So, the Brits and the Argentinians are squabbling about the Falklands again (ah, the days of my youth are revisited!). American policy has long been to support the Brits, or at least, to do nothing that would undermine the Brits. The Argentinians want talks over the Falklands, while the Brits say that there is nothing whatsoever to talk about.
So, what does Secretary of State Clinton do? Why, she supports talks.
Bagehot minces no words:
I have hesitated to read drastic slights into the sometimes awkward diplomacy between Barack Obama and Gordon Brown. But this stance on the Falklands cannot be seen any other way. It really is no way for the Americans to treat their most important military ally—as some in America doubtless appreciate.
As it happens my colleagues and I interviewed William Hague this morning, mostly for an article one of us is writing about Britain and Europe. But we asked him about some other things too, including the Falklands and what the American response to the situation implied. Mr Hague looked a bit discomforted and said the Falklands was “not an issue” and so “doesn’t require an intervention” by the Americans.
Well, this looks like an intervention to me.
It is an intervention. And it will achieve nothing. One wonders why it was even needed. And as Bagehot alludes to, one wonders whether Barack Obama has something against Great Britain. The Obama Administration has dissed Great Britain more times than I can count; I think at some point, we all deserve an explanation as to why this must be.
Of course, to be fair, it is entirely possible that Secretary Clinton spoke out of turn. That’s happened before, and the conclusion that she might have done so again is equally disturbing.