The [UK-US] Special Relationship is dead

[commandlinegamer]

Claims the ever-strident Daily Mail.[1] Other newspapers tend to concur but with a bit more measured analysis.[2][3] I think the term is overused and has little relevance today. I feel there is a cultural relationship between the US and UK which runs quite deep; politically not so much.

[1] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261422/Our-special-relationship-U-S-dead-say-MPs.html

[2] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7530827/MPs-say-time-to-reconsider-the-special-relationship.html

[3] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/28/uk-diplomats-dislike-special-relationship

[Tailgater]

Did it die in the 1700's?

[Ryokan]

Did it die in the 1700's?

I think it improved again from 1917 and forward.

Never underestimate what a common language can do for the relationship of two countries.

[Thunder]

id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.

[Tailgater]

I'm thinking we will all be ok.

[theprestige]

I feel there is a cultural relationship between the US and UK which runs quite deep; politically not so much.
The thing is, the term doesn't refer to a cultural or political relationship: It refers to a diplomatic and global-strategic relationship.

And to be honest, I think the relationship is a good thing. It's not the kind of alliance a lot of countries enjoy. It's not the kind of thing to be given up lightly, or easily replaced. If it's truly dead, I'm sad to see it go. It's not like France or Russia or China or Brazil is in a position to offer a similarly long-lasting and valuable relationship to replace it, to either country. About the next-best thing the US has is Japan; and the UK's main options are Canada, Australia, or casting their lot with the rest of the EU--an alliance that puts the "special" into Special Relationship, if you know what I mean.

[NoZed Avenger]

Never underestimate what a common language can do for the relationship of two countries.

Then we can only hope we find a common language.

[funk de fino]

From the article

A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It doesn't really matter whether someone calls it the "special relationship" or not. What matters is that the UK's relationship with the U.S. is unique, and uniquely important to protecting our national security and promoting our national interest.'

I think the perceived lapdog Bush/Blair thing damaged it for a lot of UK people. It will recover.

Not sure what the US take on it all is though?

[Ziggurat]

I think the perceived lapdog Bush/Blair thing damaged it for a lot of UK people.

Which is ironic, given that it's Obama who is stabbing the UK in the back.

[zooterkin]

id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.

I think you'll find that most people in the UK have never even heard of it. Even at the time, it was a side-show to the main event in Europe.

[funk de fino]

Which is ironic, given that it's Obama who is stabbing the UK in the back.

Strange, we do not see him stabbing anyone. Source?

[Ziggurat]

Strange, we do not see him stabbing anyone. Source?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/media-having-trouble-finding-right-angle-on-obamas,2703/

OK, that link was a joke (but it's funny). But seriously, Hillary Clinton's recent statements about the Falkland Islands was a major diplomatic betrayal of the UK.

[Darat]

...snip... But seriously, Hillary Clinton's recent statements about the Falkland Islands was a major diplomatic betrayal of the UK.

Why - what did she say that was a "betrayal"?

[Ziggurat]

Why - what did she say that was a "betrayal"?

You live in the UK, I can't believe you haven't heard the arguments. And it's a betrayal because there was no reason for us to take the position she did to undermine the UK's position. We have no direct stake in the outcome, Argentina is less important to us and less friendly than the UK, and negotiations are NOT the right course of action. The Falklands are UK territory, full stop. Unless the people of the Falklands want to change that (and they don't), that should be the end of the story, and Argentina can go pound sand.

[Darat]

You live in the UK, I can't believe you haven't heard the arguments. And it's a betrayal because there was no reason for us to take the position she did to undermine the UK's position. We have no direct stake in the outcome, Argentina is less important to us and less friendly than the UK, and negotiations are NOT the right course of action. The Falklands are UK territory, full stop. Unless the people of the Falklands want to change that (and they don't), that should be the end of the story, and Argentina can go pound sand.

I am totally bewildered - what "position" did she take that was a "betrayal"?

[Ziggurat]

I am totally bewildered - what "position" did she take that was a "betrayal"?

That the status of the Falkland Islands is something which should be negotiated. It isn't. It's UK territory, full stop, and the UK is right to ignore any demands for negotiations. It would be like Mexico demanding negotiations for the status of California.

[Darat]

How is that different from the 1980s when Argentina was preparing and then invading the Falklands and the USA were actively trying to persuade the UK not to resort to military action and was trying to get the two side to negotiate?

