Argentina's President Fernandez demands Falklands talks

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Personally, I think it's up to islanders. If they really want to remain subjects of the crown and part of Britain, however much I disagree, fair enough; they shouldn't be forced by anyone (Britain or Argentina).

President Kirchner: "How can it be claimed that this territory is part of Britain?"

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has demanded that Britain enter negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
President Fernandez was addressing the UN Committee on Decolonisation on the 30th anniversary of the UK territory's liberation from Argentine occupation.
She said history and geography backed Argentina's claim. But an islander told the committee Argentina was "bullying".
UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said there would be "no negotiation".
Earlier on Thursday, the Falklands marked the end of Argentina's 74-day 1982 occupation with a service at Port Stanley's Christ Church cathedral.
Veterans of the war then led a military parade to the Liberation Monument for an act of remembrance, paying tribute to the 255 UK servicemen and three Falklands civilians who died in the war.
An estimated 650 Argentines were also killed during the conflict.
The BBC's Barbara Plett said President Fernandez made as much as she could of her platform at the United Nations, where a majority backs Argentina's demand that the Falklands' status be negotiated.

(More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18453372)

[workerist]

they are not indigenous to that island though, they are the descendants of a british settler colony, backed by an imperial power in the hopes of exploiting oil/gas reserves that may be under the sea. the islands could also be a future base of operations from which to make war upon argentina or neighboring states should a war or conflict break out, potentially threatening any future revolutionary movements that may take power there. i know the government of argentina is bourgeois but for those reasons alone i do not support the islands remaining under the british crown.

[X5N]

they are not indigenous to that island though, they are the descendants of a british settler colony, backed by an imperial power in the hopes of exploiting oil/gas reserves that may be under the sea. the islands could also be a future base of operations from which to make war upon argentina or neighboring states should a war or conflict break out, potentially threatening any future revolutionary movements that may take power there. i know the government of argentina is bourgeois but for those reasons alone i do not support the islands remaining under the british crown.

The people of the Falklands, as far as I know, want to remain part of Britain, overwhelmingly. It seems rather un-socialistic, to me, to say that the islands and their people should be just handed over from one state to another like it's 1700.

And the islands were uninhabited before they were colonized, so I don't see how it matters, whether or not they were indigenous.

[erupt]

The people of the Falklands, as far as I know, want to remain part of Britain, overwhelmingly. It seems rather un-socialistic, to me, to say that the islands and their people should be just handed over from one state to another like it's 1700.

And the islands were uninhabited before they were colonized, so I don't see how it matters, whether or not they were indigenous.
Yes, it's not socialistic at all, it's only a political bourgeois demand for independence from some sectors of the inhabitants.

Mainly from my end, I just wanted to say how important it is to me that the island was not inhabited by indigenous people, because we all know about colonial atrocities.

[workerist]

The people of the Falklands, as far as I know, want to remain part of Britain, overwhelmingly. It seems rather un-socialistic, to me, to say that the islands and their people should be just handed over from one state to another like it's 1700.

And the islands were uninhabited before they were colonized, so I don't see how it matters, whether or not they were indigenous.

if they want to be british they can move back to britain. the islands are on argentina's doorstep, 8,000 miles away from britain. there are only about 3,000 inhabitants, "protected" by 1,000 military personnel. it is not a proper country, just some barren rocks inhabited by people whose ancestors squatted on the land while argentina was fighting a war for indepdence. it may not be socialistic, but geographically and historically i'm saying argentina has a better case for having control over the islands.

[X5N]

if they want to be british they can move back to britain. the islands are on argentina's doorstep, 8,000 miles away from britain. there are only about 3,000 inhabitants, "protected" by 1,000 military personnel. it is not a proper country, just some barren rocks inhabited by people whose ancestors squatted on the land while argentina was fighting a war for indepdence. it may not be socialistic, but geographically and historically i'm saying argentina has a better case for having control over the islands.

Geographically? Maybe. Historically? No. I recall one figure that stated that Argentina has had control over the islands for only about 6% of the islands' post-colonization history.

And anyways, lands belong to he people who labour on them, not the bourgeois nations that "claim" them, so it doesn't really matter.

[Tim Cornelis]

if they want to be british they can move back to britain.

Eerily akin to right-wing, anti-migration rhetoric.


the islands are on argentina's doorstep, 8,000 miles away from britain. there are only about 3,000 inhabitants, "protected" by 1,000 military personnel.

