Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum

[Revy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

"On a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against."

"Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"

Yes 1,513 99.8%
No 3 0.2%
Invalid or blank votes 2 0.1%
Total votes 1,518
Turnout: 92%

[The Idler]

The Chagos Islanders of Diego Garcia (a British territory with similar population figures) were never polled on whether they wanted to remain settled on British territory. Between 1968 and 1973 they were just kicked off.

[Durruti's friend]

Well, that's not surprising if you know that 70% of the population is of British descent and a lot of others come from France, Scandinavia or some British colonies.

So, if you look at it that way, the referendum was just a nice excuse for the British to retain their control over the Falklands.
But, on the other hand, if the Falkland Islanders don't want to be part of Argentine, who are we to force them to do so? It's not like Argentina is any better than Britain.

I used to think the Islands have to be Argentinian but now I simply don't care. In leftist jargon - they're both bourgeois and nationalism isn't something we should support.

[brigadista]

dont you mean Las Malvinas??:D:D:D

[GerrardWinstanley]

I love the sight of 1,513 people missing the point :rolleyes:

[Q]

I love the sight of 1,513 people missing the point :rolleyes:

What point? I mean, sure, they're used in an international game of Machiavellian politics. But under these circumstances the only chance of some kind of self-determination for those Falklanders is being guaranteed by British imperialism.

As I put it last year:



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.
And:



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.

So, what "point" exactly are you talking about? About the divine right of Argentina to have some islands, just because they happen to be close by? That is bourgeois nationalist logic and we should go beyond that.

[melvin]

Obviously radicals do not support either Britain or Argentina in the conflict over the Falklands. Both nation states are to be completely opposed.

I hope people realize that public opinion does not equal working class politics.

[The Idler]

Its a cliche, but workers have no country.

[GerrardWinstanley]

What point? I mean, sure, they're used in an international game of Machiavellian politics. But under these circumstances the only chance of some kind of self-determination for those Falklanders is being guaranteed by British imperialism.

As I put it last year:


And:



So, what "point" exactly are you talking about? About the divine right of Argentina to have some islands, just because they happen to be close by? That is bourgeois nationalist logic and we should go beyond that.I don't know about you, but I'm a supporter of decolonisaton (I'm sorry if that's a bourgeois concept for some people) so why should I recognise the legitimacy of the Falklands as a British overseas territory? Whatever the merits of the Argentinian claim (there is something to be said about the fact the islands are on South America's doorstep and most South American states are on Argentina's side on this matter), it is not an assault on the Falklanders' right to self-determination, which suggests independent rule, not rule by a remote coloniser.

The referendum means nothing.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't know about you, but I'm a supporter of decolonisaton (I'm sorry if that's a bourgeois concept for some people) so why should I recognise the legitimacy of the Falklands as a British overseas territory? Whatever the merits of the Argentinian claim (there is something to be said about the fact the islands are on South America's doorstep and most South American states are on Argentina's side on this matter), it is not an assault on the Falklanders' right to self-determination, which suggests independent rule, not rule by a remote coloniser.

The referendum means nothing.
The referendum means everything.

The Falklanders themselves have come out and said that they want absolutely nothing to do with fucking Argentina. You can't just fucking completely ignore what the inhabitans of the Islands want and forcefully hand them over to Argentina in order to satify the caprice of the Argentian bourgeoisie and call that decolonisation. What the fuck?

[Q]

I don't know about you, but I'm a supporter of decolonisaton (I'm sorry if that's a bourgeois concept for some people)...
And you should be ashamed for it.


it is not an assault on the Falklanders' right to self-determination, which suggests independent rule, not rule by a remote coloniser.

Hmm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Politics_and_government)


Politics and government

Main article: Politics of the Falkland Islands

The islands are a British Overseas Territory which, under the 2009 Constitution, enjoys a large degree of internal self-government, with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good government and taking responsibility for defence and foreign affairs.[78][79]

[...]

The Legislative Assembly consists of the Chief Executive, Director of Finance and the eight members elected for four-year terms by universal suffrage, of whom five are from Stanley and three from Camp.[79] There are no political parties, and no formal opposition. It is presided over by the Speaker,[80] - as of 2012 Keith Biles.[81] The last election, the first under the 2009 constitution, took place on Thursday 5 November 2009.[82]

[...]