ETA: For a reminder of the USA position at that time: http://www.naval-history.net/F16diplomacy.htm

...snip... Over the next four weeks, America's attempts to be even-handed were not appreciated by Mrs Thatcher, although in US terms, having to choose between Latin American friend and main European ally was no easy matter.

...snip.... Haig Shuttle Diplomacy - Concerned about the prospect of war, ...snip... The basis of this and all later peace plans were threefold - both side's forces to withdraw from the Falklands, an interim administration set up, and a long term settlement negotiated.

...snip...

US Support - By the last day of April, President Reagan had come to accept there was little chance of a settlement and declared American support for Britain. He offered military aid and announced sanctions against Argentina. Mr Pym now returned to Washington as an ally, but still committed to the search for peace, and as he did, proposals were independently launched in the UN and by Peru. Both proposals were similar, but as events in the South Atlantic escalated from the first day of May and Britain's military options became less with the onset of winter, neither had much chance of success. The torpedoing of the cruiser "General Belgrano" lost Britain much of her support, especially in the EEC and as by now the Task Force was bombarding the Falklands, the last chances for peace had realistically gone.

...snip...

[Newtons Bit]

id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.

Well, we were pissed at both the French and the English. And we already had all those nice propaganda posters against the English made up in 1776. So hey, why change that, right?

[Ziggurat]

How is that different from the 1980s when Argentina was preparing and then invading the Falklands and the USA were actively trying to persuade the UK not to resort to military action and was trying to get the two side to negotiate?

I'm not claiming it is different.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the perceived lapdog Bush/Blair thing damaged it for a lot of UK people. It will recover.

Not sure what the US take on it all is though?
I remember when the UK was deliberating on how much to support Dubya's war, some people here were saying that since they're our allies, they should go along with the U.S. no matter what.

I find a bit of the same thing with the U.S. attitude* toward Israel from the other point of view: no matter what they do, they're the good guys.

I'd say that's a special relationship--where being an "ally" or a "friend" transcends ideology or even morality.

*I don't mean that most Americans have this attitude either--or the one with the U.K. Just that these attitudes exist here. I think in both cases, it's a position held by fewer and fewer people.

[funk de fino]

I'm not claiming it is different.

Fail. Obama has not stabbed anyone in the back eh? America's policy on Islas Malvinas has not changed a jot. Undermined my arse.

[Ziggurat]

Fail. Obama has not stabbed anyone in the back eh? America's policy on Islas Malvinas has not changed a jot. Undermined my arse.

Edit: I think I understand you better now.

So basically, you're saying it wasn't a stab in the back, it was a stab in the front.

[Darat]

I'm not claiming it is different.

Now utterly bewildered. You said:

....Hillary Clinton's recent statements about the Falkland Islands was a major diplomatic betrayal of the UK.

How was her expressing the same policy that the USA has been expressing for decades, and even expressing it when our country was being invaded, a "major diplomatic betrayal of the UK" - it was just business as usual for the USA. SO how can a public re-statement of the position the USA has made clear for decades be described as a "major diplomatic betrayal"?

[funk de fino]

Edit: I think I understand you better now.

So basically, you're saying it wasn't a stab in the back, it was a stab in the front.

It was not a stabbing at all. Regardless of how much bluster you have to cover your false claim.

Utterly pathetic (and predictable)

[Ziggurat]

It was not a stabbing at all. Regardless of how much bluster you have to cover your false claim.

Utterly pathetic (and predictable)

Wow. I really wasn't expecting such vitriol from you over the fact that you don't agree with how I interpret an event. I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack me in this manner.

[Architect]

Well, we were pissed at both the French and the English. And we already had all those nice propaganda posters against the English made up in 1776. So hey, why change that, right?

I've no objection to you being pissed off at the English, hell 5m of my fellow countrymen do it regularly, but I think you want to brush up on your history there. I think you'll find it was the British you had a beef with.

[Rolfe]

.... no great mischief if they fall?

Rolfe.

[funk de fino]

Wow. I really wasn't expecting such vitriol from you over the fact that you don't agree with how I interpret an event. I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack me in this manner.

Making stuff up and not being able to support it. That is not interpreting.

