Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: Will the UK lose the Falklands?

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default 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

    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.
    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?
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 02-12-2012 at 06:40 PM.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...927175500.html

    What underlies the Falklands dispute?

    "There are three elements that are very sensitive. First is the anniversary of the war, then we have the increment of the military British presence in the disputed area and finally the thorny issue of oil exploitation by the British in a unilateral manner which is not compatible with the UN resolution."

    - Fernando Petrella, a former Argentinian envoy to the UN
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Falklands.html

    Hugo Chavez says Venezuelan troops would fight with Argentina over Falklands

    Hugo Chavez has pledged that Venezuelan armed forces would fight alongside Argentina against Britain in any future conflict over the Falkland Islands at a regional meeting this weekend.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-ceremony.html

    Argentine president Cristina Kirchner hosting Falklands ceremony

    Argentine President Cristina Kirchner invited Falklands War veterans and opposition leaders to a ceremony on Tuesday amid renewed tensions with London ahead of the 30-year anniversary of a conflict over the archipelago.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...arisation.html


    Mr Castro, the 85-year-old said, who gave a ranting two-hour broadcast to launch his memoirs this week, made fun of the Royal Navy in his speech:
    Somewhere is the English ship sailing to the Falklands but the English only have one little boat left...The only ones who have aircraft carriers are the Yankees. All the English can do is send over a destroyer, they can't even send an aircraft carrier.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Ki-moon.html

    UK and Argentina must stop 'escalating' conflict over Falklands, says Ban Ki-moon
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Falklands.html

    UK accused of deploying nuclear weapons near the Falklands

    In an increasingly tense war of words, Argentinian Foreign Minister Hector Timberman claims the UK is deploying nuclear weapons near the Falkland Islands
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-windfall.html

    Falklands oilfields could yield $176bn tax windfall

    The Falkland Islands stand to benefit from an enormous $176bn (£111.7bn) tax windfall from oil and gas exploration, according to a major new report.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-12-2012 at 09:29 PM. Reason: Fix Castro quote

  3. #3
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro should be more more aware of the capabilities of nuclear submarines. Or at least Mr. Chavez. I suspect Mr. Castro already knows and is having his bit of fun.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,600

    Default

    It is probably worth remembering that the Argentines have taken even deeper defence cuts than the UK (they spend about 0.9% of GNP on defence, one of the lowest in Latin America), and have undergone virtually no modernization (and no replacements) since 1982.

    This is all largely political bluster, in my humble opinion.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    This is all largely political bluster, in my humble opinion.
    Perhaps and hopefully so, but bluster can sometimes lead to dumb actions that escalate rapidly. The main point of my posts was will the UK lose the Falklands, and losing the Falklands is not limited to war. If they face enough pressure from the UN and Latin American nations circle the wagons to support Argentina will they have enough political and economic clout to convince the UK to leave or at least modify their position? The UK left Hong Kong without a fight.

    Posted by Carl,

    Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro should be more more aware of the capabilities of nuclear submarines. Or at least Mr. Chavez. I suspect Mr. Castro already knows and is having his bit of fun
    .

    What useful capabilities would those be for mitigating this potential conflict? Safe bet the UK won't use nukes to maintain a territory, but I guess they can sink a few Argentinian Naval vessels if the need arised, still not convinced it is much of deterrent against Argentina's strategy.

  6. #6
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Bill:

    The Argentine Navy most likely has zero capability to hunt down and destroy a Royal Navy nuke attack boat. Those boats can kill what surface ships they will as they please. The Argentines could not supply a force on the Falklands but by air. I don't know if they have the capability to do that but even if they do it would be very expensive. That is the first thing.

    If the British chose to view any military attempt on the Falklands as an old fashioned act of war, they might then blockade or quarantine, or whatever the legal term is, Argentina. They would have the physical capability to shut down seaborne trade to Argentina. They wouldn't even have to sink anything, just announce that they would and no commercial ship would chance it. I don't know the legalities but they could do as they pleased to Argentine maritime trade and there is nothing that could stop them.

    Lastly some of those attack boats carry Tomahawks and they could shoot up various targets in Argentina where and when they chose.

