China and Argentina re Falklands/Malvinas
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It as, as you say, an audacious suggestion, but I fear on this, you may be reading too much into things.
The biggest issues I see with this theory are motive, ability and timing.
Motive
What would be Beijing's motive in effectively pushing Argentina and Britain into war? As of yet unproven oil and gas reserves that no one has even tried to exploit, and which are located about as far from China as it could get? Just doesn't fit.
Ability.
Argentina has been woefully under-investing in its military. It is simply not possible for them to launch a successful opposed invasion of the Falklands, and keep them against the British without a comprehensive overhaul of its entire military.
The resources and time needed to do that would be enormous, and such a massive undertaking would surely not go unnoticed.
Not only would the UK have ample warning and time to build up their own forces in counter, the US would surely see that as a gross threat.
I mean, the chickenhawks in Washington are getting all worked up about loosing the ability to being able to beat China up on China's doorstep whenever they feel like, you think China effectively building, what would be a Chinese strategic ally, into a military powerhouse in America's own backyard would go down well?
I see the most likely American reaction to China arming up Argentina in any meaningful way would be a second Cuban Missile Crisis like event.
Here is where the ability factor comes in.
If America gets so concerned as to directly involve itself(the British would undoubtably do all they can to make American feel as threatened as possible by China arming Argentina to the teeth), not even with the Falklands, but with containing the 'Red Argentinian Threat', what could Beijing do about it?
Even the USSR had to ultimately back down in the face of American nuclear brinksmanship, and unlike the USSR, China does not have nuclear parity with American, or anything like that.
Nor as yet does China have the power projection capabilities of the USSR in relation to America during 62.
China is never going to actively and willingly put itself into a stand-off it knows it could not win.
This is where timing comes into play.
The only way any of those would make sense if the balance of power is such that China has managed to successfully push American influence out of Asia completely, secured its sea lines of communication with the Middle East, African and Europe from all possible interference, and is actively looking for a pretext to establish a foothold in South America as part of an overall containment strategy against America.
Even if China has that as its long term goal (and there is zero indication and little reason to suggest that it is), we are looking at a minimal of decades, maybe even centuries before the global geopolitical situation shifts so much short of some completely unforeseeable and total calamity befalling the US.
Overall, this theory seems far more like the over-active imagination of a western poker playing mind thinking of big betting worst case scenarios, rather than the patient, focused yet all encampusing long-term thinking typical of weiqi playing Chinese strategists.
The focus is also on how to screw British instead of how to benefit China.
While playing spoiler for the sake of screwing an opponent over can be a goal in and of itself, to be frank, Britain just isn't big enough of a power or problem for China to go to such lengths and take such risks just to screw over.
The most likely scenario is actually one you already seemed to have dismissed - the AIIB.
However, I think you may have the roles and order slightly mixed, which is probably why it didn't make a great deal of sense and why you first rejected it.
Rather than China using possible arms sales to Argentina as a threat to coerce the British into joining, it seems far more likely to me that the British listed not providing Argentina with certain arms as a key condition to the UK breaking ranks with America and joining the AIIB.
Since the AIIB is of far greater import to Beijing's plans than a few measly billions in arms sales, it is a deal Beijing would have been happy to take.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The Nuclear issue here I feel is really a red haring. The UK has Nuclear weapons of its own yes but does anyone really think that they would have launched them in the first Falklands conflict? Only one nation on earth has ever deployed Nuclear arms in anger, the United States of America. And then only in the absolute total war of the second world war. Since the end of the second world war, the nuclear option has been seen only has a retaliation against attack on home territory.
As some one pointed out before the hand over of Hong Kong the PRC had the bomb for 40 years, during the negotiations between the UK and PRC it might have been 30 years. It was also not the military that pushed the turn over as the PRC would have been capable to take Hong Kong with raw numbers for some time. In the end the biggest points were the economic growth and political positions.
The UK was in a position that it wanted to retract back to the Atlantic, the PRC was in one that it wanted Hong Kong not for the sake of territory but because it is unto its self a economic powerhouse a Asian New York city with billions of dollars flowing through it.
The end result was not a total capitulation by the UK but a negotiated agreement that has kept a number of unique foreign and domestic policies in effect in Hong Kong and the new territories separate from the mainland.
In the case of the Falklands war the conflict was very much a choice made by the Argentinian Junta in the belief that the UK would not react in defense. The result was they underestimated the British government under Thatcher and the British Military's capacity to respond. Farther more the end conflict was very much a chess players war with both sides more or less equivalent in available resources.
