The War of Rhetoric Continues Over the Falklands

From the Telegraph:

Last month, a powerful South American trading bloc announced a ban on ships flying the Falklands Island flag from docking at ports. Tensions are high as the 30th anniversary of the 1982 Falklands War approaches.

Mr Cameron said that Britain's National Security Council had discussed the issue and ensured that all defences were in order in the British-held South Atlantic archipelago.

"The key point is we support the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination, and what the Argentinians have been saying recently, I would argue is actually far more like colonialism because these people want to remain British and the Argentinians want them to do something else," he said at Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons.

"I'm determined we should make sure that our defences and everything else is in order, which is why the National Security Council discussed this issue yesterday."

He added: "The absolutely vital point is that we are clear that the future of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the people themselves, and as long as they want to remain part of the United Kingdom and be British they should be able to do so."

Argentina's foreign minister Héctor Timerman said: "Instead of convening its National Security Council, Great Britain should call Ban Ki-moon and accept the multiple resolutions of the [UN] organisation urging a dialogue on the Malvinas [Falklands] question to reach a peaceful solution.”

Mr Timerman added that Britain was “in imperial decline” was attempting to “rewrite history”.

Argentina’s interior minister Florencio Randazzo said the “colonialism” comment was “absolutely offensive”.

“It is absolutely offensive especially in the case of Great Britain. History clearly shows what its attitude to the world was,” said Mr Randazzo.

Argentina president Cristina Kirchner has been vocal on the Falklands issue. In December she accused Britain of "taking Argentine resources" and ignoring UN resolutions as she called for renewed talks about the future of the Falkland Islands.

All major crises start somewhere. Here, we have one of the most dangerous combinations floating around--national pride (on both sides) and vital resources (oil). As I've noted before, a war this time around would be much more difficult for Britain to pursue without overt U.S. assistance. If the U.S. gets involved on the side of Britain, it would cause serious repercussions to our standing in Latin America. Right now, the odds of war are still low, but we'll see if either side starts poking the other.