    As long as the Royal Navy has those subs, and the Argentine Navy has no way to sink them, the British control Argentina's access to the ocean. Whether Great Britain would play that hard, I don't know, but they have the capability if they want to use it.

    The British did leave Hong Kong. But there they were up against China on the other side of the world, not Argentina in the South Atlantic.
    Last edited by carl; 02-13-2012 at 04:23 AM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  7. #7
    Council Member Red Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Currently based in the US.
    Posts
    335

    Default

    One of the best tours I ever did was in the Falklands. Beautiful place and professionally a great place to learn 'Jointery'.

    I would agree with Rex Brynen that Argentina has very limited military means to take and then hold the Falklands. I would assess that the Falklands are vulnerable to a coup de main type operation, but thereafter it is difficult to see how things would progress. The UK has all but neutered it's amphibious capability, whereas with the current UK capability in the South Atlantic (even with or without the presence of SSNs) the Argentinians would find it very difficult to reinforce and resupply any garrison.

    Currently Kirchner appears to be whipping up the hysteria for domestic political reasons, not least to distract attention from the dire state of the economy (as an aside it is interesting to note that the Kirchners were not very rich before they went into politics, but are exceedingly rich now ). The issue will undoubtedly boil down to oil and gas.

    If commercially exploitable reserves of oil and gas are found within the Falklands Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) then this may make a war worth fighting for from an Argentianian perspective, especially if the effort becomes pan-South American. A 'good war' by a popular alliance of South American nations against what is widely perceived as a colonial power with the prospect of a share of significant oil and gas revenues at the end would be an attractive proposition. The UK has limited clout in South America, in trading, financial and military terms she is now a middle weight power. Any pan-South American consensus on the Falklands issue would be difficult for the UK to counter and would place the US in an awkward position.

    I cannot help but think however that the Argentinians are going about this the wrong way. If they encouraged trade and cultural ties with the Falklands they are more likely to bring the Falklands Islanders on to a negotiating stance in a generation or two. As it is since the 1982 invasion the Falkland Islanders have become culturally much closer with the UK and more distinct from South America.
    RR

    "War is an option of difficulties"

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Major caveat to the following "analysis"/guesswork - I am absolutely NOT a LatAm expert, don't speak Spanish (I'm conversant in British), and have never even been south of Mexico/Caribbean.

    Argentina has long claimed/pursued the Falklands, both pre and post '82. The possibility of oil makes it somewhat more interesting, but the occasional noise from the Argentinians about this isn't really new.

    In 2010 the US changed policy (sort-of) re the Falklands (territory of our closest ally) -

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/

    That was the Daily Telegraph, but even the Economist was torqued -

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/bageh...0/03/falklands

    We (the US) were "rewarded", within just a few months of providing what must have been a significant diplomatic coup for the Argentinians, with this -

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

    Foreign Minister Timerman was reported to have provided on site supervision.

    Though they eventually, and unsurprisingly, sort of backed down -

    http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/16/...military-plane

    Foreign Minister Timerman is still around -

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Falklands.html

    All of that adds up to, right or wrong, that this is just how the Argentinian govt, at least this one, does business. Plan accordingly.

    This will probably calm down at some point (though the president was reelected in 2011, so it's, presumably, not that). As Bill Moore notes, there's always the chance of an accident/miscalculation, so increased tension is unfortunate from that standpoint, but the fact the Falkland Islands are, well, islands (more than a couple of hundred miles offshore, at that), should help mitigate that. And the military balance isn't in question. As others have noted, one SSN, if you're willing to use it, turns it into game over. The AAW destroyer is helpful as well.

    Ultimately, whatever the public rhetoric, I doubt a regional power like Brazil or anyone else that matters really wants significant drama over this. Additionally, I suspect there are a lot of ways to quietly twist arms with a country like Argentina, with an economy that's still shaky in some ways since the default of a few years ago. Finally, the UK has horses to trade in the first world, with the EU in flux and lots of other stuff going on.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Rat View Post
    I cannot help but think however that the Argentinians are going about this the wrong way. If they encouraged trade and cultural ties with the Falklands they are more likely to bring the Falklands Islanders on to a negotiating stance in a generation or two. As it is since the 1982 invasion the Falkland Islanders have become culturally much closer with the UK and more distinct from South America.
    Strongly agree - make yourself into a place that the Falklanders wouldn't mind being a part of or associated with. Down the road, if the UK citizens living in the Falklands wanted to shift from the UK to Argentina, I suspect that London would oblige them. Oil or not, Whitehall probably doesn't love having to deal with this issue. But they're being forced to stick up for their citizens and, quite rightly, doing so.

