Hugo Chavez demands Queen return Falkland Islands to Argentina [Archive]

Yazman

23rd February 2010, 13:16

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7293985/Hugo-Chavez-demands-Queen-return-Falkland-Islands-to-Argentina.html

Snippet from source (click link for full article):

The outspoken Mr Chavez used his weekly television and radio show Alo Presidente to rally Latin America behind the cause of his Argentine counterpart Cristina Kirchner by making a direct appeal to Buckingham Palace.

"Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas? Queen of England, I'm talking to you," said Mr Chavez.

"The time for empires are over, haven't you noticed? Return the Malvinas to the Argentine people."

Still addressing the Queen, he went on: "The English are still threatening Argentina. Things have changed. We are no longer in 1982. If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then."

He described British control of the islands in the South Atlantic as "anti-historic and irrational" and asked "why the English speak of democracy but still have a Queen".

There's been a lot of shit going down around the Falklands now, what with Argentina starting a blockade and everything. Now Chavez pipes up with this.

What are YOUR thoughts?

The pizza crazed Anarchist

23rd February 2010, 14:31

So let’s go fight a war over a few Islands so they can stay with or go to some capitalist government. This would surely be a victory for the working class of each country.

Lynx

23rd February 2010, 16:52

The promise of Oil can prompt all sorts of declarations.

Dimentio

23rd February 2010, 18:01

Most likely that Chàvez simply wants to have better relations with Argentina.

RadioRaheem84

23rd February 2010, 18:09

Man, Chavez just needs to cool it with all the machismo. He should focus on dealing with the class at home that want to kill him for now.

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 18:12

Man, Chavez just needs to cool it with all the machismo. He should focus on dealing with the class at home that want to kill him for now.

I'd have to agree with you. Chavez needs to spend more attention towards his country right now. He's on to something over there & can bring about real change for his people & the working class. There's no need to start making enemies right now.

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 18:54

I'd have to agree with you. Chavez needs to spend more attention towards his country right now. He's on to something over there & can bring about real change for his people & the working class. There's no need to start making enemies right now.
Or, he very much needs to align himself and his country within a bloc, or a group of countries that comes as close to a bloc as possible. Typical behavior, really, not to mention determined for him in advance by the world situation.

Â¿Que?

23rd February 2010, 19:19

~Spectre

23rd February 2010, 19:54

It's tactical coalition building. Almost nothing that Chavez can do at this point will get him in any more hot water with the Imperialists than he is already in. They've tried to off him once, and no one has doubts that they will try again the second they get the chance. He has nothing to lose, and a lot of followers for the movement to gain.

Tifosi

23rd February 2010, 20:36

Why ask tell the queen? she has no power:p

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 20:39

Why ask tell the queen? she has no power:p
Clearly the installation of absolute monarchy is the new way forward for twenty-first century socialism!:laugh:

Lenny Nista

23rd February 2010, 23:14

Chavez is right but he doesn't mean it, he is just holiday speechifying.

He knows the Argentine bourgeosie will not dare take back what British imperialism has stolen, in a cotnext much less favourable than 1982: no more Soviet threat making Argentina key to US imperialism, no more Plan Condor, a much weaker Argentine army, and a much more aggressive British imperialism. In 1982 they thought they could snatch the Malvinas and negotiate with the British with Us support, today they know that only a revolution, getting rid of them also, could liberate Argentina from imperialist domination.

And so Chavez knows his words will not be put to the test.

Woyzeck

23rd February 2010, 23:24

He's on to something over there & can bring about real change for his people & the working class.

When have bourgeois politicians, even populist ones, ever "[brought] about real change" (socialist revolution I presume?) for the working class?

Outinleftfield

23rd February 2010, 23:27

Not sure this would even be a big victory against imperialism. The Falkland Islands are mostly populated by people of British decent who have emerged their own identity. Most people there don't want to become part of Argentina.

Falkland independence would go a lot further against imperialism.

Woyzeck

23rd February 2010, 23:32

Almost nothing that Chavez can do at this point will get him in any more hot water with the Imperialists than he is already in.

I beg to differ. A genuine socialist revolution in Venezuela would incur the full wrath of US and European imperialism, probably in the form of a military invasion and/or proxy war via a regional subordinate such as Columbia. Since there hasn't been a socialist revolution and one doesn't look to be on the cards anytime soon I would say the imperialists are more than likely just a little browned off and a tad anxious, but hardly at their wit's end with worry about Mr. Chavez and his pompous decrees.

Lenny Nista

23rd February 2010, 23:39

dez

23rd February 2010, 23:44

Why ask tell the queen? she has no power:p

That is questionable. The queen still has some influence and is seen as a major public figure in Great Britain.
Id think that he wasn't being literal on addressing the queen though, he probably took it as an opportunity to bash at a constitutional monarchy whose monarch isn't exactly distant from spain's.

Or, he very much needs to align himself and his country within a bloc, or a group of countries that comes as close to a bloc as possible. Typical behavior, really, not to mention determined for him in advance by the world situation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8531266.stm

The Red Next Door

24th February 2010, 02:00

He is not helping. Somebody claim him down.

zimmerwald1915

24th February 2010, 02:16

Revy

24th February 2010, 04:08

Well, there's also some Russian nationalists that want Alaska back.

Does its close proximity to Argentina matter? By that logic, the US could claim Bermuda, which is also an overseas territory of the UK, since the closest country to Bermuda is the US.

Who lives in the Falklands? There are very few people there that are from Argentina, or want to be part of Argentina. Though I think they feel closer to the Americas than they do to Britain.

cb9's_unity

24th February 2010, 04:50

Woyzeck

24th February 2010, 13:48

Of course, a genuine socialist revolution would also incur the full wrath of Chavez and the Bolivarian Republic. Kinky.

Agreed.

scarletghoul

24th February 2010, 14:28

I'm really new to this subject, but a little research seems to indicate that the citizens of the Falklands are pro-British. While from a leftist perspective this doesn't justify British exploitation of the area, it also dismisses any Argentine claim to the land.

Thus Chavez's comments are somewhat concerning. It would be somewhat understandable if he urged British exit from the area, but he does much more than that. Chavez actually calls for the island to be placed into capitalist Argentine hands, apparently against the will of its inhabitants. Opposition to imperialism should start in the Falklands for the Falklands, not in Venezuela for Argentina.

Of course if I'm wrong and there is a major sovereignty, or even pro-Argentine, movement in the Falklands then my argument is useless.
The population of the Falklands is not just 'pro-British'; they are a british settler colony. Of course theyre gonna say they want to stay under British rule, because they are the key part of British rule not just on the islands but throughout the surrounding area, and British imperial power in the region.
By your argument the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine are legitimate becuase the majority of their population supports Israel, the occupied north of Ireland should be part of Britain and not Ireland because the Anglo-Irish settlers are a majority there, etc.
A settler colony serving imperialist interests can not be counted as the legitimate rulers of a place when that place is part of another country.

Dimentio

24th February 2010, 15:24

There actually was an Argentinian settlement before the British annexed the islands in 1833.

Andropov

24th February 2010, 15:38

The population of the Falklands is not just 'pro-British'; they are a british settler colony. Of course theyre gonna say they want to stay under British rule, because they are the key part of British rule not just on the islands but throughout the surrounding area, and British imperial power in the region.
By your argument the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine are legitimate becuase the majority of their population supports Israel, the occupied north of Ireland should be part of Britain and not Ireland because the Anglo-Irish settlers are a majority there, etc.
A settler colony serving imperialist interests can not be counted as the legitimate rulers of a place when that place is part of another country.
Indeed, I dont see posters here bashing South Africa for refusing to grant the Afrikaners their own free Orange Transvaal state with all the inherent degeneracy that is assosciated with a people whos faith is tied to that of Imperialism and exploitation.

24th February 2010, 16:24

There is no chance of another Falklands war from this government, it's highly unlikely under Cameron either so that's just out of the question. The last Falklands war was a disaster in terms of deaths of both Argentinian and idiotic British forces (Thatcher was so smart that she diverted a missile into destroying the main supply ship for British forces, essentially putting the entire British side's war at jeopardy). They've made the Malvinas a bit like Hong Kong, a tiny island of "Britishness" in somewhere that is completely hostile to British interests, so it's a matter of the waiting game before something happens such as it being "democratically transferred" to Argentina.

Anyhow, Chavez is just posturing and nothing is going to come out of it whichever way. you look at it.

~Spectre

25th February 2010, 07:53

I beg to differ. A genuine socialist revolution in Venezuela would incur the full wrath of US and European imperialism, probably in the form of a military invasion and/or proxy war via a regional subordinate such as Columbia. Since there hasn't been a socialist revolution and one doesn't look to be on the cards anytime soon I would say the imperialists are more than likely just a little browned off and a tad anxious, but hardly at their wit's end with worry about Mr. Chavez and his pompous decrees.

You aren't differing. I said almost nothing. The regional proxy war is already in lukewarm stages with several bases being installed in Colombia.

They don't worry about his decrees. That's nonsense and personality politics.

They do however loathe the fact that he doesn't allow Venezuela's oil to be purchased for 1-16% of its total market value, as used to be the case. They really don't like that.

With the world coming to an oil crunch over the next few years, and the U.S. being less and less able to militarily control oil, they really really don't like that.

So my statement was entirely correct. Almost nothing Chavez can do will make them angrier at him than they already are.

Ligeia

25th February 2010, 08:37

There is no chance of another Falklands war from this government, it's highly unlikely under Cameron either so that's just out of the question.

The Argentinian government already discarded the use of military force for this issue, too. They already tried to reach out the UNO....
Anyway, Chavez generally is trying to point out this colonialism for reasons to seed more unity in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well...in the meeting of the Rio Group he also gave other examples like Puerto Rico, Aruba, Curazao and Bonaire as being rests of colonialism.

ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR

26th February 2010, 00:47

zimmerwald1915

26th February 2010, 05:46

President Hugo Chavez should be applauded by all revolutionaries. He is indeed siding with the people of Argentina and in addition with the oppressed peoples of the world. The Falkland Islands should be for the Argentines and not for British imperialism. Just like a comrade above mentioned, just because the majority in the islands are "pro-british" and favor its horrible system doesn't justify the situation. Its right on, the Argentine people in order to advance towards communism must fight in their struggle for national liberation, i.e kick the british out.
What connection is there between the annexation of the Falklands by Argentina and the capacity of the Argentine workers for revolution?

Also, please clarify what you mean by "kick the British out". I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean "end British rule over the Falklands", but others might not be so kind. They might even think you're talking about forced relocation, the sillies!

Lenny Nista

26th February 2010, 16:43

There actually was an Argentinian settlement before the British annexed the islands in 1833.

This is true. It was destroyed a year previously by the US Navy, in return for the Argentine governor imposing restrictions on seal hunting by US businesses. The British took advantage of the destruction and grabbed the Islands.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People saying that the Kelpers wish to be British: the trouble is that this means inviting British imperialism and army bases into South American waters, when Britain has historically been aggressive and explotiative towards the region.

You don't have the right to be "British" anywhere you want: Britain should stay in its borders! I don't see Britain allowing Bangladeshi troops into East London even if the majority in some areas feel more Bangladeshi than British. I don't see Britain letting Irish troops into Catholic areas of Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Likewise of course these people wnat to be British! They nejoy enormour economic priveliges from it! Like people have said, it's the equivalent of "white" areas of South Africa demanding "independence" - an "independence" that can only come at the cost of screwing over their neighbours.

Likewise the British have always maintained miltiary presence in the Malvinas, long before Argentina's "invasion".

The Ghost of Revolutions

27th February 2010, 06:33

I have to question Argentina's motives. I know they have always claimed the Falklands belonged to them but this seems more about oil and nationalism then anything else. As people have posted before the return of the Falklands would still keep it in captialist hands. Also this is Chavez trying to get Argentinas support.

Devrim

27th February 2010, 07:09

Chavez has effectively turned what is in essence an issue of Argentinian nationalism into an issue of anti-imperialism and socialism. Regardless of what you think of his comments, his intended audience was the Argentinian people, and the result should be to push them further to the left. Like I said, the Malvinas issue is in essence a nationalist issue, and there is great potential for a resurgence of fascism. Chavez has effectively drowned out and overshadowed any such resistance coming from the right. What he is doing for the Argentinian people should be commended.

As a person of Argentinian birth, I personally would like to thank Chavez.

The Malvinas issue is a nationalist issue, pure and simple. It in no way turns into a socialist issue because a general with a little eft wing phraseology raises it.

It's a settler colony which lets Britain have access to the natural resources in the region at the expense of Argentina.

Absolutely, but is it the task of revolutionaries to support one state over another.

By your argument the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine are legitimate becuase the majority of their population supports Israel, the occupied north of Ireland should be part of Britain and not Ireland because the Anglo-Irish settlers are a majority there, etc.

There is a bit of a difference in that there are no Palestinians or Irish Catholics there.

A settler colony serving imperialist interests can not be counted as the legitimate rulers of a place when that place is part of another country.

But then to communists no bourgeois state are legitimate.

Lenin supported national liberation struggles under the, in my opinion mistake, principle of the 'self determination of people's'. This in no way applies here. This is a straight forward good old imperialist clash over resources, and communists should not be siding with either side.

Devrim

whore

27th February 2010, 09:30

There actually was an Argentinian settlement before the British annexed the islands in 1833.
if that is relevant, we should be support the french claim to the island. wikipedia says that the french had the first european settlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Early_colonisation

France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) established a colony at Port St. Louis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_St._Louis), on East Falkland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Falkland)'s Berkeley Sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Sound) coast in 1764. The French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) name Îles Malouines was given to the islands – malouin being the adjective for the Breton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany) port (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaport) of Saint-Malo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Malo). The Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) name Islas Malvinas is a translation of the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) name.
but wait, it isn't relevant. and neither is the argentianian settlement which was destroyed by the usa.

i support neither side, and i think that charvez is showing his true colors (once again). his is no revolutionary, but a nationalist pseduo socialist.

if i had to choose an option that is not world revolution, i can only suggest independence for the islands. but that is hardly likely is it.

Devrim

27th February 2010, 10:32

i support neither side, and i think that charvez is showing his true colors (once again). his is no revolutionary, but a nationalist pseduo socialist.

I completely agree with this.

if i had to choose an option that is not world revolution, i can only suggest independence for the islands. but that is hardly likely is it.

I think that the main point is that socialists don't have to choose an 'option' in cases like this. It is not our job to deliberate on disputes between different states.

Devrim

whore

27th February 2010, 12:31

well, i know. but it gets sort of depressing sometimes when you can't engage in conversation with people, because they have a quite different world view to yours.

as such, for many topics, i do sometimes think of "best in the current scenario" options. (e.g. one state solution in palastine, secular, democratic etc.).

for these islands, the best option to prevent conflict, would i think, be independence. there is no reason to support argentinian claims. and british claims, well, are absurd. the only reason is the support of the local people (which has too often been disregarded in the past regardless). the only reason the british government wants these islands (and the only reason teh argentinians want them) is for resources that may be in the area.

bah, sometimes its hard being a revolutionary.

scarletghoul

27th February 2010, 18:52

Lenny Nista

27th February 2010, 19:47

if that is relevant, we should be support the french claim to the island. wikipedia says that the french had the first european settlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Early_colonisation

but wait, it isn't relevant. and neither is the argentianian settlement which was destroyed by the usa.