Still cannot show Obama doing anything on this one then? The frankly disgusting attitudes of many in the US towards the troubles in Northern Ireland was a worse stab in the back.

[Darat]

...snip...

Still cannot show Obama doing anything on this one then? The frankly disgusting attitudes of many in the US towards the troubles in Northern Ireland was a worse stab in the back.

I think if the UK - USA "special relationship" could survive the many years of USA official government policy of, in effect, supporting terrorists trying to murder me and other UK citizens their decades long view that the issue of the Falklands should be solved by negotiation is hardly going to measure on any scale of "diplomatic betrayal"!

[Lurker]

You live in the UK, I can't believe you haven't heard the arguments. And it's a betrayal because there was no reason for us to take the position she did to undermine the UK's position. We have no direct stake in the outcome, Argentina is less important to us and less friendly than the UK,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupi_oil_field

[Ziggurat]

Making stuff up and not being able to support it. That is not interpreting.

I didn't make anything up, funk.

The frankly disgusting attitudes of many in the US towards the troubles in Northern Ireland was a worse stab in the back.

Yes it was. Since I neither claimed this was the first, or the worst, thing we've ever done to stab the UK in the back, I'm not sure your point. You're clearly upset with me, but it's not because of Northern Ireland. Frankly, I'm at a loss to explain your behavior.

[funk de fino]

I didn't make anything up, funk.

Yes, you did Zigg.

Obama has done nothing and you have brought nothing.

Yes it was. Since I neither claimed this was the first, or the worst, thing we've ever done to stab the UK in the back, I'm not sure your point. You're clearly upset with me, but it's not because of Northern Ireland. Frankly, I'm at a loss to explain your behavior.

I dont like people who tell lies.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, you did Zigg.

Obama has done nothing and you have brought nothing.

Hillary Clinton made a statement during a press conference. As Secretary of State, her job is to carry out Obama's foreign policy. Since no correction has been made, it is safe to assume that the position, as well as the willingness to make it public, are indeed Obama's policy. Go ahead and disagree with me about how to characterize what happened, but something definitely happened. The Obama administration did something, and yes, it's perfectly acceptable to shorthand to say "Obama" when talking about actions of his administration.

I dont like people who tell lies.

Cut the crap, funk. This isn't about a lie, because 1) it's not a lie, and 2) nobody around here patrols for every lie they can find. Something else about it pissed you off, and if you're not willing to talk about it, fine. But you're not going to get any satisfaction from taking this approach. I respect you, funk, or at least I did. If you're willing to talk about what's really got you upset, I'm willing to listen, but just calling me a liar isn't going to cut it.

[funk de fino]

Hillary Clinton made a statement during a press conference. As Secretary of State, her job is to carry out Obama's foreign policy. Since no correction has been made, it is safe to assume that the position, as well as the willingness to make it public, are indeed Obama's policy. Go ahead and disagree with me about how to characterize what happened, but something definitely happened. The Obama administration did something, and yes, it's perfectly acceptable to shorthand to say "Obama" when talking about actions of his administration.

Obama did nothing then. Guilty by association for something that was not even a stab in the back in the first place. Only the anti Obama crowd could magic that one up.

Bolded - no it's not.

If Obama came right out and told the UK not to defend itself if Argentina attacked or joined Argentina in any conflict then that would have been stab in the back. This is a non change of previous policy.

Cut the crap, funk. This isn't about a lie, because 1) it's not a lie, and 2) nobody around here patrols for every lie they can find. Something else about it pissed you off, and if you're not willing to talk about it, fine. But you're not going to get any satisfaction from taking this approach. I respect you, funk, or at least I did. If you're willing to talk about what's really got you upset, I'm willing to listen, but just calling me a liar isn't going to cut it.

Your claim is false. The reason it is false is what also annoys me. What if this had happened in 2004?

And lets not forget, this was your post in reply to a comment I made on Bush and Blair.

Which is ironic, given that it's Obama who is stabbing the UK in the back.

He is not stabbing anyone.

