Who would argue with the map?
In a perfect world, the trouble over Falklands oil would be resolved in an amicable, bipartisan fashion. Hillary Clinton appeared to hold that view during her recent visit to Buenos Aires, when she endorsed American-led talks on the issue. But for many in Britain her words were far too pro-Argentine; not least because she referred to the islands as las Malvinas. The motivation behind her words, however, was little more than pragmatism, and those who value our “special relationship” need not be perturbed. Far from slighting her country’s staunchest ally, the secretary of state was throwing a sorely-needed bone to a friend who could prove very helpful in furthering the anti-terrorism, anti-drugs agenda in South America.
Her remarks might have made more sense to British observers had they been reported prefaced with the disingenuous praise she heaped on President Kirchner for her handling of
ruddy hell, its soft cell!
The superior knowledge of the writer shows obviously that he undertook a medieval history degree at the University of Cambridge at some point in his life.
adolfo
Your special relationship always helped England on this issue. It did in 1833 to occupy the islands with american help and it did in 1982 to recover them. It is reasonable that England does not want America to play a neutral role. In 1802 and 1807 during the invassions to Buenos Aires England did not have that help.