What's your point? Victoria, British Columbia, is on the doorsteps of the US.


it is not a proper country, just some barren rocks inhabited by people whose ancestors squatted on the land while argentina was fighting a war for indepdence.

How is Argentina's war for independence relevant here?


it may not be socialistic, but geographically and historically i'm saying argentina has a better case for having control over the islands.

Geographically? Historically? Sounds eerily akin to nationalism.

Why should the historical and geographic conditions matter at all?

[workerist]

Geographically? Maybe. Historically? No. I recall one figure that stated that Argentina has had control over the islands for only about 6% of the islands' post-colonization history.

And anyways, lands belong to he people who labour on them, not the bourgeois nations that "claim" them, so it doesn't really matter.

but it does matter. one bourgeois nation or another will have sovereignty over them. you support the british crown, one of the most violent imperial powers in human history, that is not beyond starting another oil war in the south atlantic after their adventures in the persian gulf. i support argentina, an historically oppressed nation in a continent that has the best chance of of unifying under socialism than any place else.

the people can keep labouring there, a transfer of sovereignty does not involve enslaving people and taking away their right to work. corporations are not people by the way, despite what mitt romney believes.



Eerily akin to right-wing, anti-migration rhetoric.


nope. i was just being glib on purpose. the islanders desire to remain "british" is irrelevant to the issue of self-determination, only an indigenous population can claim those rights, not colonists. even the UN and international law recognizes this, but you probably don't care since you are such a staunch defender of british imperialism.


What's your point? Victoria, British Columbia, is on the doorsteps of the US.

they are sparsely populated and very far away from the british mainland, yet they cost the british taxpayers millions of pounds a year just to maintain the military garrison. there is no benefit to the common citizen to keep these islands british, it would be make more sense to just simply hand them over..they are simply using the people's jingoism to mask the real reason (oil interests of multinationals)

also your example is irrelevant, no one is disputing the sovereignty of victoria, bc.



How is Argentina's war for independence relevant here? the islands were part of a spanish colonial territory when argentina won its independence from spain. the argentines, therefore, have a better claim to the islands than the british, who snuck in there like pirates and claimed it was there after colonizing it.



Geographically? Historically? Sounds eerily akin to nationalism.so believing argentina has a legitimate claim is nationalistic, right-wing, anti-migrant, etc... but recognizing the british imperial crown's right to rule is, let me guess... the correct Marxist-Leninst doctrinaire theoretical line ? riiight, ok...



Why should the historical and geographic conditions matter at all?history and geography matter because the world is still made up of nation-states and an outpost of british imperialism off argentina's coast is not a very comforting thought for those of us who want to see the prevailing order challenged by promising social movements (many of them in latin america)

[Tim Cornelis]

but it does matter. one bourgeois nation or another will have sovereignty over them.

What's the point of favouring one over the other?


you support the british crown

[citation needed]


i support argentina, an historically oppressed nation

From 1880s till 1920s, Argentina was the sixth richest country in the world. Hardly being oppressed. Historical records are irrelevant anyway.


the people can keep labouring there, a transfer of sovereignty does not involve enslaving people and taking away their right to work. corporations are not people by the way, despite what mitt romney believes.

What are you getting at? What do you mean exactly?


nope. i was just being glib on purpose. the islanders desire to remain "british" is irrelevant to the issue of self-determination, only an indigenous population can claim those rights, not colonists.

The British people living on the Falkland Islands are indigenous, as it had no previous inhabitants. The Americas once had no inhabitats either, then the "Indians" came and started to live there. By extension of your logic they are colonisers.

In fact, the British people living in Great Britain are colonists as their ancestors colonised the island. All people are, at least by your logic, colonisers.

That being said, national self-determination is inherently a bourgeois concept.


even the UN and international law recognizes this,

An appeal to authority.


but you probably don't care since you are such a staunch defender of british imperialism.

I don't care because the UN are not socialist.


they are sparsely populated and very far away from the british mainland, yet they cost the british taxpayers millions of pounds a year just to maintain the military garrison. there is no benefit to the common citizen to keep these islands british, it would be make more sense to just simply hand them over..they are simply using the people's jingoism to mask the real reason (oil interests of multinationals)

Ok.


also your example is irrelevant, no one is disputing the sovereignty of victoria, bc.

That's irrelevant.


the islands were part of a spanish colonial territory when argentina won its independence from spain. the argentines, therefore, have a better claim to the islands than the british, who snuck in there like pirates and claimed it was there after colonizing it.

