On July 25, 1990, April Glaspie, a career foreign service officer and ambassador to Iraq, made what in hindsight was one of the biggest gaffes in State Department history. During a rare meeting with Saddam Hussein, she assured the Iraqi dictator that the United States would not take sides in the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait,” she reportedly told the Iraqi dictator. Just over a week later, he invaded his tiny neighbor, setting off a cascade of events which would lead to two wars and devastating sanctions.
Fast forward more than two decades. Thirty years after an Argentine military junta for largely populist reasons invaded the Falkland Islands, a British territory populated by British citizens, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is at it again. Perhaps she wants to deflect attention from her own mismanagement, or perhaps the fact that the British have discovered significant oil reserves off-shore has led her to renew Argentina’s increasingly militant claim. Enter President Obama. Putting aside his gaffe of his calling the islands the “Maldives” (an Indian Ocean archipelago) instead of Las Malvinas, Argentina’s name for the islands, Obama sought to play the neutral card. From The Daily Telegraph:
In his address, Mr Obama maintained the USA’s stance of neutrality over the Falklands, saying he wanted to ensure good relations with both Argentina and Britain. “This is something in which we would not typically intervene,” he said.
Alas, there is a thin line between neutrality and moral equivalence. The fact of the matter is that the islands are British, the people residing on the islands are British, and every time anyone has bothered to ask the residents of the Falkland Islands, they have expressed an overwhelming desire to remain fully British. The problem with neutrality is that it legitimizes outrageous claims. There really is nothing to talk about, but by suggesting there is, Obama is fanning the flames of conflict, allowing rhetorical momentum to build, perhaps to the point where Kirchner will look at Obama’s studied neutrality the same way Saddam interpreted Glaspie’s.
Did Bush 41 know what April Glaspie had told Saddam Hussein? Could he have instructed her to do so? Did he understand that her words tempted Iraq to invade Kuwait? nAfter the war was over, why did the United States remain quiet while Kurds and marsh Arabs were slaughtered in northern and southern Iraq respectively? Why didn't the United States allow Israel to respond to the SCUD attacks launched from Iraq against a country that had not participated in the war? Has anyone interviewed April Glaspie in the last two decades? What is she doing now? nAnd why is Old Bush loved by Democrats and Republicans alike? nIf Obama's policies concerning the Falklands lead to similar disasters, will he be as loved as Old Bush?
Amb. Glaspie was speaking as instructed by Sec. of State Baker, according to subsequent NYT reporting. Baker was inadvertently responsible for both Iraq wars. (Saddam was an ally until he invaded Kuwait.) When Baker's memoirs came out, I flipped to the Gulf War: no mention of the Glaspie/Hussein meeting. But it's all on the record. You probably won't see it mentioned at the GHWB presidential museum either.