Freedom of expression in the Falkland Islands is guaranteed by the constitution, with the United Kingdom's superior courts explicitly empowered to hear appeals.[79] Freedom of the press is comparable to that of the United Kingdom;[84] which, in turn, in the view of many commentators, is significantly better than that of any other South American country.[85][86]

(Emphasis added)

So, they have self-rule, freedom of press, universal suffrage and even their own constitution... Oh yes, they're so ruled by a remote coloniser.

My original point stands: The reason that the Falklanders choose so overwhelmingly for their "colonising oppressors" is because this way they can actually be guaranteed of self-determination.

We shouldn't oppose that right and yell from the top of our lungs that the Falklands should be "decolonised" (and replaced by Argentinian colonists?), but instead pose the positive - proletarian - alternative of a united Latin American workers republic, where the Falklanders are invited to join, as equals and on a voluntary basis.

[Revy]

What if Reagan had invaded Bermuda in the 80s, with the intention of making it a US territory? Would the left have gotten behind Reagan's imperialist invasion, only because it was a British territory? As the Falklands are close to Argentina, so is Bermuda close to the US. Could the US have a right to claim Bermuda based only on proximity? Obviously not.

[GerrardWinstanley]

The referendum means everything.

The Falklanders themselves have come out and said that they want absolutely nothing to do with fucking Argentina. You can't just fucking completely ignore what the inhabitans of the Islands want and forcefully hand them over to Argentina in order to satify the caprice of the Argentian bourgeoisie and call that decolonisation. What the fuck?Why not? They are a colonial settler population, using the resources and land that Argentina fought to win back from Spain without the former's consent. In terms of democracy, how does their opinion count for any more than the opinion of the Pieds-Noirs in Algeria or the white settler population of Rhodesia?

[GerrardWinstanley]

And you should be ashamed for it.



Hmm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Politics_and_government)



(Emphasis added)

So, they have self-rule, freedom of press, universal suffrage and even their own constitution... Oh yes, they're so ruled by a remote coloniser.

My original point stands: The reason that the Falklanders choose so overwhelmingly for their "colonising oppressors" is because this way they can actually be guaranteed of self-determination.

We shouldn't oppose that right and yell from the top of our lungs that the Falklands should be "decolonised" (and replaced by Argentinian colonists?), but instead pose the positive - proletarian - alternative of a united Latin American workers republic, where the Falklanders are invited to join, as equals and on a voluntary basis.The Falklanders are not the victims British rule over the islands (see my previous post). That would be Argentina.

[l'Enfermé]

Okay so you want to forcefully wrest the Islands from their inhabitants who have lived there for centuries, expel them, and hand the Islands over to the Argentinian bourgeoisie in order for the Argentianian bourgeoisie to economically exploit the Islands and surrounding waters.

Yes, that's called decolonisation. Or is it?

And yeah, the difference between Algeria and Rhodesia is that the Islands were uninhabited before the European settlers arrived, buddy. Do you see the difference? The Falklanders are not exercising a cruel racist dictatorship over the native population. They are the native population. On the other hand, most Argentinians are actual settler-colonists who have displaced the native population. So, there you go...

[Vanguard1917]

Sorry, but the question of the Falklands has never been about its few handfuls of inhabitants, but about imperialist power. When Thatcher invaded in 82, it was about exerting imperialist authority, not 'defending the islanders'. It had just as little to do with 'defending the islanders' as the British soldiers on the streets of Belfast and Derry had to with 'defending the protestants'.

For Marxists, this should all be quite straightforward to grasp. For some 'Marxists' in Britain*, however, political nonsense was what prevailed - and at a critical political juncture for the British state, whose victory in the war did much to bolster its authority at home in the struggles to come.


* E.g. the left-Labourites organised around the Militant newspaper, with their notion that 'A Labour government ... would continue the war on socialist lines.'

[Raúl Duke]

I find some people here lack of respecting the sole population of the Falklands/Malvinas wishes to be kinda disturbing and silly (in a condescending way).

All because the UK is an imperialist power doesn't make it sensible to hand over the islands to Argentina, it makes no economically-structural difference between one bourgeoisie and another despite that one may be a imperializing world power. Leftists wasting time backing one claim or the other is just ridiculous, the claim of these bourgeois liberal republics should be a non-issue.

The only reasonable angle to discussing the issue like this is in the 'national' self-determination angle. The people voted to stay and that's that; also I find it absurdly humorous that people say they're opposed to there wishes like if there's anything they can or should do to stop it (what right do you have to deny them their choice?). I would personally find it offensive if people took another group with a similar self-determination issue, Puerto Ricans and the status of Puerto Rico, and basically oppose what the people voted for (although I have seen this, the fuck do some people think and imagine themselves in a presumptuous condescending position to be dictating the interests of another group).

[l'Enfermé]

No, just no. What the fuck are you talking about mate? The British didn't invade the Falklands; the Argentine military dictatorship did, in April 1982. Exerting imperialist authority? Really? That's obviously why the British tried to make the Argentinians fuck off through negotiations.

"critical political juncture for the British state, whose victory in the war did much to bolster its authority at home in the struggles to come. "

Are you fucking joking me? Are you really ignoring that that applies both ways? The Argentinian military dictator, Galtieri(an accomplice in the butchering of Sandanistas in Nicaragua and an infamous dead-squad leader, responsible for the the murder and torture of numerous Argentine leftists and the kidnapping of children), decided to invade the Falklands because his dictatorship was rapidly losing support of the population and the economic situation was deteriorating rapidly and something needed to be done to distract the people. The defeat of Argentina in a war that she started was a really great fucking thing, all the more because it lead to the fall of the military dictatorship and the end of the Dirty War(ever heard of it?). The rise in Thatcher's popularity is a tiny and insignificant detail compared to all of that.

[Tim Cornelis]

Let's decolonise guernsey! Even though 99% of the British population of guernsey wants to remain British, they shouldn't be oppressed by a remote coloniser so let's give guernsey "back" to the French who never had it in the first place.

That's about the argument being made here by Gerrard Winstanley.

[Invader Zim]

Why not? They are a colonial settler population, using the resources and land that Argentina fought to win back from Spain without the former's consent. In terms of democracy, how does their opinion count for any more than the opinion of the Pieds-Noirs in Algeria or the white settler population of Rhodesia?

They are indeed a 'colonial settler population', in the same manner that every nation and region on earth, save a small group of cultures in the heart of Africa, are a 'colonial settler population'. They inhabit a region to which their ancestors migrated. However, as Q noted, they did not usurp the position, homes, territory or nationality of a preceding settler group. These people's ancestors were literally the first group of individuals to ever establish a lasting permanent presence on the Islands and they, and their descendants, have been there ever since, a period of 180 years.


When Thatcher invaded in 82, it was about exerting imperialist authority, not 'defending the islanders'.

As ever, you display your failure to distinguish been historical material reality and the inventions of your imagination. Thatcher did not invade the Falklands. She certainly used the invasion, by a crypto-fascist military dictatorship, of the Islands to excuse the flexing of the tiny remnants of British military muscle, in a period of vastly declining British military and economic power, to win herself re-election, but she certainly did not 'invade' the islands.

[Invader Zim]

The Falklanders are not the victims British rule over the islands (see my previous post). That would be Argentina.

What precisely, do your feel, that Argentina has 'lost' by not having control over a group of sparsely populated islands which were not, at the time of the construction of Argentine independence (or as it was the United Provinces of the Rio Plate), under the control of Argentina or indeed within the nearby proximity of Argentina as it was then? People are keen to point to maps and note that the islands are only 300 miles from Argentina, but in the 1830s that was not the case. In reality Argentina was not to expand to the southern regions of South America until the 1870s. Patagonia was, at that time, still an unconquered and unexplored (from a European point of view) lacuna on the map. To provide you an image of 'Argentina' in as it was for many decades while the islands were inhabited by the same group, and their descendants, as now:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/AsambleaXIII.svg/300px-AsambleaXIII.svg.png

And, of course, the Argentinians, the post-colonial, and allegedly anti-imperial power, in the 1870s, conquered the regions south of its current bordered in one of the most brutally complete campaigns of imperial conquest and ethnic cleansing you are likely to ever encounter. In other-words the post-colonialists became the imperialists, and that is the only reason that modern-day Argentina is close the the islands. It was never anywhere near them when the empty rocks were colonized by the British-European settlers made the first ever permanent home of them in the 1830s. So how, precisely, does it help them to give up their self-determination for the benefit of Argentina's colonial, settler, bourgeoisie? How is Argentina a 'victim' of the existence of a set of Islands which are not, and never have been, under Argentine settlement for any sustained period?

[Prometeo liberado]

What if Reagan had invaded Bermuda in the 80s, with the intention of making it a US territory? Would the left have gotten behind Reagan's imperialist invasion, only because it was a British territory? As the Falklands are close to Argentina, so is Bermuda close to the US. Could the US have a right to claim Bermuda based only on proximity? Obviously not.

Your talking about Bermuda as in the Caribbean? The one with the nice beaches and soft white sand? Blue water? That place? Hmm, could you maybe substitute Haiti instead? Yeah, substitute Haiti and then this wont sound as shallow yet tempting as that referendum.

Me likey the Bermuda.:tt1:

[Vanguard1917]

No, just no. What the fuck are you talking about mate? The British didn't invade the Falklands; the Argentine military dictatorship did, in April 1982. Exerting imperialist authority? Really? That's obviously why the British tried to make the Argentinians fuck off through negotiations.

Semantics don't change the fact that the British military travelled thousands of miles from the UK to 'defend sovereign British land' from the challenge of a third-world country.


Are you fucking joking me? Are you really ignoring that that applies both ways? The Argentinian military dictator, Galtieri...

You can oppose Galtieri and also oppose a British victory. We all know what Trotsky had to say on such a matter:

In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

[Invader Zim]

Semantics don't change the fact that the British military travelled thousands of miles from the UK to 'defend sovereign British land' from the challenge of a third-world country.



You can oppose Galtieri and also oppose a British victory. We all know what Trotsky had to say on such a matter:

In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

Firstly, who gives a fuck what a fossil like Trotsky thought? Secondly, Trotsky wrote that in 1938 when Britain was a superpower with a vast empire. Neither were the case in 1982. By 1982 Britain was a former power in state of terminal relative decline. Thirdly, Trotsky explicitly envisioned a British invasion of Brazil to establish regime change, a scenario utterly at odds with what actually happened in the Falklands conflict.


Semantics don't change the fact that the British military travelled thousands of miles from the UK to 'defend sovereign British land' from the challenge of a third-world country.

The gross relativism you display in the nature of what occurred in the Falkland's war is really quite shocking. You contend that Britain invaded the Falklands, when in reality Argentina invaded the islands. And when that is pointed out to you you whine about 'semantics'. The difference is not a semantic one - your "argument" hinges on an ahistorical lie, on the contention that events played out in a manner which is simply did not occur.

The fact is that in an effort to massage your anti-imperialist credentials you are willing to sacrifice self-determination of the only permanent resident people of a region in favor of an invading, alien, fascist power. You say that you oppose Galtieri, but how can you? His regime hinged on the success of his policy of invasion and military expansionism - if you support his invasion in doing so you support his regime and the stripping of a people of their right to self-determination. I used to agree with you, I supported self-determination for the Islanders without wanting to support the British policy or claims. However, now I see is that it is one or the other. You either support their right to self-determination and with it the British post-imperial policy, or you support the fascists and their policy. It strikes me that you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and I think you've chosen wrongly.

[melvin]

...I supported self-determination for the Islanders without wanting to support the British policy or claims. However, now I see is that it is one or the other. You either support their right to self-determination and with it the British post-imperial policy, or you support the fascists and their policy. It strikes me that you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and I think you've chosen wrongly.The invasion of Afghanistan was initially popular among Afghans. Do you always support imperialism when it is democratically supported, or just your own nation states?

It's astonishing that so many radicals feel the need to pick sides between different far right capitalists (the UK and Argentina, in this case).

[Invader Zim]

The invasion of Afghanistan was initially popular among Afghans. Do you always support imperialism when it is democratically supported, or just your own nation states?

It's astonishing that so many radicals feel the need to pick sides between different far right capitalists (the UK and Argentina, in this case).

Your comparison doesn't make sense, because it is divorced from historical reality. How do you propose to suggest that the two are at all comparable? The coalition invaded Afghanistan for their own geopolitical goals. Britain did not imperialistically invade the Falkland islands to militarily extend its geo-political influence - Galtieri's regime did. So, do you always support fascist military expansionism, or only when it as the expense of white people?

[melvin]

How do you propose to suggest that the two are at all comparable. The coalition invaded another country for their own geopolitical goals. Britain did not invade the Falkland islands - Galtieri's regime did.Oh, so it is not acceptable to expand British capitalism, but it is acceptable to maintain it through military power when it is under attack from a rival capitalist power?

[Invader Zim]

Oh, so it is not acceptable to expand British capitalism, but it is acceptable to maintain it through military power when it is under attack from a rival capitalist power?

