Alex Massie channels a number of British writers in deploring Secretary Clinton's take on the Falklands dispute between Argentina and Britain.
During her swing through Argentina, Clinton said:
We want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.
To which Massie replies:
That may seem innocuous or a simple piece of diplomatic boilerplate. But it isn't. Hillary could, perhaps at the risk of disappointing her hosts, have said that this is an issue upon which the United States has no view. But she didn't. "Needs", for instance, is a pretty strong word.
The British position, right or not, is that there really isn't very much to talk about at all. Consequently, any American endorsement of talks is an endorsement of the Argentine position and not, however innocuous it might seem, a neutral view.
It's not clear whether Secretrary Clinton's formulation was intentional (although the State Department has said much the same thing) but hopefully they realize that it has been counter-productive. More importantly, the impulse to wade into every dispute and be ever-so-helpful is often not so helpful at all.
