View Full Version : Escalating Falklands oil dispute goes to UN
Escalating Falklands oil dispute goes to UN
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7038582.ece
".....The US offered Britain only tepid support. The State Department said that it took no position on the sovereignty claims of either country.
White House officials contacted by The Times would not be quoted on the dispute — not for fear of being drawn into a diplomatic showdown but because, as one admitted, it had barely registered as a concern for the Administration. A generation ago President Reagan was slow to back publicly Britain’s efforts to recapture the islands, but US intelligence proved critical to British military success.............
Hmmmmmm, interesting. Been going tat, tat, tat - not tit for tat ever since the 1980s. The Argies want the islands back - not for whats on them but for whats around them. Plus a little bit of pride.
The Reaper
02-23-2010, 19:09
When I was in Argentina in the late '90s-early '00s, many parts of the barracks and occasionally public places had "Las Malvinas son nuestras!" painted in large letters.
I think there are internal problems in Argentina and the leadership is trying to divert attention elsewhere.
TR
I've spent a lot of time in Argentina, long enough to know some folks well enough to actually bring this topic up. The war was a stain on the nation and they still feel deeply dishonored. Now, those feelings are being manipulated for political gain. It can only end one way.
skylinedrive
02-24-2010, 02:22
Considering the strength iof the British Forces on the Falklands as well as the state of the Argentine Navy and Air Force, I can't imagine the Argentinians being so foolish to attempt another military operation.
Considering the strength iof the British Forces on the Falklands as well as the state of the Argentine Navy and Air Force, I can't imagine the Argentinians being so foolish to attempt another military operation.
The British Navy is a lot smaller than it was in the early 80s during the cold war even though they say they keep a sub on station in the area.
The British forces there are nothing but a speed bump if the Argies got serious about another sneak invasion. The Brits would have to mount another campaign to take it back or take the issue to the UN.
Does anyone think the UN would tell the Argies to go home?
Do you think the Brits have the military might and political will to mount another campaign for the islands?
British Navy
Subs.............1980 32 - 2009 12
A/C................1980 3...- 2009 3
Sur. Combat..1980 67 - 2009 24
Lots of logistical issues for both sides.
I was TDY at Camp Smith from the 7thSFG during the Falklands War and we monitored the situation in real-time at I-PAC. FWIW - there was a bit more than Intel support given to the UK as they struggled to project enough power over that distance for that operation.
That fall I spent time with an SAS team who had just returned from that fray and they were still pretty beaten up from it physically and mentally from their losses there - the Falklands/Maldives are rough, especially in the winter - they had some interesting stories about the Argentines and thought little of them militarily.
One point which the Falklands campaign made was naval - prior to that time the thinking was for lighter, faster, composite-hulled ships - the devastating impact of the Exocets used by the Argentines on such lighter-hulled ships of the RN changed our views and we sought a return to the idea of the necessity for a sturdier hull structure in our ships (e.g., FF/DE).
My wife and I were in Argentina this past September - nice vacation but the economy there has suffered far worse than here to date. Their pride has been hurt over a number of issues over the years - always a sensitive matter amongst many (if not most) cultures - and there could be others goading them on a bit to see how the UK-US and UN respond.
IMO - the fact that they have sought to reconcile their issues in the UN is a positive step in comparison to their previous actions.
However - MOO and YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
.......... - the Falklands/Maldives are rough, especially in the winter - they had some interesting stories about the Argentines and thought little of them militarily.............
The Islands look small on the map but when trying to defend them they get a lot bigger.
The Argies gained the advantage at first based on surprise. Then they had time on their side which some say they used poorly to prepare for the counter attack.
Once the Brits parked the fleet off the Islands and established themselves the advantage switched to them. They could concentrate and strike where they wished while the Argies had to defend all the key points.
And IIRC a great night attack was made by the Gurkas - even though they didn't. PsyOps.
As a side note - I don't think the Argies will fail to arm the bombs this time.
I'm glad that someone brought this up...does anyone know of any good info sources for AAR's, more info, etc.? It's an interesting topic and I'd like to do some further reading...
I'm glad that someone brought this up...does anyone know of any good info sources for AAR's, more info, etc.? It's an interesting topic and I'd like to do some further reading...
This is a pretty good place to begin...
http://www.historyofwaronline.com/Falklands.html
Richard
Falklands War II?
Another take on the same story with some other interesting links.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8cf_1266865755
And this is good from Richard's link.
http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article11.html
" ….. Given the justice of the Argentine protest over what was probably an illegal seizure of the islands by Great Britain, what justice is there in the British position? In fact, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the British occupation of the islands in 1833, the British have physically governed the islands longer than all of the previous owners combined. Further, neither Argentina nor Spain had made any attempts to develop the islands, beyond Vernet's grandiose schemes, and no private individuals owned any expanse of land under Spanish or Argentine rule except for Vernet and his grantees. Under British government, perhaps 2,000 permanent settlers have developed the land, half of which was privately owned, the rest being owned by the Falkland Islands Company. Moreover, it is clear from recent events that the Falkland Islanders are at least partially self-governing, having thwarted various proposals made by both sides to end the struggle through negotiations. The fact that most of the islanders are descended from five or six generations of a continuously resident population is not, as the Argentines have claimed, irrelevant to the issue. The Argentine refusal to consider the islanders' wishes when addressing the issue of sovereignty was and is foolishly shortsighted, since it makes the issue one of human rather than legal rights, thereby diminishing the stature of their case in the eyes of the democratically governed world."................"
Navy (UK) intercepts Argentinian warship near British waters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7313829/Navy-intercepts-Argentinian-warship-near-British-waters.html
The story is for the incounter on 28 January.
"......He said: “We can confirm that on 28 January this year during rough weather and at night, HMS YORK and an Argentine ship were operating in the same locality in international waters around 50 miles from Falkland Island Territorial Waters. After a friendly dialogue by radio they each continued with their own exercises.”......."
The Argentine military has an imagine problem at the moment due to some very unprofessional behavior by junior officers during the Falklans campaign. Think how much of an uproar we would have in the States if combined civilian / military enquirees were to find clear substantiated instances of joes dieing as a direct result of negligence and abuse. Refusing to properly feed a soldier and then when he is caught "stealing" food, staking him to the ground naked and leaving him to die of exposure is not something easliy forgotten. Just one off many instances. They need to deflect the negative attention on to the evil Brits. Or maybe it is all about the Benjamins.
x/S
The Search for the Disappeared remains an issue in Argentina - as well as Uruguay, Chile, Guatemala, etc.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/index.htm
Richard
skylinedrive
02-26-2010, 08:12
The British Navy is a lot smaller than it was in the early 80s during the cold war even though they say they keep a sub on station in the area.
The British forces there are nothing but a speed bump if the Argies got serious about another sneak invasion. The Brits would have to mount another campaign to take it back or take the issue to the UN.
Does anyone think the UN would tell the Argies to go home?
Do you think the Brits have the military might and political will to mount another campaign for the islands?
British Navy
Subs.............1980 32 - 2009 12
A/C................1980 3...- 2009 3
Sur. Combat..1980 67 - 2009 24
Lots of logistical issues for both sides.
First of all I'm aware that my meager military experiences do not qualify me to make an infallible analysis of the situation at hand! I'm what you would describe as an "armchair general".
Further on I can only concur that the UK would have big problems retaking the Falklands after a successful Argentinean invasion.
Nonetheless for such an invasion to be successful the Fuerzas Aereas would need to gain aerial superiority. And I’m afraid that would not be so easily realized given today’s situation. The air defense radar installations on Mt Harriet and at Byron Heights are state of the art. As the Argentinean FA does, as far as I know, not have an anti-radar capacity it would be very hard to sneak in undetected. The four Tiffies are a serious thread to any attacking aerial platform and the FAA's Mirages and A4, as well as the Armada's Super Etendards should be no match for them. The more so when you consider that the Argentineans would be operating on the limit of their range with a very short time on target, where as the Typhoons have an aerial refueling capability, with the VC10 operating out of RAF Mt Pleasant.
I doubt that the odds would be much better on the naval front with a RN hunter sub as well as a frigate patrolling the island's waters.
The only viable option, again in the eyes of an "armchair strategist", would be for the Argentineans to launch a SOF raid to destroy the radar installations and the aircraft at RAF Mt Pleasant on the ground. I don't have enough knowledge about the Argentinean's capabilities to make a definite judgment about the chances of success for such an operation! But I guess you will agree that it would take a substantial force, 150 to 200 strong, to carry out such a raid! Do the Argentineans have the capabilities to infiltrate such a large number of troops undetected?
Even if they would manage to take out the British air defenses, this would still leave the naval thread to the Armada’s naval landing forces! I guess you will agree that the Armada lacks the ASM capacities to hunt down a Trafalgar class SSN.
The UK land forces might be unimpressive at a first glimpse! An infantry company from the British Army augmented by the company strength infantry of the FDF surely is utterly overstretched to defend the whole territory of the Falklands. But what if the Brits would choose to concentrate their infantry forces on the eastern parts of East Falklands, only to defend Port Stanley and their main military installations? What good would a foothold on West Falklands or at San Carlos do the Argentineans? The yomp across East Falklands was a unique military feat, and I sincerely doubt that the Argentineans have enough units on par with the Royal Marine Commandos and the Paras, to repeat that exploit! So deny the only road across the eastern Island, connecting Port Stanley to Lafionia and San Carlos, to the invader and things will bog down very quickly. The more so as the 8500 ft and 5000 ft runways at RAF Mt Pleasant would allow for aerial reinforcements to be flown in.