  10. #10
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,203

    Default 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.
    davidbfpo

  11. #11
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The Falklands scare is being used for budget reasons; the RN faces budget challenges, and fights for its carrier and naval aviation which are in peril not the least because of F-35 delays and general cost inefficiency.

  12. #12
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,203

    Default Budgets cause peril?

    Fuchs:
    ..the RN faces budget challenges, and fights for its carrier and naval aviation which are in peril..
    Yes, the RN faces budget challenges. The RN currently has no carriers, two are being built, there are no aircraft envisaged as being in place to fly from them and currently has only helicopters (many in Afg.), with no fixed wing combat aircraft.

    Given the investment in the airbase on the Falklands, with SAMs, hardened aircraft shelters and air defence radar - it is the RAF to the fore. Reinforcing the RAF presence, with fighters, AWACS etc maybe a nuisance to them, but can be done.
    davidbfpo

  13. #13
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    david, I meant this in a bigger context.

    It's a boogeyman. The largely irrelevant Falklands and their mythical 30-years old "we will soon produce oil there, but don't yet" symptom are being used to keep the militaryspending up.

    It's a ridiculous Warsaw Pact surrogate now that the Arabs aren't the boogeyman of the day any more.


    I have no respect for people who fall for such primitive scaremongering.

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Swansea, Wales, UK.
    Posts
    104

    Default

    It does seem good timing as far as the RN are concerned, they've been hit hardest by SDSR. I can't see this rumbling on long enough for spending to be upped or the speed with which the two new carriers are finished.

    I can't see it coming to a military conflict though, not in this day and age. If it did reckon we'd see Article 5 being invoked? We can but hope.

  15. #15
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TDB View Post
    It does seem good timing as far as the RN are concerned, they've been hit hardest by SDSR. I can't see this rumbling on long enough for spending to be upped or the speed with which the two new carriers are finished.

    I can't see it coming to a military conflict though, not in this day and age. If it did reckon we'd see Article 5 being invoked? We can but hope.
    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).

  16. #16
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    It's a boogeyman. The largely irrelevant Falklands and their mythical 30-years old "we will soon produce oil there, but don't yet" symptom are being used to keep the militaryspending up.

    It's a ridiculous Warsaw Pact surrogate now that the Arabs aren't the boogeyman of the day any more.


    I have no respect for people who fall for such primitive scaremongering.
    In that case, you have to admit this is quite an accomplishment for British diplomats, getting Kirchner to blow this up so their colleagues in the military could press for budget increases.

    Actually, I think Red Rat has it mostly right. Kirchner has manufactured a crisis partly because the domestic situation in Argentina is almost Grecian. But I also think her government's major purpose is using this as a lever to pry some concessions out of the UK regarding exploitation of the oil.

    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.
    Last edited by J Wolfsberger; 02-15-2012 at 09:45 PM.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  17. #17
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default You take what you can get, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    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.
    If you donít read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. Ė Mark Twain (attributed)

  18. #18
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    ganulv:

    That was an almost perfectly constructed paragraph and I laughed like hell at the end.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  19. #19
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,203

    Default

    Ganulv:
    But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn.
    Ah, we still have 'The Handbag' in reserve and SSN(s).
    davidbfpo

  20. #20
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    Since the Columbian government is tied up dealing with a decadesĖlong 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 arenít 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.
    I got a laugh as well.

    Unfortunately, I suffered a brain f--- when I wrote the post. I meant "Venezuela, Brazil and Cuba."

    Next thing you know, I'll start to get crotchety.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

Similar Threads

  1. Why democracies don't lose insurgencies
    By Cavguy in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 03:23 PM
  2. How to Win in Iraq and How to Lose
    By SWJED in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-30-2007, 03:35 PM
  3. How We Lose
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 04:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •