Consider Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Like our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, her husband is also a former president. Unlike Hillary, she made it all the way into office, receiving a hefty 22% edge over her rival. She's also a rather physically attractive figure.

On the other hand, her former high popularity has plummeted: she's been found to have received at least one suitcase full of money (the tip of an iceberg, no doubt) from Hugo Chavez. (Her husband, Nestor, formerly engaged in "unity talks" to align their government with the Chavez regime.) She passed an unpopular law raiding private pensions to support the government's society security system — yet at the same time, critics have demanded an investigation into huge increases in Christina and Nestor's wealth.

This January, after a failed attempt to bring her country's central bank under her control, she and her husband were "reported to the Justice because of illicit gain". Last month, two members of her staff resigned under the same charges. She's made moves to restrict the media using both new laws (allowing the state to decide who can own what publications), and union allies who silenced critical news outlet using "force and threats of violence." Opponents have called for impeachment.

Amidst all this controversy, she suddenly decides her country needs a good war: time to invade the Falklands, again! Strategically, that's a clever move: it will keep the headlines off her and force Argentinians (she hopes) to rally around her government. It will also give her an opportunity to enact unprecedented controls and powers, the kind only appropriate during times of war.

The UK's government, in return, notes correctly that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands have zero desire to become subjects of Fernandez. Their position is that such negotiations would thus add unhelpful creditability to Kirchner's desire for gaining control over the Falklands.

So who is the US backing? Take a wild guess...

Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered "to encourage both countries to sit down."

Her intervention defied Britain's longstanding position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands' 3,000 inhabitants asked for them. It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands....

What began as a last-minute change to Mrs Clinton's itinerary on her five-day sweep through Latin America has snowballed into a major diplomatic incident that has emboldened Argentina and caught the US largely unawares [sic].... US officials said privately that British fears of being abandoned by the US over the Falklands were wildly overblown, but any hope on the part of the Administration of staying on the sidelines looked forlorn yesterday.

Hector Timerman, the Argentine Ambassador to the US, said he had never seen "such substantial support" from Washington for his country's claim....

In the Falklands, reaction to the meeting ranged from dismay to fury. "It's outrageous after all the support we have given the United States," said Hattie Kilmartin, a sheepfarmer's wife. "They are not looking at the people who are actually living here and what they want, and it's crazy that they are even contemplating going against us." Jane Clement, who works at Stanley airport, said her reaction was "probably unprintable." She added: "I'm very disappointed. I always thought we would have support."

Tiffany Gillen, an American citizen living in the Falklands, wrote a letter of protest to President Obama, asking: "How can we not support these people, this country? Have we ceased to be allies of the United Kingdom?"

Apparently.

Well, at least we're pleasing some people with our bold new foreign policy stances. Too bad, as with Honduras, they tend to be allies of Chavez, people who affect a visible dislike for popular democracy and limited rule, people who use threats of violence to consolidate control and silence dissent.

As usual, you'll have to read a British newspaper for coverage.