By extension of your logic, Papua New Guinea has a better right to claim Australia than the British Australians.


so believing argentina has a legitimate claim is nationalistic, right-wing, anti-migrant, etc...

It is based on nationalist logic, yes.


but recognizing the british imperial crown's right to rule is, let me guess... the correct Marxist-Leninst doctrinaire theoretical line ? riiight, ok...

False dichotomy.


history and geography matter because the world is still made up of nation-states and an outpost of british imperialism off argentina's coast is not a very comforting thought for those of us who want to see the prevailing order challenged by promising social movements (many of them in latin america)

Whether or not Britain owns the Falkland Islands or not is going to have, rounded up, zero influence. You don't need an island in the region to invade other countries. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier)

[X5N]

but it does matter. one bourgeois nation or another will have sovereignty over them. you support the british crown, one of the most violent imperial powers in human history, that is not beyond starting another oil war in the south atlantic after their adventures in the persian gulf. i support argentina, an historically oppressed nation in a continent that has the best chance of of unifying under socialism than any place else.

the people can keep labouring there, a transfer of sovereignty does not involve enslaving people and taking away their right to work. corporations are not people by the way, despite what mitt romney believes.

I don't support Britain. I support the people of the Falklands, who just happen to (as far as I know) wish to remain part of Britain. And whether or not a transfer of sovereignty doesn't involve enslaving people and taking away their right to work, they have a right to not be like a herd of cattle, traded back and forth between bourgeois states.

And of course corporations aren't people.

[Salyut]

also your example is irrelevant, no one is disputing the sovereignty of victoria, bc.

You'd be surprised. (http://www.martlet.ca/martlet/article/our-home-native-land/)

[workerist]

From 1880s till 1920s, Argentina was the sixth richest country in the world. Hardly being oppressed. Historical records are irrelevant anyway.

your ignorance is revealed again. argentina was also very corrupt, underdeveloped and run by oligarchs, with an export-led economy highly dependent on foreign markets and investment. being a rich country tells you nothing about the distribution of wealth (i shouldn't have to tell you this). the US is the richest country in the world, but also has one of the highest rates in income inequality, on par with uganda and pakistan.

i'm done replying, this thread has gotten stale and i'm not going to keep repeating myself.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

but it does matter. one bourgeois nation or another will have sovereignty over them. you support the british crown, one of the most violent imperial powers in human history, that is not beyond starting another oil war in the south atlantic after their adventures in the persian gulf. i support argentina, an historically oppressed nation in a continent that has the best chance of of unifying under socialism than any place else.


You do realize, right, that Argentina conquered Patagonia violently AFTER its independence and killed a great many of the natives? Argentina would have no land anywhere near the Falkland Islands if it was not for that violent conquest.

I think we should give Patagonia back to the Patagonian natives!
Also I contest this part of your statement:

an historically oppressed nation in a continent that has the best chance of of unifying under socialism than any place else.There is no foundation for this argument at all.


nope. i was just being glib on purpose. the islanders desire to remain "british" is irrelevant to the issue of self-determination, only an indigenous population can claim those rights, not colonists. even the UN and international law recognizes this, but you probably don't care since you are such a staunch defender of british imperialism.There is no objective, material distinction between a "Colonist" and a "Native" beyond a few generations, and the British have lived on the island for nearly 200 years. There were also never any people on the islands to begin with, so the Argentine claim is no better. Any Argentinian who would have moved to the island would have been as much a "colonist" as a British person.

As for international law and "Self determination", not only is that completely false (a white American in South Dakota is seen as having "self determination" as much as the Lakota Sioux do, even though the Lakota are much more "indigenous" to their land than the Argentinians are to the Falklands), but I don't think we should be looking at the UN and other institutions set up by Imperialist powers to bolster their own claims, no matter how well intentioned the writers of those documents, international laws and UN Charters were (or appear to be)


the islands were part of a spanish colonial territory when argentina won its independence from spain. the argentines, therefore, have a better claim to the islands than the british, who snuck in there like pirates and claimed it was there after colonizing it.Spanish Imperialism was no less pernicious than British Imperialism, so how is the Spanish claim relevant? It seems that the people who actually live on the island are more significant than some lines drawn on a map by European monarchs 300 years ago.


so believing argentina has a legitimate claim is nationalistic, right-wing, anti-migrant, etc... but recognizing the british imperial crown's right to rule is, let me guess... the correct Marxist-Leninst doctrinaire theoretical line ? riiight, ok...
Believing that either claim is legitimate is nationalistic and reactionary. The Argentinians, Falklanders and British deserve better than either the Argentine or British governments have to offer.


history and geography matter because the world is still made up of nation-states and an outpost of british imperialism off argentina's coast is not a very comforting thought for those of us who want to see the prevailing order challenged by promising social movements (many of them in latin america) That's just silly, what we need is solidarity between Latin Americans, Europeans and people on the islands. Argentine nationalism is not a pathway to international solidarity, but conflict between Europe and Latin America.


Social movements in Latin America are also not hindered in any way, shape or form by the presence of the British on those islands. This is especially because social movements in Argentina pose a much more immediate threat to the Argentine bourgeoisie, not the British. The islands are remote and in the middle of nowhere, and the British lack the strategic depth to intervene in Argentina alone. The British crown was once one of the most terrifying military powers on the planet, but its armed forces these days are comparatively modest, even compared to Argentina. They certainly couldn't do anything independently of NATO or the USA.


i'm done replying, this thread has gotten stale and i'm not going to keep repeating myself. Now that is a weak cop-out. Your nationalism was challenged, and you responded with straw-men and false dichotomies, then when those were exposed you just say "meh, I'm bored with repeating myself".


Basically, this is a conflict which British Tories and Argentine nationalists use to get easy votes. Ultimately, it should be the people of the islands, and both nations, who benefit from the resources like oil, and not the reactionary Argentine or British states.

[Raúl Duke]

silly thread.

While a part of me due to being very sympathetic to the Pan-LatinoAmerican ideal may like the idea of the Falklands as being independent or part of Argentina...

If the people of the Falklands want to stay with the UK crown than that's their self-determinating choice; just as many have said already. All this talk about "colonizers" and "indigenous" in relation to those islands is pure obfuscation. As far as I know, there was virtually no indigenous population on that island prior to the current "colonizers" and/or don't exist any more (to my knowledge) to make a self-determining choice in regards to national sovereignty.

Talking about the indigenous Falkland/Malvinas Islanders having the right to decide Falkland's/Malvina's national fate is absurd as talking about having the Taino ameridians of Puerto Rico (which, outside of some small groups claiming to be allegedly taino, don't exist anymore) decide whether that island should be independent or remain part of the US.

[Q]

I'll just repeat my points from another thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/falklands-vs-las-t169173/index.html?t=169173&highlight=falklands):



a. The islands should become an independent workers' state

That is a rather ridiculous statement. There are about 3200 people living on those islands, about 90% of which are British or from British decent. That does not make a viable workers village, let alone a workers state.

The Argentinian claims on those islands have only flimsy historical grounds. The first reliable sighting of the islands, by Europeans, was in 1600 by Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert, naming it the Sebald Islands. It was uninhabited at this time.

Only in 1764 was a first settlement established, by the French. In 1767 this settlement was transferred to Spanish colonial control. The first British settlement dates from 1766, but they were driven off by the Spanish in 1770. However, the last Spanish settlers withdrew in 1811.

Then a new settlement was founded in 1828 with the permission of both Argentina and Britain, but as far as I'm aware was not in the name of either of those countries. This settlement was presumably destroyed in 1831 by the USS Lexington.

It was only in November 1832 that Argentina sent someone to establish a penal colony on the islands. But this attempt failed and the following January the islands had a British presence again, with a naval base established in 1834 and raised to colony status in 1840, which has continued ever since.

So, the current Falklanders clearly present a strong historical case. Furthermore, we should view the Argentinian claims for what they are: They want a strategic point of control over Cape Horn (the same reason the UK persists in its claims).

What does this mean for communists? In my view, we should support the right on self-determination of the Falklanders. Currently, this right is protected by the fact that it is a colony of Britain. What we should aim for, in my view, is a federative republic of Latin-America, where the Falkland islands are a voluntary part, as equals, not as ruled over.



I hope you realize that what you are saying is justification for the falklands war.

Thatcher had other political objectives than simply defending the Falklanders. The nationalist rouse supported her reelection and, like I said earlier, the Falklands holds a strategic point in international shipping, at a time when the Argentinian regime couldn't be fully counted on by international capital.

I do agree that the protection by the UK, as it is a colony of it, is not in proletarian interests, as the war pointed out. This is why I pointed to the internationalist alternative of a federative republic of Latin-America.

If a new war was to break out (an unlikely scenario right now, but let's do a thought-experiment), which "side" should we pick? The answer is not that difficult in my view and should be based on working class solidarity both on the Latin-American mainland (against any aggressive annexation) and in the UK (against imperialist scheming and nationalist rhetoric), for the right of self-determination of the Falklanders. This logic then implies the socialist political alternative and, therefore, also the need of the working class movement organising for such a political project.

So no, what I said is not a justification of the war, but the complete opposite. You're just reading what you want to read.

[Tim Cornelis]

your ignorance is revealed again. argentina was also very corrupt, underdeveloped and run by oligarchs, with an export-led economy highly dependent on foreign markets and investment. being a rich country tells you nothing about the distribution of wealth (i shouldn't have to tell you this). the US is the richest country in the world, but also has one of the highest rates in income inequality, on par with uganda and pakistan.

i'm done replying, this thread has gotten stale and i'm not going to keep repeating myself.

You're twisting your own words around to evade that I refuted that particular point. You called Argentina an "oppressed country." This implies that Argentina was completely poor, dependent on Western countries, etc. This is what is commonly meant by an "oppressed country". Then you go on to say this:


being a rich country tells you nothing about the distribution of wealth (i shouldn't have to tell you this). the US is the richest country in the world,

You're right, being a rich country tells you nothing about the distribution of wealth. This was not what we were arguing about. It does tell us that it was not an oppressed country. You mention the US to prove your point, but it does the opposite. The US isn't an oppressed country by any means.


your ignorance is revealed again.

If I'm so ignorant, then it would be easy to refute my points, no?

[cynicles]

lol All of Canada is on the doorstep of the US not just Vancouver Island! Quick! Hand over the country to the US! It's a potential threat to US security!

[REDSOX]

Las malvinas belong to argentina period. The thieving british establishment stole them back in 1833. As for the british pontificating about the self determination of the islanders, i dont recall the same standard applying to the inhabitants of diego garcia before they were evicted in the 1970's by the british. But then again the settlers on las malvinas are white are'nt they wheras the illois on diego garcia were not

[Q]

Las malvinas belong to argentina period.
Why?


The thieving british establishment stole them back in 1833.
Stole them from who?


But then again the settlers on las malvinas are white are'nt they wheras the illois on diego garcia were not
What "settlers"? Those prisoners that were on the penal colony for 3 whole months?

The islands were uninhabited rocks. See post 15 of this thread where I give a bit more background history.

[X5N]

Las malvinas belong to argentina period. The thieving british establishment stole them back in 1833. As for the british pontificating about the self determination of the islanders, i dont recall the same standard applying to the inhabitants of diego garcia before they were evicted in the 1970's by the british. But then again the settlers on las malvinas are white are'nt they wheras the illois on diego garcia were not

That was terrible, but that doesn't mean the Falklanders should be subjected to similar subjugation at the hands of bourgeois states.

And it's not "British pontificating." The Falklanders have a right to their own destiny, and that is something all socialists should support, instead of supporting the right of Argentina to make the Falklands their imperial possession against the will of the people living there.

Yes, I said imperialism. I don't see how it isn't. You have a bourgeois state (Argentina) wanting to possess a territory for it's own benefit, against the will of the people living there. Sounds like imperialism to me!

[Nox]

It's worth pointing out that well over 99% of the population of the Falklands want to remain a part of Britain.

As much as some people here love Argentinian imperialism, there is no argument to support them going to Argentina.

[Crux]

If I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment, what is the malvinas beyond a glorified military base in close proximity to argentina?

[X5N]

If I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment, what is the malvinas beyond a glorified military base in close proximity to argentina?

It has a civilian population, who live and labour on the islands?

[agnixie]

The Falklands have essentially never had an indigenous population, which makes, using the standard of polynesian settlement, the mostly scots falkland islanders the effective original indigenous population. The Argentine claim is toothless if the intent is to whine about imperialism, as the entirety of it is based on imperialism to begin with.

That said, about a fifth to a quarter of the population is tied to the british military yeah.

The islands question is a bourgeois conceit.

[Geiseric]

This seems like a no brainer, it's like asking if Cuba should have guantanamo bay. it's military base is there to act in the interests of the european bourgeoisie, so it makes sense that for larger argentinian self determination the island is rid of the british military force which acts as somewhat of a "gunboat diplomacy," for the rest of argentina, which although is capitalist still doesn't benefit the argentinian people nor their workers who are under threat of having to work for lower wages under european bosses if enough capital is pumped in. anyways, if there was an american military base in say Kuwait, which acted to protect the capital invested in a country that for some reason is cut off from the historic economic system of the former ottoman empire, it would of made sense to support kuwait integrating into Iraq, helping the economy as well as the larger public, avoiding . I mean it sounds like "anti imperialism," but I would think of it as "revolutionary defeatism," to deny the NATO claims.