Since the end of the war the Falklands defense force has remained small but potent operating as a deterrent and SAR asset. In its Deterrent role its not that big or as extensive as one would think. A hand full of fighters a small flotilla of naval assets and a garrison of a few hundred troops.
When compared to the assets available to the existing Argentine military though its enough. As although Argentinian has a larger army and Marines they lack the assets to transport them and the picket ships to defend them. Although Argentina has a air force its fighters have been left to rot. The only assets that might have functional capacity to launch a action the airborne forces would be lumbering in c130s right into the waiting jaws of state of the art Typhoon fighters.
Now then recovering my point and to counter. Yes the Falklands population is primarily of Anglo decent but so two was a number of citizens of Hong Kong who remain there as well. Could the Argentinian's woe such a population?
Today no. But if Argentina stabilized, had a economic turn around and were willing to make compromises like allowing a set amount of autonomy in regards to language, driving ( which side of the road), and citizenships then chances are that they could get the deal.
The biggest reason why the British have stayed it not the islands but the population. If Downing street felt that the population was going to have all the rights of property and livelihood assured they would be willing to negotiate either a joint venture or hand over. The local population can see the situation and is not satisfied that they would be in a better place under Argentina, the Parliament and PM agree.
As to China and feeding Argentina the resources to support there claims. What would the PRC get out of it? Argentinian is in no position to make any real positive results to the PRC if it had the Falklands.
the PRC might be happy to sell some weapons and make a few investments. A few budget rate fighters some amphibious AFVs, even a few destroyers is not going to reach the level of investment needed to turn the Argentinian Military into a invasion force guaranteed to give the British the boot at best it would only return to parody which is still deference.
The investment needed to give Argentina overmatch would be far more then Beijing is willing to pay without getting something major on there return.
The
PRC can get oil from Russia, Africa and the middle east (not to mention Asia) as easily if not more so then from Argentina.
An Atlantic basing is not that big a need and if it was they already have other nations who would happily grant it for a 10% the cost financially and politically.
And the political backlash from the UK and USA would be far more then the occasional slap on the wrist they are used to.
A few brownie points with Argentina wouldn't justify it.
As some one pointed out before the hand over of Hong Kong the PRC had the bomb for 40 years, during the negotiations between the UK and PRC it might have been 30 years. It was also not the military that pushed the turn over as the PRC would have been capable to take Hong Kong with raw numbers for some time. In the end the biggest points were the economic growth and political positions.
The UK was in a position that it wanted to retract back to the Atlantic, the PRC was in one that it wanted Hong Kong not for the sake of territory but because it is unto its self a economic powerhouse a Asian New York city with billions of dollars flowing through it.
The end result was not a total capitulation by the UK but a negotiated agreement that has kept a number of unique foreign and domestic policies in effect in Hong Kong and the new territories separate from the mainland.
In the case of the Falklands war the conflict was very much a choice made by the Argentinian Junta in the belief that the UK would not react in defense. The result was they underestimated the British government under Thatcher and the British Military's capacity to respond. Farther more the end conflict was very much a chess players war with both sides more or less equivalent in available resources.
Since the end of the war the Falklands defense force has remained small but potent operating as a deterrent and SAR asset. In its Deterrent role its not that big or as extensive as one would think. A hand full of fighters a small flotilla of naval assets and a garrison of a few hundred troops.
When compared to the assets available to the existing Argentine military though its enough. As although Argentinian has a larger army and Marines they lack the assets to transport them and the picket ships to defend them. Although Argentina has a air force its fighters have been left to rot. The only assets that might have functional capacity to launch a action the airborne forces would be lumbering in c130s right into the waiting jaws of state of the art Typhoon fighters.
Now then recovering my point and to counter. Yes the Falklands population is primarily of Anglo decent but so two was a number of citizens of Hong Kong who remain there as well. Could the Argentinian's woe such a population?
Today no. But if Argentina stabilized, had a economic turn around and were willing to make compromises like allowing a set amount of autonomy in regards to language, driving ( which side of the road), and citizenships then chances are that they could get the deal.
The biggest reason why the British have stayed it not the islands but the population. If Downing street felt that the population was going to have all the rights of property and livelihood assured they would be willing to negotiate either a joint venture or hand over. The local population can see the situation and is not satisfied that they would be in a better place under Argentina, the Parliament and PM agree.
As to China and feeding Argentina the resources to support there claims. What would the PRC get out of it? Argentinian is in no position to make any real positive results to the PRC if it had the Falklands.
the PRC might be happy to sell some weapons and make a few investments. A few budget rate fighters some amphibious AFVs, even a few destroyers is not going to reach the level of investment needed to turn the Argentinian Military into a invasion force guaranteed to give the British the boot at best it would only return to parody which is still deference.
