Liam Hoare’s article on the U.S. and the Falklands comes to an odd conclusion:

Even today, the United States refuses to come to terms with the notion that Falklanders may wish to remain British [bold mine-DL]. The Falklands Islands are a self-governing territory protected by the British government, and in the first half of next year the people of those isles will partake in a referendum regarding sovereignty. It is the position of the British government to adhere to the outcome of the vote, a stance supported by a majority of the UK population. The State Department, however, when asked if the United States will “respect the referendum results” stated, “We will not speculate on a referendum that has not taken place. Our position remains one of neutrality.”

Neutrality is very different from “refusing to come to terms” with what the inhabitants of the Falklands want. Neutrality implies that the U.S. neither supports nor opposes either outcome, but that doesn’t mean that the U.S. will ignore or dismiss the Falkanders’ wishes to remain British if that is what they choose (as we all assume they will). Presumably if the Falklanders vote in favor of the status quo, the U.S. will “come to terms” with that. Then again, since it already is the status quo, that won’t be difficult.

Remaining neutral in the dispute makes the most sense for the U.S., which doesn’t need to insert itself into what is properly an internal matter of another state, and it certainly doesn’t need the headache that would come from saying anything more than this. As it is, the U.S. position of neutrality is considered to be insufficiently “pro-British,” and it would only complicate relations with Argentina and the other states that it has won over to its side in Latin America to take a more overtly pro-British position. The current position is in line with what Obama told Cameron the U.S. would do during the latter’s visit here, and Cameron seems to have been satisfied with that assurance.

Hoare’s comparison with Northern Ireland and references to Irish-American views of the conflict there don’t make a lot of sense in connection with the Falklands. Unlike in Northern Ireland, there has been no community on the Falklands that seeks to join itself to another country, and there has certainly been no armed rebellion against British control. Many Irish-Americans provided misguided and destructive support to the IRA in the past, but there is no comparable pro-Argentinean constituency in the U.S. that has any interest in the Falklands. There are not many Americans who would dispute Britain’s claim to the Falklands. U.S. neutrality in this matter isn’t informed by a continued push for “decolonization” or a tendency to see issues through the “lens of occupation.” It’s informed by the desire to maintain good relations with Britain and Argentina for the sake of American national interests.