I don’t want to loose any time writing about the UN, best take it’s a sad joke, worst you can consider it as an institutionalized protection for the tyrants of the world.
I’m totally convinced though that the Brits would not let a military attack on the Falklands pass unpunished! For them it’s as much a part of the UK as Reading, Edinburgh or Trafalgar Square! The inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, by their own choosing so! Caving in only an inch to the Argentinean’s demands, or even worse, not protecting them against any form of aggression would be paramount to political suicide for any British politician.
Regarding the military strength of the UK you are perfectly right that the RN is not the same as it used to be in 1982, but neither are the Argentinean military forces. And please take into account that, alltough the number of vessels in the Royal navy has been constantly decreasing during the last three decades, the quality of the remaining vessels has been improving! As for the amphibious capabilities of the RN, they are much better then they were in 1982! But I have to admit that it is doubtful if those phibs would help much due to the RN's lack of aircraft carriers.
Another aspect I would not choose to neglect is the fact that, imho, the US could not deny their full military help to the UK. The Warsaw Pact is gone, the Cold War is over and there is no excuse for the US not to help their most valuable ally against an invasion.
So has changed the relationship of the US with it's south american neighbours! Morales, Chavez and the whole bunch of anti imperialistic left wing lunatics are more and more influential. The relations of the US with most of the South American governments couldn't get much worse, even if the US would choose to intervene on the side of teh UK. Staying neutral, on the other hand, might only strengthen Chavez and his cronies.
Then we have to consider the British engagement in the GWOT.
Do you really think any government of Her Majesty would leave the squaddies in Afghanistan if the US administration would choose not to help against an Argentine military action? Already the british public opinion regarding the Afghan war is slowly changing. I don’t think the Brits would carry on in the GWOT if they felt betrayed by the US. The repercussions of a serious deterioration of the “special relationship”could easily lead to a collapse of NATO.
These are just my thoughts on the highly hypothetical situation we've been discussing. In no way I do want to qualify my poor understanding of military matters as being on a higher level then that of the QP's on this board!
Best regards.
tom
You are right Tom.
The ball would open with a sneak attack on the early warning systems followed by quick insertion of ground forces. Hard but not impossible.
Supply and reenforcement now becomes the big issue for the Argies. The Brit subs would cut off the sea route so it would have to be by air.
It then, once again, becomes a waiting game as the Brits marshall their forces and do the diplomatic thing. Once marshalled it takes time to move them south.
The first war was interesting in the US, before the 24 hour news cycle and the internet. Lots of Spanish speakers backed the Argiies - flags waving and such. Then we had Ronnie, now we have Barry. How has the US reacted to the situation in Honduras? Do not throw the US into the British camp so quickly.
As with the first war once the fleet arrives the advantage shifts back to the Brits, they can strike when and where they wish while the Argies defend everywhere.
But, again, as with the first war can the Brits defend the invasion force from Argie air attacks? Ground mounted anti ship missles? Don't the Chicoms have one of those?
Could become one of those cases where "The Will" will count most.
I bet there are a number of planning staffs doing stubby pencil work on a number of similar cases around the world.
skylinedrive
02-26-2010, 09:41
Crisises and international tensions like that at hand are always full of "if's" and "when's"
Let's hope the levelheaded guys will prevail and there won't be another conflict nobody will gain anything from!
On a side note: You mentioned the hype about the Gurkha's night attack!
Since the 1982 war all over South America "gurkha" is used to describe real nasty and brutal people....so big was the psychologocal impact of those fine combat troops on the Argentinian morale!!!!!
The Reaper
02-26-2010, 11:30
The Brits have now had enough time to upgrade their ADA systems, anti-ship systems, intel networks, and to reinforce their ground, air, and naval forces.
Unless someone in the Argentine military has hit the lottery and upgraded their capabilities recently, I do not think they can attack and seize the islands successfully.
I do think that they could attack oil platforms and shipping in the area with some degree of success.
TR
Hillary Clinton steps into Falklands row after 'feeble' Obama fails to back Britain in stand-off with Argentina
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253878/Falkland-Islands-oil-row-Hillary-Clinton-steps-Argentina-stand-off.html#ixzz0gnCczEl5
"...........Argentina already has the support of Latin America and the Caribbean in the row with Britain, and regional leaders are expected to press the case with Mrs Clinton............"
Seems like all of the President's friends are on the side of Argentina. I wonder who gets thrown under the bus this time?
Seems like all of the President's friends are on the side of Argentina. I wonder who gets thrown under the bus this time?
As I believe you hinted earlier, the U.K.
