What a bunch of weasal words from Obama. He must have splinters in his ass after that statement. Does he support self determination or the neo-colonialism of Argentina?
David - Munich
Cameron is trying to obfuscate. The Obama administration does not support 'British rule on the Falkland Islands'. "The US recognizes the de facto UK administration of the islands, but takes no position regarding the sovereignty claims of either party," the US official said. The US government supports UK and Argentine cooperation on practical matters and urges a peaceful resolution to the overall issue. The current US position is consistent with UN declarations on the issue.
The Falklands is listed by the UN as a territory which needs to be de-colonised by the UK. The UN has called for discussions between the UK and Argentina to achieve the de-colonisation of the Falklands. Unfortunately, the UK has chosen to turn a deaf ear to those requests. Cameron can hardly expect Obama to go along with the UK's self-serving intransigence on this issue.
FurtherBeyond - Brisbane, Australia
Cameron needs to suck up to America so that the UK can hold onto a little rock. The deciders of whether Britain can hold onto the Falklands are in America. How pathetic that the UK has no friends in the world and devotes all its meagre efforts to kissing the boots of the USA so that it the UK can get a bit of patronage. Wouldn't it be better if Britain could make its own foreign policy decisions and that it had genuine allies who it could trust and didn't have to kiss the boots of all the time?
pmcdonald - UK
David. The issue is not whether Obama or Cameron for that matter, supports self-determination but rather whether the principle of self-determination applies. There are legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.
The Falklanders' right to self-determination is highly dubious for the following reasons: They do not constitute 'a people', and only 'a people' is entitled to self-determination under international law. They are not a population indigenous to the Islands, but were settled there by Britain after it had expelled an Argentinian population that previously existed there. Moreover, they are not sufficiently distinct from the British metropolitan population to be considered 'a people'.
Their status as 'a people' has never been recognised by the UN, which has consistently called them a 'population.' Even if they were 'a people', this would not automatically give them a right to self-determination that could override Argentina's title to the Islands.
I suggest you have a look at the following publications which exhaustively examine why the principle of self-determination does not apply to the Falklanders: R. Laver, The Falklands/Malvinas Case (Nijhoff, 2001); R. Dolzer, The territorial status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas): past and present (Oceana, 1993).
FurtherBeyond - Brisbane Australia