Falklands tests the special relationship

Daily Mail Comment
[UK]
25 February 2010

So far, 444 British personnel have died and countless more have been maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In both these hugely contentious wars, when America asked for our backing, despite deep national divisions, Britain provided more military support than any other nation.

After all the special relationship, although often strained, has served both countries well for over a century.

article-0-084DCC6D000005DC-636_468x303

The Falklands War was a perfect example. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan offered Margaret Thatcher his backing in her determination to retake the islands after the Argentine invasion.

Now an Argentine President is once again claiming sovereignty over ‘Las Malvinas’.

The U.S. response? That it takes ‘no position on the sovereignty claims of either party’. Last night, it was even suggested that this was punishment for a British court releasing details of U.S. torture of a terrorist suspect.

So when British soldiers are dying in Helmand in support of his foreign policy, President Obama ‘takes no position’ over Britain’s right to territory which not only is ours without question, but had to be retaken at a cost of 254 British lives.

This deeply regrettable response leaves us with the question; what is the purpose of a special relationship that seems to involve British sacrifice on one side and American indifference on the other?

The commentary continues at the Daily Mail.

Read also “Obama votes present on whether the Falklands belong to Britain,” by Allahpundit on HotAir.com:

“…Your exit question: Considering that this dispute ultimately boils down to oil rights, can anyone explain why America would rather have those oceanic oil fields controlled by South America instead of a politically stable, reliably friendly (until recently) ally like Britain?”

Comments are closed.