I addressed your fucking banal and idiotic comparison, so before you ask another question why don't you answer mine:

"So, do you always support fascist military expansionism, or only when it as the expense of white people?"

[melvin]

I addressed your fucking banal and idiotic comparison, so before you ask another question why don't you answer mine:

"So, do you always support fascist military expansionism, or only when it as the expense of white people?"I am opposed to all military actions, including those of Argentina and those of the UK. Military action taken by Argentina does not make me support military action in retaliation from the UK, and vice versa would also be true. Don't accuse me of being discriminatory towards white people, there's no reason to.

Now that I've answered your question you should answer my second one.

[Invader Zim]

Why? You are again misrepresenting the issue, which is: is it wrong for a power to defend its citizens basic human rights when they are subverted an invading fascist regime. Your argument suggests that because Britain is capitalist, it must by default be wrong to defend its citizens from fascists. So, presumably, therefore, you also accept that France had no right to resist the 1940 invasion by Nazi Germany. After all, it was the French attempting to maintain French capitalism through military power when it is under attack from a rival capitalist power. Or how about Poland? Norway? Or how about State Capitalist powers like the Soviet Union? Perhaps the Chinese should not have attempted to resist the Rape of Nanking?

This is the clear logical extension of your argument.


Military action taken by Argentina does not make me support military action in retaliation from the UK

So basically, you're saying that you don't support Argentina's military expansionism, but if they do it anyway, then you end up tacitly supporting it, because you oppose any application of military force to prevent said invasion? Well let's hope that your home doesn't get invaded by a fascist power and you never have to be placed in that predicament. The Falklanders were not so lucky.


Don't accuse me of being discriminatory towards white people, there's no reason to.

Well, you are arguing that the descendants of white European colonists are subservient the rights of fascist dictators operating brutal regimes in South America.

[Brutus]

The islanders voted to remain British. It seems rather hipocritcial of Cameron to use public opinion to attempt to give his cause validity- we all know how much his reforms are loved by the British public. The argentines only want it for the oil, but so do the British.

[Lord Hargreaves]

The main point here is for us to stalwartly oppose any action that may lead to an escalation between the two countries, and - heaven forbid - a repeat war. Anything else is just guff.

Supporting the Falkland Island's "sovereignty" and "self-determination" just doesn't meet that criteria. The situation doesn't need any more macho posturing. People using this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric give the impression that they would thereby have to support any action by the British imperial state that sought to defend this reality, including continuing to support militarization in the region, or even supporting another war against Argentina. Anyone who can't see this as an absolute farce and tragedy needs to look again.

The way forward is the normalisation of the situation and relations between the two countries; moving from the unsustainable military stalemate that currently exists toward a viable, stable, reasonable rapprochement.

The British obstinately and absolutely refuse any negotiation - on oil extraction rights, on fishing, on trade, on their naval presence in the region, on anything. This is insanity. Surely some kind of compromise that would make Britain, Argentina, and the Islanders themselves happy, must be possible?

[Luís Henrique]

The referendum means everything.

The Falklanders themselves have come out and said that they want absolutely nothing to do with fucking Argentina. You can't just fucking completely ignore what the inhabitans of the Islands want and forcefully hand them over to Argentina in order to satify the caprice of the Argentian bourgeoisie and call that decolonisation. What the fuck?

Ah, so if we have a referendum in Israel and the overwhelming majority of the electorate votes it should remain a Jewish State... what?

What are the immigration rules for the Falkland/Malvinas? Does Britain allow immigrants from Argentina?

A small piece of land with a small population like that can have its demographics easily manipulated by any middle-sized bourgeois State.

And, frankly, 3 thousand people in a rock lost in the middle of the ocean, at an almost prohibitive latitude, simply don't have any material possibility of self-determination. That's why the referendum is a fraud: there is no real option, and it seems none was actually offered. They were asked if they wanted to keep their status as a "British overseas territory". What if they answered "no"? What follows? National independence, for what essencially amounts to a village? Annexation by Argentina? A UN mandate? Internationalisation? Evacuation of the islands? Who knows?

So essentially, the referendum asked them if they wanted to take a jump into the dark, which the kelpers, being rational human beings, obviously and overwhelmingly rejected. So that's the only thing the referendum actually tells us: the kelpers are not hopeless imbeciles. But I suppose we already knew that without the help of a referendum.

