US refuses to back UK over Falklands sovereignty

There is one big difference between the situation regarding the Falkland Islands in 1982 and today - the Americans will not endorse Britain's claim to sovereignty. Furthermore, they are refusing to back Britain's argument that it has the right under international law to drill for oil in the waters surrounding the islands. They says it's a matter for the Argentines and the British to sort out between themselves.

In short, Barack Obama's administration is determined not to allow the US to be dragged into the issue as President Reagan was three decades ago when, to the fury of South Americans, he offered Margaret Thatcher public support and intelligence back-up during her war to regain the Falklands following Argentina's invasion.

Obama has enough on his hands with the Latin American countries - whose leaders decided this week to form a new regional bloc, excluding the US and Canada - without finding itself on the wrong side over the Falklands again.

Which means that Britain is on its own as the row escalates with the Argentines over the arrival in Falklands waters this week of a drilling rig, the Ocean Guardian, to begin oil exploration.

Argentina raised the temperature again last night by appealing to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to intervene in the dispute.

Jorge Taiana, the Argentine Foreign Minister, who reiterated Argentina's long-held claim over the Falklands - or Las Malvinas, as the Argentines call the islands - said after meeting Ban: "The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening.

"We have asked the Secretary-General, within the framework of his good offices, to stress to Britain the need to abstain from further unilateral acts."

However, Britain is adamant that there is nothing to discuss and so it does not want this to become a UN issue. As a result - as a senior UN aide acknowledged last night - Ban is unable to mediate.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's Ambassador to the UN, said: "As British ministers have made clear, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands . . . We are also clear that the Falkland Islands Government is entitled to develop a hydrocarbons industry within its waters, and we support this legitimate business in Falklands' territory."

British officials are adamant that drilling goes ahead and also indicated that any US support for negotiations at the UN would be most unwelcome.

The Ocean Guardian is being used by more than one company to explore in Falklands waters. The big question is whether it finds enough oil to make drilling worthwhile.

When Shell did exploratory drilling in 1998, it decided not to go ahead. But oil was $10 a barrel then, and it's more that $75 today, which means the cost of drilling and distribution is more easily recoverable.

The reason the Argentine president Cristina Fernandez won't let go of the issue is not just age-old Argentine pride - it's because her country's faltering economy could benefit from an injection of oil revenue.

But how much oil is there under the seabed around the islands? The often quoted figure, based on previous geological surveys, is 60 billion barrels in total. But a spokesman for the UK-listed Falkland Oil and Gas told the BBC this figure was "slightly mythical" and estimates its four biggest prospects in the area have eight billion barrels of oil.

To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer, has proven reserves of more than 267 billion barrels of oil and produces more than 10 million barrels a day.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Before it was corrected, the author confused eight billion with eight million in the penultimate paragraph. Apologies.

  ·