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.
Some fine weather, obviously!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dayuhan
what would the cost to britain be if the falklands were lost?
:d
Falklands Remembered: return to Mount Longdon
A short article:
Quote:
Major General Jonathan Shaw CBE is Colonel Commandant of The Parachute Regiment and the Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff. Earlier this year, he returned for the first time in three decades to the Falklands with his wife Gillie and children Tom, 14, Ella, 10, to tell them the story of a battle he’ll never forget.
A few grim passages, that is the reality of combat:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...t-Longdon.html
RUSI opinion piece on Falklands security....
30 years on from British landings on the Falklands...
Falklands War memorial unveiled at National Arboretum
A service is being held to dedicate a new memorial to the 255 Britons who died in the Falklands War.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...178_de27-1.jpg
The memorial was commissioned by British veterans' organisation, the South Atlantic Medal Association 1982
Anglo-Encirclement of The Western Hemisphere
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Article 5 does not cover that place of Earth. It's about Europe and NA.
The Lisbon treaty might apply, though; that depends on definitions (see comments
here).
n.b. Article 5 was invoked for Afghanistan. Ref: above discussion.
In an "Empire Strikes Back" turnabout The Commonwealth sits not only on the vast oil reserves discussed but the geostrategic key terrain of lands & seas dominating both the Drake Passage & The Northwest Passage, yes that long sought secret high speed route to Asia, its only existed since 2007 to regular shipping, unintended consequence of "global warming".
Although their ability to project Air-Sea dominance is presently minimal, for a moment which will not last, The UK remains capable of projecting power vis-a-vis amphibious forces. They also have access to Airfields in Canada, New Zealand & elsewhere, in support and old island "coaling" ports in between. Most importantly they have one of the best levels of access to Troopship Service which is an economic and more reliable, if slower, way of moving an Army than airpower and doesn't require an airhead but a beachhead, with tenders or landing crafts. As such the Argentines should do well to fear the BA as well as the RN. So this small war question isn't merely a littoral issue.
It could also be argued that they, The British, presently control a degree of access to the Panama canal via the B.W.I. Overall the Atlantic is still the domain of the Scepter'd Isle and little has changed since the Battle of the Spanish Armada, especially with their present serene alliance, our special friendship. This is in spite of a present Communist Bulge in The Western Hemisphere, about the Panama Canal Zone, our own Hong Kong, expansion of which may yet cause consternation and civil engineering crises in Bayonne and elsewhere due to increased shipping tonnage.
From a Small Wars perspective, the threat is globalist communist incursion in South America. Enslavement of the populations & thievery of their resources of gas, oil, precious metals, woods, minerals, gems and water will be sought by the enemies of the American way of life.
To what degree are China and Cuba influencing action in the region?
Have North Korean and Iranian agents spread their influence there also?
Do circumstances indicate future obligation and investment on our part?
FYI: Article Five has only been invoked for Asia
Two RN carriers - minus aircraft and not operational
The contract to build two large British aircraft carriers was so legally constructed they could not be cancelled, thanks to the UK's most powerful lobby, BAE. Instead we face the strong likelihood of having two carriers minus any aircraft to fly from them (assuming the F35 flies and is produced) and a nation unable for a host of reasons to put both into operational use.
I do not think it is a wise strategic choice to order the carriers, even more so given the state of the economy. An 'Air-Sea dominance' role is not one I recall being made much of, usually the very minimal debate has featured the flexible projection of influence and the power to intervene.
Defending the Falklands is a very low priority for the UK, despite the diplomatic noise from Argentina, which has neither the will or capability currently to use force and BA has stressed force is not an option.
Special Relationship 1982, not so special
The UK press have been feasting on the newly released Cabinet papers for 1982, under the 'Thirty Year Rule' for public disclosure and so we have this headline 'US wanted to warn Argentina about South Georgia'. I recall that relations were a little taut, but this stretches the imagination:
Quote:
The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files.
US strategic, national policy aside it has been in the public domain for many years the divergence between DoS and DoD; this disclosure is new to the public.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...h-Georgia.html
Did the United States want to give the Argentines advance warning?
Quote:
The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files.
Or was it just Secretary “I am in control here” Haig? :rolleyes: