Iranian Press TV is reporting that British ships have been banned from docking at Argentina's largest port and capital city, Buenos Aires:
Now, normally I am inclined to take anything coming out of Tel Aviv, Tehran, or The Washington Post as the sort of swill and codswallop one finds in the grocery store queue (usually under the astrology sun sign booklets and next to People magazine), but in this case, the codswallop is being backed up by the likes of Great Britain's own Daily Torygraph...er...pardon me, TELEgraph:
Now, note that Argentina's president Christina Fernandez de Kirchner (....hmmmm....) passed this law, and that the story is being reported by the Daily Tory...er...Telegraph on August 3, 2012. Note also that the Argentine law is named for a famous rebel who led a revolt against British rule on the Falkland Islands, or on what Argentines prefer to call the Malvinas.
Now of course, all this is interesting background, for Argentina, under the colossally stupid regime of Galtieri & Co, (A.G.), led an invasion of the Falklands in the 1980s, an invasion which, predictably, didn't sit too well with Mrs. Thatcher, who proposed to oust the Argentine military, which she did, and in short order, and not even Niel Kinnock had much to say in opposition to it(except for the outcry against the sinking of theGeneral Belgrano).
Well, all this is is backdrop and context for what recently happened with Ecuador's granting of political asylum to Mr. Julian Assange. Ecuador's Foreign Minister, Senor Ricardo Patino, in response to a British aide memoire presented formally to Ecuador's London embassy and simultaneously to the Ecuadorian government in Quito which stated Britian may actually physically storm Ecuador's embassy if it didn't turn over Mr. Assange forthwith, responded by pointing out that, notwithstanding the British law, such acts were violations of international law, protocol, and Ecuador's national sovereignty. At this juncture, the USA of course threatened the inevitable sanctions against Ecuador.
Normally, at this point, if past history was any example, the weaker Latin American country would have rolled over, paws in the air, and said "Ok ok you win!" and perhaps muttered some choice expressions under its breath that they do not teach in any school, Spanish or English. But again, against all odds, Ecuador said that if this occurred, there would be a "response." Well, Ecuador has no bunker busting bombs to rain down on London, has no peace keepers to send in under the pretext of fighting terrorism and installing democracy in the truculent British monarchy, so what kind of response? Answer: Ecuador would take its case to the OAS.
Now I previously have argued that Ecuador would not have been this open in its defiance of almighty London and Washington if it was alone, and this earlier action by Argentina indicates that it is not, and that perhaps the Latin American response to the whole Assange affair is a coordinated and international one. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Quito would be openly defiant without having consulted Sao Paolo and Buenos Aires.
If Argentina's President Fernand de Kirchner (....hmmm....) and her ban on any British shipping is any indicator, then the UK and USA can expect some very rough diplomatic waters ahead in South America... and Moscow and Beiking will not, I strongly suspect, be content to sit idly by and watch American sanctions wreak havoc on those countries.
In a world, folks, South America increasingly looks like they've had it with the "Venetian" nuts running London and Washington. And let's not forget, too, that Duponzanto has been busily shoving its "food" down the throats of the South American famers...
...no, the West's diplomacy is failing in South America, and it is little wonder, for as the nuts become increasingly bolder and more brutal, they increasingly lose "preserves" that, if not friendly, were not openly defiant. First, Argentina, then Ecuador...
Now, watch Brazil.
See you on the flip side.