Toby Harnden is outraged that the U.S. is still neutral in a dispute that has nothing to do with us:

To spell it out: Obama is ‘neutral’ over the sovereignty of islands that British troops, with American support, fought and died for at a time when British troops are fighting and dying alongside their American comrades in Afghanistan.

The last time this caused so much controversy, Ewan MacAskill was one of many to point out that U.S. neutrality concerning the islands is a longstanding policy:

Clinton’s comments mark no real change in the substance of US policy towards the Falklands. The US policy is one of neutrality, as it has been since the end of the second world war, and the offer to act as a mediator goes back decades. Even around the time of the 1982 Falklands war, the US president Ronald Reagan wrote to Thatcher making an offer similar to Clinton’s.

As I’ve said before, the offer to mediate the dispute was a blunder. As far as Britain is concerned, there is no need for a mediator, because there is nothing to negotiate. It’s similar to the mistake that Obama made before he was sworn in when he proposed to mediate between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Like Argentina, Pakistan would love to internationalize its dispute and force the other party to negotiate over something it considers non-negotiable. In both cases, Obama stopped talking about mediation when the offended party complained loudly about it.

During Cameron’s recent visit, Obama promised him U.S. neutrality on the Falklands and said that the U.S. would stop trying to push Britain and Argentina into talks. This is all that the British government expects, and that is exactly what it has received. The extremely embarrassing mistake about the name of the islands aside, this is a story about absolutely nothing. Anyone claiming that Obama’s neutrality statement is a “slap in the face” to Britain is simply wrong.

I’m not a great enthusiast of the “special relationship,” which has managed to be the worst of both worlds by becoming very lopsided to Britain’s disadvantage without advancing concrete American interests, but I cannot understand for the life of me what anyone thinks is gained from ginning up these phony controversies and imagining rifts between Britain and America that don’t exist. Ahead of Britain’s general election, some Republican Atlanticists were panicking about what the coalition government would mean for the U.S.-U.K. relationship. This usually involved denigrating the Atlanticism of both Cameron and Clegg. Over the last three years, more than a few Conservatives have felt the need to engage in the same hyperventilating. In the midst of all of this, the relationship is probably a more balanced and healthier one now than it has been in many years.