Will the UK lose the Falklands?
Provided a series of posts on the current political rift with between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands. It appears that the UK has few friends in Latin America, and if this escalates to a conflict may in fact find themselves facing a coalition of Latin American nations, which will put the U.S. in an ackward position to say the least. One would hope the diplomats will work this out, but the rapid escalation of tensions may have put both nations in a position where compromise is politically infeasible.
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/a...egional-access
War 'unlikely' in Falklands, but UK could lose regional access
Quote:
The Falklands have been at the centre of a territorial dispute between Argentina and Britain that dates back to the 19th century. Nevertheless, the feud has been reinvigorated following recent UK oil exploration. In particular, the announcement last month by UK-based company Rockhopper Exploration that it may have discovered significant oil reserves in the North Falklands Basin have heightened tensions and highlighted the potential geopolitical risks involved in the search for fossil fuels. This comes after Rockhopper unveiled plans last year for a $2bn project to transform the islands into a major oil production hub. An announcement, which sparked further accusations from Argentinian officials that Britain has taken Argentine resources from the Islands and the waters surrounding them.
Quote:
While it is highly unlikely that the current dispute will lead to armed conflict, Argentina's continued ability to mobilise regional sympathy over the Falklands debate may result in the UK being further denied a level of access within the region that it once took for granted. This may include constraining Britain's ability to promote British business in the region, or denying military ships access to key Latin American ports - as happened in September 2010. Then, the Uruguayan authorities prevented HMS Gloucester from docking in Montevideo and, in January 2011, when Brazil refused permission for HMS Clyde to dock in Rio de Janeiro. Argentina could also seek to end the last commercial aviation link between the Falklands and Chile. As Argentina strengthens its relations throughout Latin America and as the region continues to support current integration efforts - the UK could, therefore, find itself becoming increasingly isolated as tensions over the dispute continue to escalate. Perhaps, the biggest game-changer in this debate rests then with the answer to the following question: just how far are other Latin American countries prepared to go to support Argentina's territorial claims to the Falklands?
A few points to consider and a "handbag"
There are many points that can be made over this diplomatic tussle. So not in order of priority.
What is puzzling is that it appears the UK made no preparations for the anniversary of the 1982 Falklands War and any upsurge in Argentinian action or rhetoric. A 'routine' six week tour of duty by Prince William, on SAR duties, is at least questionable, if not provocative and probably only appreciated by the Falkland Islanders.
The BBC reported more concern over the lack of food supplies, which appears to be due to Argentinian diplomacy curtailing trade links:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16980747
In 1982 Argentina was able to conduct Hercules flights to the Falklands even after hostilities had started.
Secondly a German-made submarine caused the RN a "headache" as it was never located and was known to be on patrol. They now have three such modern submarines. The UK had several SSNs then deployed.
Like others I hope Argentina has excluded using her limited, high risk military options.
Her diplomacy before this tussle was successful in restricting trade with the Falklands, even Chile was wavering (traditionally not on good terms with Argentina). Cutting off Falkland Islanders links with Argentina is and was a mistake, such as oil supplies, medical, fruit & veg etc.
The discovery of oil & gas is a hardy perennial, announcements made and little happens. I expect exploitation costs are prohibitive, IIRC due to being in deep water and so far from any friendly industrial support.
There's also a personal factor. I doubt that any UK politician will change the existing policy until Mrs Thatcher is buried, her "handbag" lives on!
So, returning to the question: Will the UK lose the Falklands?
No. The overall price was high - after 1982 - and is now small. Military reinforcement can be done easily and with a SSN hidden from sight.
You take what you can get, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
Regardless, as a Bolivaran in good standing she was guaranteed the diplomatic support of Columbia, Brazil and Cuba. I doubt they'd back her to the point of armed conflict.
Since the Columbian government is tied up dealing with a decades–long insurgency and the Cuban government is tied up dealing with a neighbor whose stated policy is regime change and who also happens to be the most powerful nation in the history of the world I think we can be pretty sure that those two aren’t going to go to blows for Argentina. And I believe that the Brazilians would rather not have their carrier destroyed by the Brits. But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn.