One of the first rules of diplomacy is if you don’t have a dog in that fight… don’t put your dog in that fight.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broke that rule by stepping messily into the UK-Argentina row over the Falkland Islands.

Defeated decisively in a 74-day war in 1982, Argentina has never relinquished its claim to the South Atlantic islands, but the issue has been very much on the back burner until recently.  Now, the Falklands are back in the news for a familiar reason: oil.  The seabed around the islands may have it, a British company is now drilling to find it, and Argentina wants it.  

The government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, beset by a weak economy, high unemployment and debt levels, plus rising inflation, has been rallying international support for her country’s renewed claims on the territory Argentina calls Las Malvinas.  In February, a gathering of 32 Latin American and Caribbean countries endorsed Argentina’s position.

But Britain, as close an ally as America has ever had, is very clear about the Falklands.  Britons fought and died to keep them in the realm.  They are British sovereign territory and have been since 1833.  Period.

That’s what makes Mrs. Clinton’s intervention in the South Atlantic fracas so difficult to understand.  On a good will tour of South America, she made a last minute change to her itinerary to land in Buenos Aires on March 1^st, and meet with President Fernandez de Kirchner.  After the meeting, she was quoted as follows:

“We would like to see Argentina and the UK sit down and resolve the issues between them in a peaceful and productive way. We want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. We cannot make either one do so. We think it is the right way to proceed, so we will be saying this publicly.”  Mrs. Clinton also appeared to offer US mediation, telling reporters, "What we want to do is facilitate them talking to each other.".

The official reaction from Britain was stiffly polite:  “We don’t think that’s necessary,” said Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s spokesman.  Foreign Secretary David Miliband added, “The government has made it clear it has no doubt about the UK's sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.  There can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the Falkland Islanders so wish it and they have made clear they have no such wish.”

One can’t help but wonder if Mrs. Clinton considered the Islanders themselves, before wading into the issue.  There are more than 3,000 of them.  They are British citizens of a self-governing overseas territory and they have precisely zero wish to trade that status for Argentine passports.

Understandably, countries get rather testy where territorial sovereignty is involved.  So why did Mrs. Clinton put America’s dog in that fight?  Why would she urge negotiations on an issue America’s staunch ally considers strictly black and white, thereby putting at risk the vaunted “special relationship” between the US and UK?

The Clinton intervention is being read in both London and Buenos Aires as signaling some kind of foreign policy shift, though no one seems able to explain exactly what such a shift would mean or what might have inspired it.  Nevertheless, the news headlines are of a “diplomatic coup” for Argentina, and everything from a “snub” to a “betrayal” towards Britain.

Around the world, the United States has a long list of challenges with which to grapple, from Afghanistan, to Iran, China’s muscle-flexing, and a host of economic and trade issues.  Whether the Secretary of State’s comments were deliberate or the diplomatic equivalent of a slip of the tongue, they were perplexing and worrisome.  America needs very much to be able to rely on its friends these days.  It’s a bad idea to go out of your way to poke a stick in the eye of one of your oldest and best friends.

Cam Battley lives quietly in rural Ontario, Canada.