[funk de fino]

The Obama administration did something, and yes, it's perfectly acceptable to shorthand to say "Obama" when talking about actions of his administration

here's one for you:-

True story - "Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington during a hunting accident"

Ziggurat spin - "Bush deliberately tried to murder Harry Whittington with a shotgun"

[Ziggurat]

Obama did nothing then. Guilty by association

I really thought you were better than this, and I'm quite disappointed to be proven wrong. His secretary of state made a public statement of the administration's policy. Obama is responsible for that. Whatever you think of that policy, that's not "guilt by association". But since this is the level of discourse you've chosen to engage in, there's really nothing further that I can say. You're not interested in a discussion, you're interested in a rant. Have at it, funk. I'm not interested.

[zooterkin]

I really thought you were better than this, and I'm quite disappointed to be proven wrong. His secretary of state made a public statement of the administration's policy. Obama is responsible for that. Whatever you think of that policy, that's not "guilt by association".

You're missing the point; you described this as a stab in the back. But the policy has not changed, so Obama cannot be accused of actively doing anything. How can, "USA continues with the same policy it has had for the last 30+ years" be described as "it's Obama who is stabbing the UK in the back"?

[Ziggurat]

You're missing the point; you described this as a stab in the back. But the policy has not changed

I'm not missing the point at all, zooterkin. funk is claiming that I lied, not that I'm wrong. And the logic he uses to justify that accusation (guilt by association, his absurd comparison of a deliberate statement of policy to an accident) just make no sense. Go ahead and conclude I'm wrong, at this point I really don't care enough to argue the point further. But I would hope you could at least understand why funk's accusations are not justified. Something has crawled under his skin, something has made this very personal to him, and I have no clue what. But I'm no longer interested in trying to find out what.

[funk de fino]

I'm not missing the point at all, zooterkin. funk is claiming that I lied, not that I'm wrong. And the logic he uses to justify that accusation (guilt by association, his absurd comparison of a deliberate statement of policy to an accident) just make no sense. Go ahead and conclude I'm wrong, at this point I really don't care enough to argue the point further. But I would hope you could at least understand why funk's accusations are not justified. Something has crawled under his skin, something has made this very personal to him, and I have no clue what. But I'm no longer interested in trying to find out what.

You either lied or you are wrong. Make a choice.

[Ziggurat]

You either lied or you are wrong. Make a choice.

You don't get out of it that easy, funk. YOU claimed I was lying and not wrong. And you did so with no justification, and resorted to bizarre contortions that strain credulity to try to justify your accusation. You shifted the debate away from the facts of the case to the question of my honesty. And now you want to retreat to those grounds without admitting that your accusation was baseless? No, funk. That isn't good enough.

[funk de fino]

You don't get out of it that easy, funk. YOU claimed I was lying and not wrong. And you did so with no justification, and resorted to bizarre contortions that strain credulity to try to justify your accusation. You shifted the debate away from the facts of the case to the question of my honesty. And now you want to retreat to those grounds without admitting that your accusation was baseless? No, funk. That isn't good enough.

Your use of the words credibility is astounding. I am not the one who made upo a caim about Obama and then was not big enough to admit it.

True story - "Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington during a hunting accident"

Ziggurat spin - "Bush deliberately tried to murder Harry Whittington with a shotgun"

[Ziggurat]

Your use of the words credibility is astounding.

Your reading skills are sub-par. I said "credulity", not "credibility". As for the rest of your post, it is simply a repetition of previous ridiculous claims which I have already responded to, and deserves no further comment. Well, perhaps one more:

I am not the one who made upo a caim

It seems you're so upset with me that you can't type either.

[funk de fino]

Your reading skills are sub-par. I said "credulity", not "credibility". As for the rest of your post, it is simply a repetition of previous ridiculous claims which I have already responded to, and deserves no further comment.

Good spot. Yet you did not respond to that post or the claims in it. You at most snipped a previous post of mine and handwaved it. Is it a fair assessment of what you stated when you wrote this?

The Obama administration did something, and yes, it's perfectly acceptable to shorthand to say "Obama" when talking about actions of his administration

If not, where do you draw the line?

How about this one?

Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame.

But I could say that it was Bush who did it eh?


Well, perhaps one more:

It seems you're so upset with me that you can't type either.

I'm not the one stamping my feet and accusing someone of using vitriol. All you had to do was say "OK Obama did not do anything. Hilary said it, and what I really meant was that the Obama administration stabbed the UK in the back."

Even then, as others have pointed out, the Obama administration has done nothing of the sort. A complete reversal of previous policy on this would have been a stab in the back.

