Will the UK lose the Falklands?

[Jim Rodgers]

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.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[TDB]

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.

[Fuchs]

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).

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

[ganulv]

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.