What about the logic of decolonization which would make the inter-colonial claims irrelevant once the territory became independent?

Surely a communist should know about such an improtant historical process? The fact you don't makes methink you haven't given a lot of thought at all to the issue of national oppression.

Devrim: I believe in the anti-imperialist united front.

Devrim

27th February 2010, 19:55

Devrim: I believe in the anti-imperialist united front.

With whom, the Argentinian state?

Devrim

Lenny Nista

27th February 2010, 20:05

With whom, the Argentinian state?

Devrim

With whoever is leading a popular movement against imperialism.

zimmerwald1915

27th February 2010, 20:39

Well apart from the fact that its the stolen territory of the Argentinian people (even if they dont currently control their state), giving the Malvinas back would weaken British imperialism and thus further the chances of world revolution even if just a little bit, so you might aswell support it even if its from a puritanical ultraleftist angle. Though I do think you all should care about imperialism too but ah well
The division of the world into "imperialist countries" and "victims of imperialism" is quite superficial. It amounts, basically, to a division of the world into successful imperialist countries and countries with frustrated ambitions. Imperialism is a world system, which system doesn't weaken simply because one state takes over the administration of a given territory from another state.

Devrim: I believe in the anti-imperialist united front...with whoever is leading a popular movement against imperialism.
It is quite interesting that you assume, a priori, that whatever organization you adhere to (if you do) won't be leading "a popular movement against imperialism". It is interesting that you automatically assume a subordinate place for yourself. Beyond that, it is very dangerous politically to bait the working class into following the sector of the world bourgeoisie that happens to reside in whatever country you're talking about. The main enemy is at home, and all that.

Lenny Nista

27th February 2010, 20:59

It is quite interesting that you assume, a priori, that whatever organization you adhere to (if you do) won't be leading "a popular movement against imperialism". It is interesting that you automatically assume a subordinate place for yourself.

I don't need to assume something which is an existing reality.

Obviously if revolutionaries led the movement then this whole discussion would be pointless: the discussion is rather, how we get to such a position of leadership in the first place.

Beyond that, it is very dangerous politically to bait the working class into following the sector of the world bourgeoisie that happens to reside in whatever country you're talking about. The main enemy is at home, and all that

You assert that this is "very dangerous". I counter that ti is very dangerous for revolutionaries to leave the tasks of the completion of the bourgeois revolution in the semi-colonies (such as national sovereignity, territorial integrity, a national economy, industrialization, ownership of natral resources, etc.) to the "national bourgeosie" in such countries, rather than make them part of our program.

whore

28th February 2010, 13:03

Well apart from the fact that its the stolen territory of the Argentinian people (even if they dont currently control their state), giving the Malvinas back would weaken British imperialism and thus further the chances of world revolution even if just a little bit, so you might aswell support it even if its from a puritanical ultraleftist angle. Though I do think you all should care about imperialism too but ah well
no, it isnt stolen territory of the argentian people. it is stolen from the french people! the first europeans to settle the islands were french, not argentinians. (as referecened above. the spanish name even comes from the original french name).
and, as i said above, the best position from a true revlutionary (who is being forced to pick an option, i understand what deverm says), is independence. it is hardly like the argentinians, or the government of that country is any more deserving of the natural resources of the area than the british.

What about the logic of decolonization which would make the inter-colonial claims irrelevant once the territory became independent?

Surely a communist should know about such an improtant historical process? The fact you don't makes methink you haven't given a lot of thought at all to the issue of national oppression.
i dont think i know what you are talking about. unless you are saying that the falklands should be independent.

anyway, why should a communist know every little thing abuot everything? surely a belief in working class power, and an oposition to capitalism is enough to start with?

anyway, no i havent give a lot of thought to national oppression. i dont believe that artificial entities, which exist to oppress, can themelves be oppressed.

Lenny Nista

28th February 2010, 13:36

i dont think i know what you are talking about. unless you are saying that the falklands should be independent.

anyway, why should a communist know every little thing abuot everything? surely a belief in working class power, and an oposition to capitalism is enough to start with?

The independence of the colonies is not a "little thing", is it. :rolleyes:

Youw ant to overthrow capitalism but you just shrug in the face of the worst kinds of racial and national oppression and don't even consider them worth reading about, and then worse, you come and lecture people on them?

Exploitation and oppressiond didn't begin with capitalism,a nd pre-capitlaist forms of exploitation and oppression still exist. The rise of capitalism was built on the exploitation of the colonies, this is where the initial capital came from to make the industrial revolution possible, Marx said this.

And of course national oprpession can exist, otherwise do you call what happens to the Palestinians then, for example?

Outinleftfield

5th March 2010, 06:11

I've researched a little more on this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History

Apparently these islands were uninhabited when the first Europeans visited them.

The first European to see them and from where is unknown.

The French made the settlement there, and then the Spanish got a hold of it from the French. The British made a settlement there when the French were there without knowing they were there. The Spanish attacked the British settlement, this almost lead to war, but they signed a treaty allowing them to stay but both sides still claimed sovereignty.

The British abandoned the settlement in 1776 but left behind a plaque claiming the islands. The Spanish moved in, running a settlement from Buenos Aires and left in 1811 but also left a plaque.

In 1820 an American privateer working contracted with the UPRP put up the flag of the United Provinces of the River Platte after it had declared independence from Spain as the United Provinces of the River Platte. This country would later become Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_the_River_Plate

In 1828 the UPRP made the settlement of Puerto Luis, which was destroyed in 1831 by the US Navy. That same year the UPRP ended. The British came in the next year to reassert their sovereignty.

So current British control was established with imperialism but so was Spanish control(Which preceded UPRP control) which took it from France.

Currently most people there do not want to be part of Argentina. Does an act of imperialism in the 1800s excuse an act of imperialism now? Did Spain's action of imperialism in taking over the Falklands excuse the British action of imperialism?

The working class of the Falkland Islands and the rest of the world should govern themselves and not be subjects of Britain, Argentina, capitalist bosses, or anybody else. We should not support the power of one capitalist state over another capitalist state. Our stance should be that there should not be a state in the Falklands Islands or there should be a worker's state in the Falkland Islands.

Glenn Beck

5th March 2010, 06:15

khad

5th March 2010, 06:17

Is this supposed to be some kind of satire?
It isn't revolution unless the Venezuelan people are exterminated to prove a point.

Invader Zim

5th March 2010, 17:46

There actually was an Argentinian settlement before the British annexed the islands in 1833.

Wrong on several levels. Firstly the British had aquired the Islands from the Spanish empire long before Argentina broke away from the Spanish empire. Secondly, the only 'Argentinan' colony founded on the Islands collapsed after two years when it began to indulge in the piracy of US shipping, and the US Navy drove them out. The Islands then remained unoccupied until the British re-assertion of control over the empty islands came some time later in responce to a potential US naval base being established on the Islands.

Lenny Nista

6th March 2010, 18:16

[QUOTE]Wrong on several levels. Firstly the British had aquired the Islands from the Spanish empire long before Argentina broke away from the Spanish empire.

So what? Once the region became decolonized, this becomes irrelevant. How many now decolonized areas would still today be "legitimately" the property of some Western European state if we kept applying this logic?

Now if politically you think decolonization is irrelevant, then say so...but let's not pretend like it never happened.

Secondly, the only 'Argentinan' colony founded on the Islands collapsed after two years when it began to indulge in the piracy of US shipping, and the US Navy drove them out.

No, the US Navy shelled the settlemnt in response to taxes on US seal hunting activites.

The Islands then remained unoccupied

For 1 year, while Buenos Aires was preparing the mission to resettle them.

