Bottom were privately pleased that the assorted hotheads of the Lands Down South including Hugo Chavez, Ewo Morales, Raul Castro, and the deathless Ortega brothers didn't try a coup in the now rather stodgy Organization of American States which is a monument to the Good Neighbor policy of FDR and, like many other ideas of that long-ago period has outlived its utility.

Feeling robust as all get out following this slap at the Anglophones, the representatives of Latin America and the Caribbean countries lined up in full-throated support of Argentina in its current dust-up with the UK. Invoking assorted elderly UN resolutions the delegates found the oil exploration underway in the territorial waters of the Falkland Island dependency to be all kinds of icky-poo, a threat to world peace, a slap in the face of the international community, and a gross offense against history.

After working themselves into an appropriately high dudgeon over economic exploitation, the glories of nationalism, and the evils of capitalism, the delegates condemned the UK, applauded Argentina, and called upon the "international community" to stop the theft of Argentinian patrimony. Argentina claimed a great diplomatic victory.

Fer sure, dudes.

Behind the rhetoric is the reality. Argentina is an economic basket case with no immediate end in sight. The government is feeling pressure. And, the pressure is both real and growing, the inevitable legacy of decades of poorly conceived and worse executed experiments in central state socialism under both civilian and military dictatorships.

Buenos Aires wants to be bought off. A goodly percentage of the potential oil revenues would do quite nicely, thank you. Particularly if all the risks of exploration and development are borne by UK and other countries' companies and investors. Just slip Buenos Aires a percentage, say, forty percent, as hush money, and the ancient and quite unsuccessfully prosecuted claim to the Falklands will be extinguished with equal silence.

Brazil, which has large potential oil and natural gas reserves in its exclusive economic zone waters would be happy if Argentina had control (or at least a portion of "the say") over the Falklands' oil. This eventuality would make competition easier to manage. The UK is likely to be more hard headed in its development and marketing of the oil reserves, which would limit Brazil's competitive advantage globally. The relatively less efficient Argentinian approach would be to Brazil's longer term advantage.

The same argument applies to Mexico and Venezuela. Both countries have significant reserves which are less and less efficiently extracted and brought to the international market. Neither country sees any percentage (other than negative) in the Falkland product being sold by the aggressive and efficient companies of the UK (and quite probably) the US. Socialism of either the Mexican or (to a greater extent) the Venezuelan sort cannot hang with the front porch dogs of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. And, both governments know it very well. Better see the Falklands oil fields under Hispanophone control.

While the Obama administration and many in the "Progressive Caucus"of the Democratic Party may think they are ordained to preside over the "graceful decline" of the US, there are few in the American public let alone the American business community who would agree that our best days are long in our past. The US, the West, and the world need oil if for no other reason than it takes time--a lot of time--to bring the nuclear reactors and alternative energy prime movers on line in significant quantity. The oil of the Falklands as well as other already known deposits are necessary to keep the world running as the alternatives are developed.

This means the US has little realistic choice other than supporting the UK in its contretemps with Argentina. It probably does not mean war is looming, but the potential for that undesired option is lowered if the US quickly and firmly plants its flag alongside that of the UK.

Given that it is both welcome and fortuitous that the assorted LatAm and Caribbean states have decided to form an English-free zone, it is better for all parties that the new outfit serve as the forum for the Falkland dispute. Lord knows, nothing will happen outside the realm of talk and posturing.

Meanwhile, the adults of the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy can get on with the job of providing necessary basic resources for the world.

The World's Horizon Gets More Fun, Finally

Watching the Obama administration's fumbling efforts at crisis management, diplomacy, and foreign affairs generally has become both boring and frustrating. Not since the equally brainless, clueless days of the Ford and Carter administrations has the horizon of foreign relations been so flat, so unbroken by anything resembling real challenge and real success.

Now, where the mists of the South Atlantic meet the fogs of Argentinian politics we can see the emerging outlines of something which combines the old and the new, the foreign and domestic, the regional and the global in a very interesting way. The place in the center of the new crosshairs is the Falkland Islands. The reason is oil.

The American owned drilling rig Ocean Guardian is en route to the Falklands. To err on the side of accuracy it is headed to a spot in the ocean roughly one hundred miles northwest of Port Stanley and thus well within the exclusive economic zone of the British dependency. It is believed that as many as sixty million barrels of oil may be found under the seabed. (By comparison the North Sea oilfield has produced roughly forty million barrels to date.)

The Argentinian government tore up the draft agreement with the UK which would have provided for joint development of the oil resources in this long disputed region. This 2007 action has been followed by the Argentinian Congress passing legislation last December attaching the Falklands to the province of Tierra del Fuego. In addition the Buenos Aires government has taken the matter to the International Court at the Hague.

Argentinian nationalism runs high, very high--and not just when an illegitimate, bloody military junta is running the show. Making matters more pressing for the administration of President Christina de Kirchner is the dismal state of the Argentinian economy. Considering how dependent the country is upon financial assistance and support from the US and the international financial agencies, it is not too wide of the mark to say the Argentinian economy's situation is desperate. Of course, desperate times cry for desperate solutions.

A whole bunch of petrobucks now and into the next few decades must look very, very appealing to the lads and lassies of Buenos Aires about now. The ForMin has not only reinvoked the ancient (and equally insubstantial) claim of sovereignty over the "Islas Malvinas" but threatened to take all necessary measures to prevent "illegal" operations there.

In the real world the Falklands are not the ripe and undefended plum the Argentinian generals took them to be back in 1982. Now the islands are well defended. Now, again unlike the years preceding the Argentinian invasion, the British government is and has been quite clear in its determination to maintain sovereignty over the islands.

It boggles the mind to consider that Buenos Aires might actually be considering the "military option" in the Falklands. It is far more likely that the de Kirchner government is attempting a bit of crude international blackmail.

The hard pressed Argies must be hoping that a bit of bluster, a tad of threat, a bit of an appeal to the "international community" will result in the UK offering a better deal than it had before in terms of splitting oil revenues. The de Kirchner crowd must be betting that the wobbly Brown ministry facing a very demanding uphill battle in the next elections will be more willing to bribe than hang tough.

Beyond those factors the strategists of Buenos Aires are more than likely convinced that the British public lacks the political will it demonstrated back in 1982. The highly evident war weariness shown by the British public regarding Afghanistan as well as the acrimonious investigation into the Blair ministry's decision to join the US in the invasion of Iraq have served to convince the Argentinians that the British will be quite willing to genuflect before the illusory winds of war in the South Atlantic.

If matters escalate in the slightest the Obama administration will have one more unexpected foreign policy challenge. The question will be simple: Does the US in 2010 act as it did in 1982, complete support of a key partner? Considering the fact that British troops are fighting and dying along with US Marines in Operation Moshtarak and that Britain is a strong adherent of the no-nukes-for-the-mullahs position, the answer would seem to be self-evident.

But, considering the parallel universe so often inhabited by the Obama administration, the forces of the real world may not be so compelling. When one takes a close look at the administration's approach to foreign affairs in which no country is seen as an "enemy" and very few, if any, as "friends," in which the purpose of economic sanctions is not to coerce a government into compliance with US policy demands but only to convince the government to come back to the negotiating table, the probability of taking an unreservedly pro-London position is small.

It is far more likely that President Obama will emulate Rodney King and wail, "Can't we all just get along." In pursuit of this goal the President and his freight haulers will seek victory through appeasement, peace through abnegation.

At that point it is to be hoped that the British will remind Mr Obama of their own experience with feeding raw meat to a wolf in the hopes the beast will turn vegan. It was called Munich. And, World War II.