[Mikemcc]

How is that different from the 1980s when Argentina was preparing and then invading the Falklands and the USA were actively trying to persuade the UK not to resort to military action and was trying to get the two side to negotiate?

ETA: For a reminder of the USA position at that time: http://www.naval-history.net/F16diplomacy.htmThat will be at the same time that the US was providing us with military intelligence about the Argentine armed forces and shipping AIM-9L missiles that allowed the Harriers to engage further and head-on.

[Darat]

That will be at the same time that the US was providing us with military intelligence about the Argentine armed forces and shipping AIM-9L missiles that allowed the Harriers to engage further and head-on.

And? (ETA: That's not meant to be rude its just that I don't see what your comment has to do with the point I was making.)

[Matthew Ellard]

Now utterly bewildered. You said:

....Hillary Clinton's recent statements about the Falkland Islands was a major diplomatic betrayal of the UK.

How was her expressing the same policy that the USA has been expressing for decades, and even expressing it when our country was being invaded, a "major diplomatic betrayal of the UK" - it was just business as usual for the USA. SO how can a public re-statement of the position the USA has made clear for decades be described as a "major diplomatic betrayal"?

It is a bizzare claim. The Americans in 1980 were doing their best to help two friends not start a full blown war with each other. What better friend could either side want? Negotiations can include "not going to war". America should be praised for its efforts in the 80's concerning the Falklands.

[Cain]

How was her expressing the same policy that the USA has been expressing for decades, and even expressing it when our country was being invaded, a "major diplomatic betrayal of the UK"...

Because she's a Democrat.

[Darth Rotor]

Because she's a Democrat.

Given that who owns the islands was once again settled in 1982, which had been previously settled by a treaty, it is odd that our Sec State would suggest that settled matter ought to be re opened and negotiated ... unless her position (if she is doing this independently) or the administration's position (if this is President Obama's position, which is more likely) represents a change in US policy since 1992.

On the other hand, political rhetoric being what it is, this set of remarks may have been yet another trial balloon sent to sniff out a response for possible changes in policy.

Were I in the Brit policy circles, I'd not be pleased if I sensed the Americans were changing a previously supportive-of-the-UK policy on that matter. The oil only makes it more interesting, and more messy.

DR

[Darat]

...snippp... it is odd that our Sec State would suggest that settled matter ought to be re opened and negotiated ... unless her position (if she is doing this independently) or the administration's position (if this is President Obama's position, which is more likely) represents a change in US policy since 1992.

On the other hand, political rhetoric being what it is, this set of remarks may have been yet another trial balloon sent to sniff out a response for possible changes in policy.

Were I in the Brit policy circles, I'd not be pleased if I sensed the Americans were changing a previously supportive-of-the-UK policy on that matter. The oil only makes it more interesting, and more messy.

DRBut none of the above has actually happened.

[fitzgibbon]

id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.

Good thing. You guys lost. Full stop. :)

[fitzgibbon]

I think you'll find that most people in the UK have never even heard of it. Even at the time, it was a side-show to the main event in Europe.

And the main difference was to today is.....? What? The Brits'd be speaking French?

[fitzgibbon]

Well, we were pissed at both the French and the English. And we already had all those nice propaganda posters against the English made up in 1776. So hey, why change that, right?

It amuses me the 'Surrender monkey' thing Yanks trot out. Were it not for said 'Surrender Monkeys' of past the States of today'd be a historical footnote.

[fitzgibbon]

Then we can only hope we find a common language.

As do Canucks with said Yanks. And (I believe) northern and southern Yanks.

[NoZed Avenger]

And (I believe) northern and southern Yanks.

Well now, *some* divides are just too vast to really comprehend.

Can't we just hope for some sort of Israeli-Palestinian accord, instead?

[fitzgibbon]

Well now, *some* divides are just too vast to really comprehend.

Can't we just hope for some sort of Israeli-Palestinian accord, instead?

We can hope. :D

[Darth Rotor]

But none of the above has actually happened.
Actually, yes it did. The American Secretary of State made a public statement, intentionally or not, that she deemed the Falklands Islands claims to be negotiable. As I pointed out earlier, those are was settled in 1982, for a second time. I'll grant you that some of her comments were directed at Argentina and the UK quarelling over oil reserve exploitation in the area, which isn't necessarily about "who owns the islands" but it's directly related to that, else the Argies have no claim.