Invader Zim

9th March 2010, 14:08

Once the region became decolonized, this becomes irrelevant.
Quite, but if people are going to argue this issue on the basis of bourgeois legality then they should be aware of the facts. Of course the only relevent fact is that until the foundation of the current, and still existing community, the Islands had never been populated with the exception of occassional use by passing sailors and sporadic, and universally unsuccessful, attempts at colonisation.

As it happens the decolonisation of Argentina is irrelevent to the Falkland's, because Argentina was never able to maintain a colony of its own on the Islands. The settlers who live there today, who along with their ancestors, have successfuly forged a life and permenant settlement on the barren collection of windy rocks for the first time in the history of the islands. Are you attempting to argue that, despite having lived on the islands for far longer than living memory, these people must forfit their homes/citizenship for the benefit of a nation that never once managed to plant a lasting colony on the islands and, until the islands were seen as potentially profitable by quasai-fascist dictators and bourgeois politicians, held little interest in?

Sorry but no, the whims of Argentinian politicians who smell money or popularity do not outweigh the rights of the only people who have actually constructed a moderate life and community on the islands which has lasted more than a couple of years.

No, the US Navy shelled the settlemnt in response to taxes on US seal hunting activites.

Wrong, they shelled the settlement because the settlers were capturing, plundering and rigging US fishing ship for war. A practise more commonly known as piracy.

For 1 year, while Buenos Aires was preparing the mission to resettle them.

And? The only way that means anything is if you apply bourgeois 19th century law to the question, and if you do so then you must conceed that Buenos Aires had no claim to the islands anyway because the island had ceased being a part of the Spanish Empire prior to independence in the region.

Of course, had the settlers forcefuly removed an indigenous population then things may be different, but that isn't the case.

Lenny Nista

10th March 2010, 01:25

[QUOTE]Quite, but if people are going to argue this issue on the basis of bourgeois legality then they should be aware of the facts.

Decolonization is not a question of bourgeois legality, it represents a progressive process gained through struggle.

Of course the only relevent fact is that until the foundation of the current, and still existing community, the Islands had never been populated with the exception of occassional use by passing sailors and sporadic, and universally unsuccessful, attempts at colonisation.

"Unsuccessful" because they were shelled out by the US, yes...

As it happens the decolonisation of Argentina is irrelevent to the Falkland's, because Argentina was never able to maintain a colony of its own on the Islands.

Well apart from what I said above...by this logic if Britain had colonized Patagonia or the Amazon or many other region in the world at the time which was not properly under the control of a state, they would today have the right to keep military bases there and ownt he resources. Do you really believe that? It seems to be an argument based on historical morality and not on what is in the interests of progressive politics today.

The settlers who live there today, who along with their ancestors, have successfuly forged a life and permenant settlement on the barren collection of windy rocks for the first time in the history of the islands. Are you attempting to argue that, despite having lived on the islands for far longer than living memory, these people must forfit their homes/citizenship for the benefit of a nation that never once managed to plant a lasting colony on the islands and, until the islands were seen as potentially profitable by quasai-fascist dictators and bourgeois politicians, held little interest in?

I don't think they should have to forfeit their homes at all, they should have full language and cultural rights. But Britain should have not have the right to a colonial outpost int he South Atlantic, especially when this is in a key strategic and economically improtant area. This is the real issue

And? The only way that means anything is if you apply bourgeois 19th century law to the question, and if you do so then you must conceed that Buenos Aires had no claim to the islands anyway because the island had ceased being a part of the Spanish Empire prior to independence in the region.

It is nothing to do with applying 19th Century bourgeois law. The point is that we should not present some kind of harmonious scenario where Argentina didn't really care about the Islands, the Brits took something that no-one wanted, and then later Argentina's leaders made up some retrospective claim.

In fact, a post-colonial state in construction, suffered the forceful loss of its land to an imperialist power.

Of course, had the settlers forcefuly removed an indigenous population then things may be different, but that isn't the case.

How about that they are forcefully taking ownership of the oil in the region?

zimmerwald1915

10th March 2010, 05:15

[QUOTE=Invader Zim;1689514]Decolonization is not a question of bourgeois legality, it represents a progressive process gained through struggle.
Struggle by whom, in whose interests? Capitalism was hardly mature when Argentina was "decolonized", and the proletariat was embryonic if that. Decolonization was precisely in the interests of the colonial elites, not of the nonexistent proletariat and certainly not of the colonial underclasses. Then again, decolonization was achieved by Napoleon's demolition of the Spanish state. Spain's chances of restoring its rule in its colonies were by no means utterly desperate until Spain itself became a theater of imperialist war between France and Britain. The decolonization of Argentina was a wholly bourgeois process from beginning to end.

That is not to say that such process wasn't progressive at the time, because it was. The bourgeoisie was, as mentioned, still building its world system. Now, however, it's barely holding up its system's collapsing roof, and what is progressive is connected not with the bourgeoisie, but with the proletariat. So, and I've asked this before, what connection is there between the annexation of the Falklands by Argentina and the capacity of the Argentine workers for revolution?

What would Argentina have to do in order to annex the Falklands. It, or Chavez, can make all the passionate declarations it wants to: it will be just as close to ownership of the islands as it was before it started. In order to annex the Falklands, Argentina will have to capture them in a war. Now, Argentina's military is in no position to mount such a war. It will require a military buildup: this means either encouraging capital to expand the native arms industry or expending state funds to purchase arms from elsewhere. The former option means capital isn't going into the productive economy, and thus hurts Argentine workers. The second encourages the Argentine state to align with its arms suppliers, and the creation of blocs means the expansion of wars, which is bad for the working class of all concerned countries. Wars mean people either join the army in nationalist fervor (not a feeling we want to encourage), are conscripted and die like lambs (a result we'd like to avoid), or resist it en masse, something that the Argentine working class' struggle may or may not be developed enough to bring about. I don't really know. Regardless, the capacity for Argentine workers to successfully resist a war presupposes a high level of struggle: wars do not encourage the development of successful struggle in response, at least not in their opening stages.

Bottom line: Argentina annexing the Falklands, and the requisite war, harms the class struggle in that country. Our concern being the welfare and liberation of the working class, and not the welfare and liberation of the Argentine state, we should put the needs of that class and its struggle above the needs of that state.

How about that they are forcefully taking ownership of the oil in the region?
Because the Argentine workers are somehow going to get their hands on that oil should Argentina annex the Falklands? Hardly: it's going to go into the hands of the Argentine bourgeoisie. I don't think it's particularly important to us which bourgeoisie triumphs when bourgeoisies compete: the point is to abolish them all, not to cheer for our favorite.

Physicist

10th March 2010, 07:14

Regardless of which side (if any) you fall behind, I think we can all chuckle at Chavez addressing this order to a powerless monarch.

vyborg

10th March 2010, 08:07

I think people of Falkland/Malvinas should decide for themselves. Chavez is right to underline the role of UK imperialism anyway.

Revy

10th March 2010, 08:38

zimmerwald1915

10th March 2010, 08:41

Regardless of which side (if any) you fall behind, I think we can all chuckle at Chavez addressing this order to a powerless monarch.
Posters 10, 11, and 18 agree with you.:laugh:

Demogorgon

10th March 2010, 11:24

What if the US tried to claim Bermuda? That's essentially the same kind of situation.

Are the Bermudans a settler colony as well?:rolleyes: Should the US valiantly step up and remove British imperialism?:rolleyes:
I've wondered the same thing myself. I don't think people who believe that Argentina has some sort of "right" to the Islands has really thought this through. There aren't any Argentineans living there, nor is there any kind of displaced population. Argentina isn't making any claim that Britain has oppressed its people. Rather it is simply demanding that the people living there be placed under Argentinean law regardless of their wishes. I fail to see why leftists should rush to support that?

it would be wrong of course for Britain to use this as an excuse to monopolise any oil resources that may be found in the region, but that is a different issue. The question is, why should the people of the Falklands have to be placed under Argentinean law?

Dimentio

10th March 2010, 11:34

I've wondered the same thing myself. I don't think people who believe that Argentina has some sort of "right" to the Islands has really thought this through. There aren't any Argentineans living there, nor is there any kind of displaced population. Argentina isn't making any claim that Britain has oppressed its people. Rather it is simply demanding that the people living there be placed under Argentinean law regardless of their wishes. I fail to see why leftists should rush to support that?

it would be wrong of course for Britain to use this as an excuse to monopolise any oil resources that may be found in the region, but that is a different issue. The question is, why should the people of the Falklands have to be placed under Argentinean law?

From Chàvez's perspective, it is obvious that he wants to strengthen the relations with Argentina as he is pursuing a Bolivarian Union. What he has said is not ideologically correct, but strategically correct if he wants to fold Argentina into his camp.

Invader Zim

10th March 2010, 12:11

Decolonization is not a question of bourgeois legality, it represents a progressive process gained through struggle.

I made the point regarding bourgeois legality in responce to a specific point raised by another poster who made an argument along those lines. My primary point, as I have already outlined, draws upon the fact that the current settlers are the only people with a right to choose the fate of their islands, because they are the only people who have managed to build a lasting home on them.

"Unsuccessful" because they were shelled out by the US, yes...

Unsuccessful because it engaged in acts of piracy that led to inevitable consequences, combined with the fact that the settlers then chose to accompany the US Navy back to Buenos Aires, and that the Provinces failed to re-establish a settlement.

by this logic if Britain had colonized Patagonia or the Amazon or many other region in the world at the time which was not properly under the control of a state, they would today have the right to keep military bases there and ownt he resources.

What, you mean like has happened in every populated place on earth? But you display a complete failure to grasp why places such as Patagonia, et al. are not under the rule of a European state. And that is because former colonists descided to sever their ties to their former Empire as an expression of their collective self determination. There is no such desire in the Falkland Islands to sever their ties to the UK, and there never has been.

It seems to be an argument based on historical morality and not on what is in the interests of progressive politics today.

My position revolves around granting the individuals on the islands the right to their self determination, which is the only progressive to hold on this issue. Your position of stripping these people, the only people to have made a permenant home on the islands, of their identity and homes so that the Argentinian bourgeoisie can profit from the islands, which until 30 years ago they had largely ignored and considered worthless, is entirely reactionary.

Demogorgon

10th March 2010, 12:34

From Chàvez's perspective, it is obvious that he wants to strengthen the relations with Argentina as he is pursuing a Bolivarian Union. What he has said is not ideologically correct, but strategically correct if he wants to fold Argentina into his camp.
Well obviously. Chavez is great at Realpolitik and knows it is of benefit to him to side with Argentina. I am more concerned with people here swallowing Argentinean claims motivated by nationalism. For the record I couldn't care less which country controls the Falklands so long as it corresponds with the wishes of those living there. If they wanted to be part of Argentina, I would support that, if they wanted to be part of Chile* I would support that, but they don't want that, so I cannot support it.

There is a troubling tendency amongst certain people here to forget that the principle behind ending colonialism was to stop the oppression of local people by a remote Government. They seem to think that it actually means forcing people to live under a Government that they absolutely do not wish to. An unfortunate turnaround indeed.

*There was an interesting letter in the paper here a while ago rubbishing Argentinean claims to having a "legal right" to the islands by pointing out that the slope of the border near Cape Horn actually means the islands would fall under Chilean right if we strictly applied legal principles.

chegitz guevara

10th March 2010, 13:54

It's a settler colony which lets Britain have access to the natural resources in the region at the expense of Argentina.

Yes, but it was settled first by the Brits, and the people living there now are the decedents of those first colonists. Or should we call Iceland a settler colony as well? Maybe Madiera and the Azores also.

Self-determination applies here.

black magick hustla

11th March 2010, 02:44

vyborg

11th March 2010, 11:57

self determination is not socialism, for sure. still you cannot simply forget it.
the real problem here is: what is the alternative? a very backward capitalist argentina is not exactly a pleasant improvement for the people of the islands...

Physicist

12th March 2010, 02:07

Its just interesting to see in this debate how all arguments of national self-determination break down. Of course they break down, they are all based on 19th century notions of the nation and bourgeois ideas of property rights. Both, after all, are a hallucination.

What do you mean? Government disagreements will always exist.

zimmerwald1915

12th March 2010, 04:43

What do you mean? Government disagreements will always exist.
I think you meant to add "as long as there are governments". Far be it from me to speak for you though.

Lenny Nista

12th March 2010, 23:38

Yes, but it was settled first by the Brits, and the people living there now are the decedents of those first colonists. Or should we call Iceland a settler colony as well? Maybe Madiera and the Azores also.

Self-determination applies here.

Self-determination does not apply here, because the Kelpers are not a nation, nor do they claim to be.

they claim to be British and demand to live under the British state.

British people already have self-determination, and their own borders.

This is just colonialism, not "self-determination".

Lenny Nista

12th March 2010, 23:39

Its just interesting to see in this debate how all arguments of national self-determination break down. Of course they break down, they are all based on 19th century notions of the nation and bourgeois ideas of property rights. Both, after all, are a hallucination.

Wrong. A social construct is not the same as a hallucination.

God is a hallucination, religion is not, for example.

Lenny Nista

12th March 2010, 23:43

[QUOTE]
Unsuccessful because it engaged in acts of piracy that led to inevitable consequences, combined with the fact that the settlers then chose to accompany the US Navy back to Buenos Aires, and that the Provinces failed to re-establish a settlement.

They didn't "choose to"; the settlement had been destroyed, leaving them no choice.

What, you mean like has happened in every populated place on earth? But you display a complete failure to grasp why places such as Patagonia, et al. are not under the rule of a European state. And that is because former colonists descided to sever their ties to their former Empire as an expression of their collective self determination.

Not really, much of Patagonia was hardly under effective control of any state, same with the Amazon.

So if Britain had grabbed those places and settled them, would you support those regions today being British colonies?

Your position of stripping these people, the only people to have made a permenant home on the islands, of their identity and homes

I said they should be allowed to stay in their homes and retain all cultural and language rights.

Are you a liar or just sloppy?

Revy

13th March 2010, 01:57

Self-determination does not apply here, because the Kelpers are not a nation, nor do they claim to be.

they claim to be British and demand to live under the British state.

British people already have self-determination, and their own borders.

This is just colonialism, not "self-determination".

The Falklanders have their own identity, just like the Bermudans. Would you be willing to deny the Bermudans self-determination if the US decided to claim Bermuda? Argentina's elite is just mad they couldn't colonize what was an uninhabited island first. Do you want to talk about colonialism? How about how Argentina treated the indigenous peoples? Argentina was a state founded by white Spanish criollos. In the ensuing conquests undertaken by independent Argentina, indigenous people were expelled, oppressed and even slaughtered when they happened to be in the way of Argentine expansion.

In contrast, the Falklanders are descendants of those that merely settled on islands in which nobody was known to live indigenously, and which the Argentines had used briefly as a penal colony.

No, it does not belong to Argentina just because it is closer. The argument by proximity is absurd when you think about the idea, as I've said, of the US conquering Bermuda because it's closest to the US and Britain is so far away.

Lenny Nista

13th March 2010, 12:40

[QUOTE]The Falklanders have their own identity, just like the Bermudans. Would you be willing to deny the Bermudans self-determination if the US decided to claim Bermuda?

Self-determination is when a nation rules itself. The Kelpers don't rule themselves, they live under British rule. In other words they are a buffer for British colinialism in the South Atlantic; British cotnrol of a key strategic point, and of the natural resources.

I don't see how any socialist can be against driving Britain out of there.