The investment needed to give Argentina overmatch would be far more then Beijing is willing to pay without getting something major on there return.
The
PRC can get oil from Russia, Africa and the middle east (not to mention Asia) as easily if not more so then from Argentina.
An Atlantic basing is not that big a need and if it was they already have other nations who would happily grant it for a 10% the cost financially and politically.
And the political backlash from the UK and USA would be far more then the occasional slap on the wrist they are used to.
A few brownie points with Argentina wouldn't justify it.
There is always a danger of misreading the runes, especially when many are far from clear. There are though some strange anomalies from the deals under discussion, which are hard to explain.
I most certainly have not discounted the AIIB angle and a way to further complicate US/UK relations remains in my mind at least, a top likely policy objective. I also agree with you re the order of events in which the UK agreed to invest, I do not think that London needed much coercion at all. The "threat" element is real though although not necessarily implicit. Its all the more complicated as the search for "leverage" is multi vectored and global and may be being used in events far removed from the Falklands issue and it is virtually impossible to see the right connection without insider knowledge.
At the same time though, likely reserves of 60 Billion Barrels is no matter of in consequence and must be a factor in various stratagems.
The other local aspect is that once you armed one nation with a high level of weaponry, you inevitably spark an arms race in the region, and that could be sought for a truly multi vectored policy.
The other aspect is more difficult to define, but I know its important somehow. This relates to Chinese Interests in the Antarctic, but I must admit I do not know enough of China's activities or related relations with nations to put the pieces together; Chile, Argentina, The Antarctic Peninsular and the Falklands as a related piece of that jigsaw.
Maybe somebody has some insight on this?
Actually I have just realised that I have managed to sidetrack myself so completely, that I forgot to write the original scenario that had occurred to me.
This was that the South Atlantic Deposits would have been of great interest to the rising powers through their BRICS grouping and an ideal development project for the BRICS banks, as it would have two members in the immediate vicinity and utilise the skills of two more.
The key aspect of this scenario would be for China to help the Argentine erode the UK territorial claim, by using its land reclamation skills learned in the South China Seas. This would mean building islands around reefs and similar features in strategic locations and putting the squeeze on in that way.
It was a pretty important element of the first post to miss out
This was that the South Atlantic Deposits would have been of great interest to the rising powers through their BRICS grouping and an ideal development project for the BRICS banks, as it would have two members in the immediate vicinity and utilise the skills of two more.
The key aspect of this scenario would be for China to help the Argentine erode the UK territorial claim, by using its land reclamation skills learned in the South China Seas. This would mean building islands around reefs and similar features in strategic locations and putting the squeeze on in that way.
It was a pretty important element of the first post to miss out
Are their suitable reefs about?Actually I have just realised that I have managed to sidetrack myself so completely, that I forgot to write the original scenario that had occurred to me.
This was that the South Atlantic Deposits would have been of great interest to the rising powers through their BRICS grouping and an ideal development project for the BRICS banks, as it would have two members in the immediate vicinity and utilise the skills of two more.
The key aspect of this scenario would be for China to help the Argentine erode the UK territorial claim, by using its land reclamation skills learned in the South China Seas. This would mean building islands around reefs and similar features in strategic locations and putting the squeeze on in that way.
It was a pretty important element of the first post to miss out
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The south china seas is a tropical climate, the Falklands is very different. Additionally consider the all important population factor. Most of the SCS and ECS revolve around uninhabited territories rocks and reefs populated by birds and fish not people.
By occupation rights are bestowed to a degree, but a artificial Island does not add territorial integrity. And the key issues for Argentina is not reefs but the populated islands.
By occupation rights are bestowed to a degree, but a artificial Island does not add territorial integrity. And the key issues for Argentina is not reefs but the populated islands.
Equation
Lieutenant General
It doesn't have to be a reef. It can be inland since the Argentina mainland are not that far off from the Malvinas/ Falkland islands. They can build a mobile large platform of sort.
Exactly. No island is nearer than the mainland and I don't think the ocean has sufficiently shallow reefs in a useful place.
thunderchief
Senior Member
It doesn't have to be a war .
Let's assume Argentina acquires around 30 Flankers with latest upgrades from China (or Russia) . Sufficient range to do all kinds of nasty stuff on Falklands .
To counter that Britain would need to deploy more Typhoons and ground troops , to send warships more frequently etc .... in other words, increased logistical cost, more pressure on British government and less ability to act on other hotspots around the world .
Eventually, it could put Britain in position to be more friendly to Argentinian demands for negotiations about sovereignty of islands .