[Princess Luna]

This seems like a no brainer, it's like asking if Cuba should have guantanamo bay. it's military base is there to act in the interests of the european bourgeoisie, so it makes sense that for larger argentinian self determination the island is rid of the british military force which acts as somewhat of a "gunboat diplomacy," for the rest of argentina, which although is capitalist still doesn't benefit the argentinian people nor their workers who are under threat of having to work for lower wages under european bosses if enough capital is pumped in. anyways, if there was an american military base in say Kuwait, which acted to protect the capital invested in a country that for some reason is cut off from the historic economic system of the former ottoman empire, it would of made sense to support kuwait integrating into Iraq, helping the economy as well as the larger public, avoiding . I mean it sounds like "anti imperialism," but I would think of it as "revolutionary defeatism," to deny the NATO claims.
Guantanamo bay doesn't have a civilian population, the Falklands do and Kuwait has very large population it should be entirely their choice if they want to be part of Argentina and Iraq respectively

[DasFapital]

I side with Fernandez, the hottest president on the planet. I provide no supporting evidence other than this.

[agnixie]

This seems like a no brainer, it's like asking if Cuba should have guantanamo bay. it's military base is there to act in the interests of the european bourgeoisie, so it makes sense that for larger argentinian self determination the island is rid of the british military force which acts as somewhat of a "gunboat diplomacy," for the rest of argentina, which although is capitalist still doesn't benefit the argentinian people nor their workers who are under threat of having to work for lower wages under european bosses if enough capital is pumped in. anyways, if there was an american military base in say Kuwait, which acted to protect the capital invested in a country that for some reason is cut off from the historic economic system of the former ottoman empire, it would of made sense to support kuwait integrating into Iraq, helping the economy as well as the larger public, avoiding . I mean it sounds like "anti imperialism," but I would think of it as "revolutionary defeatism," to deny the NATO claims.

It's obviously a no-brainer if you're unaware of Argentine history and instead play up nationalist bullshit about foreign bosses. The idea that the main threat to the argentine working class is nebulous european bosses when the country is run by its own homegrown bourgeoisie and has been since independence is not so much vulgar marxism as cheap nationalism masquerading as vulgar marxism.


European monarchs 300 years ago

500, it dates back to the Tordesillas line.

[Geiseric]

Historically or not, britain has no reason other than the possibility of future imperialism to keep the falkland islands. Should the profits from the oil drilled in the country go to england or to Argentina? Should english or argentinian companies control the resources? If the argentinian companies control it, the struggle for workers control of it is that much closer. as a united states citizen, I think that all foreign colonies and protectorates should be made independent, so why would I have a double standard for a british colony? It exists off the coast of argentinia, so it makes sense that the resources help build argentina and not provide profit for BP.

[Geiseric]

And hasn't argentina been under the thumb of spanish oil companies for the longest time, to the detriment of their economy and the working class?

[agnixie]

And hasn't argentina been under the thumb of spanish oil companies for the longest time, to the detriment of their economy and the working class?

The only foreign oil company with a significant stake in Argentinian oil is canadian. Also your crass appeal to nationalism is beyond ridiculous and would make any foreign capitalist endeavour a proof of imperialism, in which case the US would be "under the thumb" of german and chinese imperialism for significant parts of the country's economy, which is beyond ridiculous.


Should the profits from the oil drilled in the country go to england or to Argentina? Should english or argentinian companies control the resources? Ultimately, neither.


If the argentinian companies control it, the struggle for workers control of it is that much closer.
:laugh:


It exists off the coast of argentinia

Of Patagonia, a region which Argentina conquered and colonized itself in the 1870s, 40 years after the Falklands became british. And it was a bunch of uninhabited rocks. I'm not sure where you get this ridiculous geographic determinism but I can assure you it's not in Marx. BTW, Isn't most Argentine oil in Patagonia? YOu know, that region which was conquered violently I mentioned, oh, two lines above.


britain has no reason other than the possibility of future imperialism to keep the falkland islands
Do you seriously think the UK has the military means to do gunboat diplomacy in Argentina? This is beyond absurd. This is patently ridiculous.

[Nox]

All I see in this thread are a load of strawman arguments supporting Argentinian imperialism, and people using the word "Malvinas" to sound cool.