Argentina's elite is just mad they couldn't colonize what was an uninhabited island first.

Actually, they did. Read the thread. ;)

Do you want to talk about colonialism? How about how Argentina treated the indigenous peoples? Argentina was a state founded by white Spanish criollos. In the ensuing conquests undertaken by independent Argentina, indigenous people were expelled, oppressed and even slaughtered when they happened to be in the way of Argentine expansion.

What does this have to do with anything? Argentina is a nation today and has a right to self-determination, as does any other nation. Why shuld Argentineans today have to pay for the crimes of the people hwo founded the country? When Argentineans today are mostly descendants of impoverished Italian and Sopanish immigrants, or indigenous migrants from Northern Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay; and today are being super-exploited as part of the same imperialist project that wiped out the indigenous peoples.

This is compeltely different to the Kelpers. The Kelpers are a tiny, priveliged settler colony who live off the benefits of British imperialism. Argentina is not, Argentina is a coutnry super-exploited by imperialism.

Plus like I said the British already have self-determination, and do not need colonial outposts in the S.Atlantic in order to be free of foreign oppression.

No, it does not belong to Argentina just because it is closer. The argument by proximity is absurd when you think about the idea, as I've said, of the US conquering Bermuda because it's closest to the US and Britain is so far away

It's completely different. Britain doesn't act in a colonialist way towards the US and take ownership of its seas and the natural resources in them, does it?

Demogorgon

13th March 2010, 16:01

What are you talking about? Britain has been in the Falklands since 1833 and until recently there were no known resources worth controlling. Indeed it is still possible there aren't any. The Falklands was until recently one of those expensive to maintain overseas territories that the British Government would just love to be short of but can't because because those living there won't allow it.

Sometimes people who claim to be against "imperialism" have an odd idea what it is about. It isn't as if there are Argentineans there being forced to live under British Governance (indeed virtually all South Americans there are from Chile, why not claim it should belong to that country?), nor is there a displaced indigenous population. The Argentinean Government simply wants the people of the Falkland islands to be placed under its jurisdiction even though they absolutely do not want this. You have to perform quite a fete of intellectual acrobatics to justify that.

Lenny Nista

13th March 2010, 17:39

[QUOTE]What are you talking about? Britain has been in the Falklands since 1833 and until recently there were no known resources worth controlling. Indeed it is still possible there aren't any.

There most certainly are.

The Falklands was until recently one of those expensive to maintain overseas territories that the British Government would just love to be short of but can't because because those living there won't allow it.

A colony doesn't have to be directly profitable short-term, in order to be strategically and politically improtant long-term. The British government has scerwed over most of humanity for centuries,a re you tellign they couldn't have "screwed over" a thousand Kelpers if they had so wanted?

Seriously are you telling me that!?

Sometimes people who claim to be against "imperialism" have an odd idea what it is about. It isn't as if there are Argentineans there being forced to live under British Governance (indeed virtually all South Americans there are from Chile, why not claim it should belong to that country?), nor is there a displaced indigenous population.

Did you read the thread? No-one claimed there was!

Imperialism is a system of economci domination. It is not the same as colonialism.

The Argentinean Government simply wants the people of the Falkland islands to be placed under its jurisdiction even though they absolutely do not want this. You have to perform quite a fete of intellectual acrobatics to justify that.

Not at all. Let me make it clear: I'm not a liberal and I don;'t care about defending the priveliges of priveliged settlers, above the needs of the 99.9% of the region - the working people of Latin America.

Britain has no right to a possession in the South Atlantic, its presence is belligerent, humiliating, and economically parasitical (access to what is undoubtedly becoming, more and more, a very important part of the world in terms of resources, which is being competed over by all the imperialist powers in a more or less outwardly neo-colonialist fashion).

The revolutionary intervention is to say to Argentineans, that they need to rise up to drive the imperialist out of their country, and that the bourgeosie cannot be an ally in this because they are structurally tied to imeprialism, so we need to organize seperate of them to fight for a workers state, the only social formation that can truly free Latin America from North Atlantic imperialism.

If the Kelpers choose to be enemies of that process, they can go to the dustbin of history like so many Kulaks before them.

Demogorgon

13th March 2010, 19:03

I don't think you know what you are talking about. As it stands the islands are useless and if you think Britain has some sort of Imperial interest there you are living in cloud cuckoo land. If oil is found the situation changes, but that ignores that first of all that is hardly the reason Britain has been there all that time and secondly the awkward little fact that Britain signed a treaty with Argentina giving Argentina rights to natural resources found around the islands but that Argentina withdrew from a few years because it implicitly recognised that Britain was in control of the islands. Now hopefully a new treaty can be negotiated that returns those rights to Argentina, but as it stands it was stupid nationalism on the part of the Argentinean Government that lost those rights.

Now your notion that the workers of Argentina would somehow benefit from Argentina claiming a set of islands that have little historical connection to the country also has to be rubbished. Quite apart from the fact that a capitalist Government taking a few rocks from another capitalist one is irrelevant to the needs of workers, you do realise that the Falklands issue is a ruse by bourgeoisie Governments to bring up to take attention away from domestic policy. For instance the previous invasion of the islands was an attempt by the previous military dictatorship to try and use some crude nationalism to gain some popularity.

Now explain to me how the Argentinean workers benefit from crude nationalism detracting from real struggles?

And again, the fact that you think the people actually living there don't matter and are just to be turned over to a Government they have no connection to whatsoever without any consultation of them makes you sound like a Nineteenth Century Imperial Government.

Lenny Nista

13th March 2010, 19:11

I don't think you know what you are talking about. As it stands the islands are useless and if you think Britain has some sort of Imperial interest there you are living in cloud cuckoo land. If oil is found the situation changes

Can you please make an effor to sound less patronizing, especially when you don't even know that Britain has started drilling for oil in the region! This was a major news story FFS, no offence but...words fail me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/25/argentina-united-nations-falklands

also the Antartic and south atlantic will be a key region, especially ina future of possible water scarcity, as well as the vast potential untapped resources. All the major powers are trying to shore up territory int he Antartic for example.

so that's the Empirical side...on the logical side then why the fuck do you think Britain has kept the Malvinas if they have no interest in doing so? and I never said oil was the only reason did I? Of course there are geoolitical reasons as well.

As for crude nationalism, no, it isn't crude nationalism to hate the imperialist arrogance of the british ruling class. It's a natural human reaction to Britain's historical role in the world, and long may the hatred continue!

Demogorgon

13th March 2010, 19:55

I think it is you who might want to check their facts. The news story was that exploratory drilling has begun, not that oil has been found. It remains unknown whether anything will be found.

Again though you are just spouting off with made up rubbish. I know you want to rationalise your support for nationalism, but again it is something of a stretch to come to some of the conclusions you are drawing. You have claimed that the Falklands will become of strategic use. Even if this is true and that is a very big if, that can hardly be the reason Britain claimed them as that was a hundred and seventy years ago. The reason they are under British jurisdiction is because you could literally count on both hands the number of people there who want otherwise.

The fact that Argentina periodically makes a fuss about this in order to stir up nationalism and bolster the Government is neither here nor there, it has no claim to the islands. Indeed if we follow the sort of logic you are showing here its claim is actually inferior to Chile's as well. Why not demand that Chile take control of the islands?

Lenny Nista

13th March 2010, 20:45

You have claimed that the Falklands will become of strategic use.

No, I said they are of strategic importance.

Even if this is true and that is a very big if, that can hardly be the reason Britain claimed them as that was a hundred and seventy years ago.

Not "claimed", "stole".

And why did Britain take the Islands then in 1833 if they were of no potential use to it!? :confused: Seriously mate, come on!

As for drilling for oil...well it's called an investment. The fact there could be oil is serious enough. Also I think it's almost certain there is but in any case, who cares?

even then, there could also be gas, which is the other issue.