The U.K already has other problems, with the Wall Street Journal posting hints of a Sterling crisis. Plus, it seems likely that the individual who sent back the Churchill sculpture is not an Anglophile.
skylinedrive
03-02-2010, 00:06
I guess Gordon Brown has a reason to worry now;)
US 'ready to help' on Falklands
The US is ready to help Britain and Argentina resolve their dispute over the Falkland Islands, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.
Argentina claims sovereignty over the Falklands, which it calls the Malvinas.
It has been angered by the UK's decision to begin drilling for oil under a seabed off the islands.
Mrs Clinton said the row should be resolved between the two, but "if we can be of any help in facilitating such an effort, we stand ready to do so".
Ms Clinton spoke before she met Argentine President Cristina Fernandez as part of a tour of Latin America.
She is also due to visit Chile - reeling from a massive earthquake which killed more than 700 people - Brazil, Costa Rica and Guatemala.
The AP news agency reported that at the meeting, Argentina asked for US help in resolving the dispute.
"What we have requested is mediation as a friendly country of both Argentina and the United Kingdom," it quoted Ms Fernandez as saying.
After the meeting, Mrs Clinton agreed on the need for talks but did not spell out what the US role might be.
"We would like to see Argentina and the UK sit down and resolve the issues between them in a peaceful and productive way," she said.
"We cannot make either one do so."
Diplomatic offensive
Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana last week claimed that by drilling in the disputed waters, Britain was a committing a unilateral act contrary to international law.
He asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to bring the UK into talks over the sovereignty of the islands.
The UK government says the islands have a "legitimate right" to develop an oil industry within their waters.
Britain has exercised sovereignty in the Falklands since 1833. The islanders are almost all of British descent.
Argentina says it has a right to the islands because it inherited them from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s.
It invaded the islands in 1982, prompting the UK to seize back control in a seven-week war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel.
The current Argentine government has ruled out any military action over the islands, but is stepping up a diplomatic offensive to try to pressure London into negotiations.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8544634.stm
Published: 2010/03/02 02:41:38 GMT
© BBC MMX
Print Sponsor
skylinedrive
03-10-2010, 11:37
Giles Whittell, Michael Evans and Catherine Philp, Washington
British diplomats have expressed serious concerns to the US State Department at least three times over Washington’s response to the latest dispute over the Falkland Islands, The Times has learnt.
In telephone calls and meetings, senior diplomats and specialists were forced to restate Britain’s position on sovereignty over the islands and seek clarification of the US position after a State Department spokesman in February answered a question about the Falklands by saying: “Or the Malvinas, depending on how you see it.”
British anger over the Obama Administration’s apparent indifference to the issue mounted when Hillary Clinton endorsed President Fernández de Kirchner’s call for talks on sovereignty while she was in Buenos Aires last week, State Department sources said.
The new details of British complaints emerged as influential conservatives in Washington described the Administration’s handling of the dispute as offensive, ignorant and a reflection of a lack of enthusiasm for the idea of a special relationship between the two countries.
British officials in Washington say publicly that the Falklands issue has been raised only in “friendly conversations in the course of normal business” between the Embassy and the Administration. Privately, however, there is a sense that the Obama Administration has not taken on board British sensibilities and that it has been too dismissive of points raised in London. Officials said that several phone calls were made and an e-mail was sent after the State Department spokesman called the islands the Malvinas.
Asked why the US chose to remain neutral despite Britain’s longstanding claims, the spokesman twice avoided calling them the Falklands, first saying “whatever you want to call them” and then using the Argentine name. US sources described the calls and meetings as demarches — in diplomatic parlance, formal protests. A British official insisted that “nobody’s been writing any formal letters”, adding that Britain was “genuinely quite relaxed” about the American position.
The same cannot be said of President Obama’s critics in Washington. The Pentagon official primarily responsible for providing the British Forces “with whatever they needed” in the Falklands campaign in 1982 yesterday accused the Administration of insulting Britain. Richard Perle, then assistant Secretary for Defence said: “I think using the description Malvinas is offensive to British interests.”
Yesterday David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who has made much of his close personal relationship with Mrs Clinton, flew to Boston, where he will give a speech today on Afghanistan. Washington is not on his itinerary and he will return to London without meeting his opposite number.
The State Department denied last night any friction with “our British friends” over the Falklands but stood by everything Mrs Clinton said in her meeting with Mrs Kirchner.
The Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley said: “The Secretary said we stand ready to help if that is desired.” Mr Crowley acknowledged “conversations” with British officials over the dispute with Argentina but said that he was not aware of ill-feeling.
What's in a name?
Falkland Islands From Falkland Sound, the channel between the two main islands, which was named in 1690 by John Strong, a British mariner, after his patron Anthony Cary, Fifth Viscount Falkland
Islas Malvinas The Spanish name is derived from the French name, Îles Malouines, given to the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers — mariners and fishermen from Saint-Malo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7055925.ece