From the Telegraph:

Hillary Clinton's call for Britain to sit down with Argentina to "resolve the issues" around the Falklands was not appreciated in London.

OK, what do you think Madame Secretary was referring to? Or do you think the telegraph just made it up?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/clinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/world/americas/02clinton.html

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Can't we just hope for some sort of Israeli-Palestinian accord, instead?
Send parky/thunder as chief of mediation, that'll fix 'em ...

[Darat]

Actually, yes it did. The American Secretary of State made a public statement, intentionally or not, that she deemed the Falklands Islands claims to be negotiable. As I pointed out earlier, those are was settled in 1982, for a second time. I'll grant you that some of her comments were directed at Argentina and the UK quarelling over oil reserve exploitation in the area, which isn't necessarily about "who owns the islands" but it's directly related to that, else the Argies have no claim.

From the Telegraph:



OK, what do you think Madame Secretary was referring to? Or do you think the telegraph just made it up?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/clinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/world/americas/02clinton.html

DR

Er none of those articles says what you are claiming they do! She was merely re-iterating the same diplomatic statements that the USA has been making for decades, and even made when we were engaged in armed conflict with Argentina.

[Metullus]

While I am not certain whether or not I would call Mrs. Clinton's comments a "stab in the back", I can say that I was disappointed in them. The issue of the Falklands was settled in 1982 (if not before) - the islands belong to the UK. My interpretation of Mrs. Clinton's remark was that the Obama administration would welcome and support Argentina's reopening of the question; a position I considered to be both inappropriate and likely offensive (and not unreasonably so) to a friend and ally.

I would also agree with DR that a diplomatic position taken to discourage violence when two countries are heading towards a shooting war is very different from one that is taken when the issue has long been settled.

[Darat]

At the time of her remarks there was "increased tension" as the diplomats like to say between the UK & Argentina (because of oil exploration), in light of that she was simply saying that we should talk to resolve our issues. Which has, for as long as I can remember, been the USA's diplomatic line about issues arising between our disagreements.

[funk de fino]

I would have no problem with the govt sitting talking with the Argentinians about the issues surrounding the oil drilling going on.

The issues here are the oil drilling not the ownership of the islands. But on that subject.

UN resolution 1982 -Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

UN resolution 1983 - Reiterates its request to the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

And so on until 1988. The this in 2004.

1. Reiterates that the way to put an end to the special and particular colonial situation in the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is the peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over sovereignty between the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

2. Takes note of the views expressed by the President of Argentina on the occasion of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly;

3. Regrets that, in spite of the widespread international support for a negotiation between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom that includes all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the implementation of the General Assembly resolutions on this question has not yet been started;

4. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation through the resumption of negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25;

5. Reiterates its firm support for the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General in order to assist the parties in complying with the request made by the General Assembly in its resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

6. Decides to keep under review the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) subject to the directives that the General Assembly has issued and may issue in that regard.

The UN position is negogiation so I guess they have been stabbing us in the back since 1982? The Argentinians asked for talks on the oil drilling issues framed by those resolutions. Now they may be playing the game and looking to use the US to get negogiations on ownership of the island but that is not what the US admin have said.

So unless settled means who won the war, then the issue is not settled. Argentina have never given up claims to the Malvinas. I have served there during my service. The Falklands islanders should have the say what is to happen regardless of the stances of both govts.

[Darth Rotor]

Which has, for as long as I can remember, been the USA's diplomatic line about issues arising between our disagreements.
The latter is true, but what I think you have chosen to overlook in your interpretation of her remarks, which she may have intended as innocuous and within that vein, is that the oil dispute cannot be extracted from an already settled dispute of whose authority the islands fall under. I may be putting too much importance on her remarks, other than for this problem: in politics, frequently, what seems innocuous becomes an issue.

ETA: thank you Funk, appreciate the perspective, and the emphasis on the oil drilling. (IIRC, there are contintal shelf/ILOS issues involved, memory foggy).

I still fail to see how the 1982 conflict didn't settle under whose authority the Falklands fall, all flowery UN rhetoric considered. In some ways, the UN has been applying the death of a thousand cuts to the UK, given that "the sovereignty dispute" was settled the old fashioned way: with blood and iron.

DR