And likewise, water will probably become a hugely improtant commodity in the future, and the CIA have identified the S.Atlantic as the potentially next hugely important strategic region for this region.

But in any case what really matters is the principle, not whether or how much oil there is.

The reason they are under British jurisdiction is because you could literally count on both hands the number of people there who want otherwise.

We're just going round in circles.

You think it's ok for Britain to send its chest-banging sons off around the world, establish enclaves, and then demand the "right" to live under Britain. I don't, I think this is a disgusting and anachronistic attitude and frankly, British "socialists" who won't oppose this, are worse than useless.

But like I say we're going round in circles, you obviously think that kind of colonialist practice is ok, I don't. But you should know how disgusting your ideas will seem to pretty much every signle Latin American worker.

it has no claim to the islands. Indeed if we follow the sort of logic you are showing here its claim is actually inferior to Chile's as well. Why not demand that Chile take control of the islands?

What the fuck!? this is obfustication of the worst kind!

They were adminsitered from Buenos Aires historically. They are in Argentina's continetal shelf and waters that legally should be Argentina's. And Chile doesn't even claim them.

but in any case, like I said before I am in favour of a Latin American Socialist Federation, so yes, the fight for the Malvinas should in any case, long term, be to adminsiter the whole South Atlantic and Antartic, for the benefit of the whole Continent.

You on the other hand seem to think that the region should be open to the North Atlantic powers!

zimmerwald1915

13th March 2010, 20:51

Now explain to me how the Argentinean workers benefit from crude nationalism detracting from real struggles?
This has been asked several times in this thread by several different people. It has yet to be answered.

Lenny Nista

13th March 2010, 21:06

This has been asked several times in this thread by several different people. It has yet to be answered.

Because they are bound in double chains; to their own bourgeosie as workers, and to imperialism as Latin Americans.

Demogorgon

13th March 2010, 21:49

Because they are bound in double chains; to their own bourgeosie as workers, and to imperialism as Latin Americans.
You sound utterly demented now. How anyone could think the occupation of inhospitable islands by British Citizens is somehow harming Latin American workers is beyond me. Indeed the harm that is done to them is by their own Governments telling them it is important and using it as a way to distract them from their real problems. And it seems you are naive enough to swallow this line, hook and sinker.

I have to hand it to you though, your intellectual backflips are impressive. To turn the fact that 180 years ago Argentina had a penal colony which it never ran properly and only lasted three years into a claim that it should govern the islands today is a pretty incredible claim.

Of course you now justify this by saying Britain has no "right". Who makes these rights exactly? It is not a question of rights, it is a question of who lives there and what they want. Your nineteenth century notion that people can be turned over to foreign Governments with no say of their own may seem nice to you, but it is downright reactionary.

Lenny Nista

13th March 2010, 22:42

[QUOTE]You sound utterly demented now. How anyone could think the occupation of inhospitable islands by British Citizens is somehow harming Latin American workers is beyond me. Indeed the harm that is done to them is by their own Governments telling them it is important and using it as a way to distract them from their real problems. And it seems you are naive enough to swallow this line, hook and sinker.

I wasn't referring just to the British occupaiton of the Malvinas I was referring to imperialism as a whole, of which the former is just a very obvious and humiliating manifestation.

This is a RevLeft board should I really have to explain that imperialism is not the same as colonialism!?

If I were talking to someone ont he street I would, but here I assume people know that when I say imperialism I am talking baout the global economic system whereby a handful of states dominate the others; and not of individual acts of aggression or occupation.

I have to hand it to you though, your intellectual backflips are impressive. To turn the fact that 180 years ago Argentina had a penal colony which it never ran properly and only lasted three years into a claim that it should govern the islands today is a pretty incredible claim.

And "incredible claim" that 40 million Argentineans and great majority of Latin Americans, believe.

Of course you now justify this by saying Britain has no "right". Who makes these rights exactly?

I mean according to communsit morality, obviously.

It is not a question of rights, it is a question of who lives there and what they want. Your nineteenth century notion that people can be turned over to foreign Governments with no say of their own may seem nice to you, but it is downright reactionary

We're jsut going round in circles, you must have said this about 5 times.

Like I said, just because you want to live under Britain, does not give you the right to do so in other peoples territories!

Britain owning a territory in the South Atlantic is colonialism. You are either against it, or you are an apologist for it, simple.

scarletghoul

13th March 2010, 22:55

I don't think you know what you are talking about. As it stands the islands are useless and if you think Britain has some sort of Imperial interest there you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
What
The
Fuck
So you think the British government/army is just occupying those islands out of kindness and goodwill, suffering economic drainage with no strategic advantage just to please a tiny population who dont want them to leave ? Most of your posts suggest that this is your view. And that's pretty strange view for a leftist to have

Lenny Nista

13th March 2010, 23:05

Demogorgon

14th March 2010, 09:32

What
The
Fuck
So you think the British government/army is just occupying those islands out of kindness and goodwill, suffering economic drainage with no strategic advantage just to please a tiny population who dont want them to leave ? Most of your posts suggest that this is your view. And that's pretty strange view for a leftist to have
Try thinking it through fully. If they withdrew and upset said tiny population, the media would have a field day with it and the Government that did it would loose the next election and the party probably wouldn't get back into power again for a generation.

It is neither strategic interest nor "kindness and goodwill", it is about winning elections.

And that sort of thing is at the heart of it on both sides. Argentina after all has no real claim to the islands (as I say, Chile actually has a better claim), but Governments there know that crude nationalism can win votes. The fact that some people there buy into said nationalism and calls for expansionism over the wishes of thos eliving there says a lot about them.

Invader Zim

14th March 2010, 11:04

Can you please make an effor to sound less patronizing, especially when you don't even know that Britain has started drilling for oil in the region! This was a major news story FFS, no offence but...words fail me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/25/argentina-united-nations-falklands

also the Antartic and south atlantic will be a key region, especially ina future of possible water scarcity, as well as the vast potential untapped resources. All the major powers are trying to shore up territory int he Antartic for example.

so that's the Empirical side...on the logical side then why the fuck do you think Britain has kept the Malvinas if they have no interest in doing so? and I never said oil was the only reason did I? Of course there are geoolitical reasons as well.

As for crude nationalism, no, it isn't crude nationalism to hate the imperialist arrogance of the british ruling class. It's a natural human reaction to Britain's historical role in the world, and long may the hatred continue!

He isn't being patronising at all, you manifestly do not grasp the situation as proven by your posts on the matter. But please prove him wrong; outline these geopolitical motives for not severing the ties between mainland Britain and the Islanders? Consider while you attempt to formulate your responce that the British government actively attempted to rid itself of the islands in the 1960s.

Not "claimed", "stole".

Not really, the Provinces abandonded the islands after allowing them to be horrifically mismanaged and alloing the colony to indulge in piracy, and then found itself incapable of resettling them.

So you think the British government/army is just occupying those islands out of kindness and goodwill, suffering economic drainage with no strategic advantage just to please a tiny population who dont want them to leave ?

It isn't an issue of belief, or any of the emotive crap you are pushing, but of historical fact. In the 1960s the British actually tried to offload the islands, as it had done with many other colonies it could no longer afford. But unlike the other colonies the Falklanders actually wished to retain their ties to Britain, and under UN Resolution 1514 (XV) Britain is under oblegation to respect that. So it couldn't offload the colony, though not for lack of trying.

And any government that forced the issue, in breach of international law, would have been unelectable as Demogorgan has noted.

Lenny Nista

14th March 2010, 15:14

It isn't an issue of belief, or any of the emotive crap you are pushing, but of historical fact. In the 1960s the British actually tried to offload the islands, as it had done with many other colonies it could no longer afford. But unlike the other colonies the Falklanders actually wished to retain their ties to Britain, and under UN Resolution 1514 (XV) Britain is under oblegation to respect that. So it couldn't offload the colony, though not for lack of trying.

And any government that forced the issue, in breach of international law, would have been unelectable as Demogorgan has noted.

Where did you read this? I don't dispute some people argue this but not all...historians like Martin Lawrence and Virginia Gamba Stonehouse certainly don't accept your version of events and they certainly aren't known for being radical anti-imperialists. You should read "Signals of War" by those two. You have a right to your belief but don't present it as undisputed fact.

My own belief is that the North Atlantic powers:

1.) knew long term that the South Atlantic would become important for resources,

2.) knew that on a certain level they understood that Latin America presenteed a potential revolutionary threat to the imperialist order and that:
a.) the imperialists maintaining a colonial presence there could serve as useful pretext for an intervention if it should become necessarry - and imeprialism is a more trusted guardian of global capitalism than the semi-colonial bourgeoisie,
b.) giving the Malvinas back to Argentina would humiliate Britain and by extension the whole North Atlantic power, and only encourage the "bloody savages" in the South to push for more.

Next point:

Undoubtedly the 1982 victory of Thatcher over the Junta in Argentina, presented a lesson to the whole semi-colonial world that you cannot challenge imperialism. In Argentina, nearly the whole left understands the Malvinas War, this way: a defeat which allowed the imperialists to stamp their dominance over the continent and to demonstrate the end of the "developmentalist" post-war consensus and its replacement with a new age of aggressive neocolonialiaism.

Today, we should add to this the growing importance of the South Atlantic in terms of resources.

Next point:

You should ask yourself though, why would the British bourgeoisie make such a point of crucifying a government for giving back the Malvinas to Argentina, if they did not instinctively understand that it was in their long-term interests to do so?

These are people who are prepared to destroy whole communities in Britain, and pour all their means of communication into defaming British workers who fight to defend their livelihoods...so why would they not do the same to the Kelpers, if it was really in their interests to do so?

If the British bourgeoisie had wanted to swing public opinion against the Kelpers, it could have done so, laughably easily.

Invader Zim

14th March 2010, 21:22

Where did you read this? I don't dispute some people argue this but not all...historians like Martin Lawrence and Virginia Gamba Stonehouse certainly don't accept your version of events and they certainly aren't known for being radical anti-imperialists.

Wrong. No actual historian disputes that the British government, during the 1960s was attempting to offload expensive and pointless colonies, and nor do they deny that the Falkland's was one of them, including Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse who points out that the UK did indeed place the Falkland's on the UN decolonialisation list and that these efforts were derailed by the Falkland Island pressure Group who emphasised the political rights of the Islanders and made the issue one of electability.
Virginia Gamba, The Falklands/Malvinas war: a model for North-South crisis prevention (London, 1987), pp. 88-90.

Lenny Nista

14th March 2010, 21:36

Wrong. No actual historian disputes that the British government, during the 1960s was attempting to offload expensive and pointless colonies, and nor do they deny that the Falkland's was one of them, including Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse who points out that the UK did indeed place the Falkland's on the UN decolonialisation list and that these efforts were derailed by the Falkland Island pressure Group who emphasised the political rights of the Islanders and made the issue one of electability.
Virginia Gamba, The Falklands/Malvinas war: a model for North-South crisis prevention (London, 1987), pp. 88-90.

In Signals of War, from my recollection, they claim the British government was playing a double game, telling the Argentineans they wanted to hand over the Malvinas, but not seriosuly pushing for it with the Kelpers or at home; suggesting that they did not really ever intend to do so.

That the Malvinas were "pointless" is just your assertion...all the evidence is that the British bourgeosie - as distinct from individual governments - disagrees and always has.

Invader Zim

14th March 2010, 23:32

bourgeosie[/I] - as distinct from individual governments - disagrees and always has.

On the contrary, you are again wrong. There is plenty of evidence that the British government did indeed consider the islands as worthless, and that can be directly observed in its policy decisions in the 1960s. But again you don't have to take my word for it, Virginia Gamba has spelled it out clearly enough:

"As of 1945, the international context and the decline of the British economy provided further reasons for the Foreign Office's relegation of the Falklands/Malvinas issue. Decolonialisation and retreat from empire were responsible for the final UK policy changes in the South Atlantic. It was therefore not supprising to see that when the Wilson government decided on its policy to retreat from east of Suez and concentrate on Europe, one of the many places listed for decolonialization (by the United Nations) was the Falkland/Malvinas islands."

p. 87

And why those Islands specifically and not other parts of the empire that were prioritied in the light of this wider policy of decolonialisation?

"This maybe hard to understand from the perspective of 1986, yet we must see it in the light of the circumstances and priorities of 1965. The Falkland/Malvinas territories were unimportant; they were of low priority interest to London."

p. 88.

My emphasis.

And please do explain, given the context of the economic and poltical situation in 1965, what the British bourgeosie had to gain from retaining the impoverished and expensive islands within the Empire, and how the Wilson government was in any way deviating from the interests of the bourgeosie in selecting the Falkland islands for decolonialisation?

1.) knew long term that the South Atlantic would become important for resources,

Yet were trying to rid themselves of the islands? Funny that.

2.) knew that on a certain level they understood that Latin America presenteed a potential revolutionary threat to the imperialist order and that:

Your argument regarding resources is simply erronious as proven by London's desire to sever its connection with the Falkland's and by the Islands lack of value; this latest suggestion is pure fantasy. But please do show me the proof that Britain, which couldn't even manage direct threats to both itself and the Empire in the 1960s, maintained the Falkland islands as a part of the wider machinations designed to sabotage an unlikely communist threat emerging in the South Atlantic. In the post-war period Britain had ceased being a super-power, was jettisoning Empire left-right and centre, and was reliant upon the umbrella protection of the USA in maintaining a nuclear deterrant. You seem to have confused the Britain of the 1960s with the Britain of the 1860s.

b.) giving the Malvinas back to Argentina would humiliate Britain and by extension the whole North Atlantic power, and only encourage the "bloody savages" in the South to push for more.

The idea that Britain, in the mid-late 1960s, was worried about the 'humiliation' of a loss of Islands of a few thousand square miles of tiny barren islands, with a microscopic population, natural resources unworthy of mention and even less stratigic value, when it was shedding a considerable portion of Africa:

http://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/asia-decolonization-2.jpg

...goes only to show how disconnected your views on this topic are to the reality of Britain and empire in the post-war period,e specially after the Suez.

Undoubtedly the 1982 victory of Thatcher over the Junta in Argentina, presented a lesson to the whole semi-colonial world that you cannot challenge imperialism.

A lesson obviously not well learned considering that after the war what little was left of the old the British empire continued to break away.

But of course the real message to be taken from the war was that a right-wing crypto-fascist power, interested only in extending its own existence by appealing to its peoples crude nationalistic sensibilities began a war to annex a group of islands without the concent of those islands inhabitants - those same inhabitants who are the only people, in the entire history of the islands, willing to forge a life and community on them with any degree of long term success. The reaction of the British government had nothing to do with imperialism, colonialism or indeed the Empire itself, and it had everything to do with internal political popularity that the Thatcher government was haemorrhaging. I grant you that it might well have had the effect of stifling legitimate anti-imperialistic efforts, but the Junta has only itself to blame for that, and as I pointed out above: the empire continued to retract anyway.

You should ask yourself though, why would the British bourgeoisie make such a point of crucifying a government for giving back the Malvinas to Argentina

It isn't the British bourgeoisie, but rather the people itself; and that is because the bulk of British people recognise that the islanders have a legitimate right to self determination; and that makes it impossible for a British government to cut the ties with the islands, which in fact is exactly what was in the British bourgeoisie's interests a were and aim was in 1965.