The Falklands/Malvinas simply cannot be framed within the issue of self-determination. It is an issue of strategic dominance of the Southern Atlantic, and it is within this frame that it must be understood. If we understand that, we can see that the kelpers are mere hostages of the United Kingdom, which ideologically disguises its determination to keep a military presence between Africa and South America as a defence of kelper autonomy (the moment Britain lost interest in a military presence in the Southern Atlantic would be the moment the kelpers would be screwed and gladly turned over to Argentina, whatever kind of democracy or dictatorship Argentina happened to be at the time).

And so, if we want effectively to distance ourselves from cheerleading for British imperialism and from Argentinian foolish territorial claims, what we need to stand for is, the demilitarisation of Southern Atlantic, and internationalisation and neutralisation of Falkland/Malvinas, with limited self-government and international supervision of civil rights of the inhabitants and of immigration policies.

Luís Henrique

[Lord Hargreaves]

Why? You are again misrepresenting the issue, which is: is it wrong for a power to defend its citizens basic human rights when they are subverted an invading fascist regime. Your argument suggests that because Britain is capitalist, it must by default be wrong to defend its citizens from fascists. So, presumably, therefore, you also accept that France had no right to resist the 1940 invasion by Nazi Germany. After all, it was the French attempting to maintain French capitalism through military power when it is under attack from a rival capitalist power. Or how about Poland? Norway? Or how about State Capitalist powers like the Soviet Union? Perhaps the Chinese should not have attempted to resist the Rape of Nanking?

Do we really think the situation needs all this gung-ho Churchillian rhetoric? The Argentinian regime is much different to how it was in 1982, there is no longer any case of fascism here. The issue today is not about preventing some kind of genocide in the South Atlantic.

The question here is very simple and it is this: how do we go about attaining a stable and peaceful solution that makes all three sides (Britain, Argentina, the Falklands) happy, and which normalises the relationship between the Falklands and the mainland?

[Invader Zim]

Does Britain allow immigrants from Argentina?

Yes.

To contextualize this further, the Falkland islands actually operate a very strict immigration policy. They do not prevent people moving to the islands, but new arrivals do not have the right to vote or gain citizenship of the islands until they have lived there for seven years. If the Argentine people really are so determined to gain political control over the islands, then that is what they will have to do - move en-mass to the Islands and stay there for seven years, and vote for a change in the Island's sovereignty.

Yet funnily enough few Argentinians have seems to have any desire to live on hostile barren islands, and therefore they have no say. The people living there, however, do.


It is an issue of strategic dominance of the Southern Atlantic

No, it doesn't and hasn't done for at least a century. Britain is a post-colonial former world power which has undergone massive decolonialization. It has not and cannot maintain serious imperial ambitions anywhere on earth in the manner you seem to envision. Indeed, Britain's remnants of empire are costly and unwanted. The policy of the British government in the 1960s and 70s, at the height of decolonialisation was to actually off-load the islands to Argentina, but then, as now, the Islander's refused, and campaigned extremely hard and noisily to make the transfer politically nonviable for the British government. If the islands actually had any strategic or economic value then Britain would never have never tried to secede the islands to Argentina in the first place. of course, with the potential of oil in the region, that has changed in recent years. But British policy long predates that policy.


Do we really think the situation needs all this gung-ho Churchillian rhetoric?

Have you actually read any Churchill? And the questions I posited are entirely in line with the argument being made by Melvin, who explicitly states that capitalist powers should not defend their citizens in the face of an invading fascist power. That's what he said. The obvious point of comparison is to beg the question, does that apply to the nations invaded by the Nazi regime and that of Imperial Japan?


The Argentinian regime is much different to how it was in 1982, there is no longer any case of fascism here. The issue today is not about preventing some kind of genocide in the South Atlantic.

But the points I was responding to were not about the situation as it exists now, they were specifically about 1982.


The question here is very simple and it is this: how do we go about attaining a stable and peaceful solution that makes all three sides (Britain, Argentina, the Falklands) happy, and which normalises the relationship between the Falklands and the mainland?

It is impossible. The Argentine government will not be happy unless it controls the islands, it is written into the very constitution of the Argentine state. Meanwhile, the Falklander's will naturally oppose any actions which strips them of their right to self-determination, through collusion by the Argentine and British government at their expense.

[Rurkel]

What if they answered "no"? What follows? National independence, for what essencially amounts to a village? Annexation by Argentina?
Isn't it pretty much the latter by default? The islands are obviously incapable of statehood, and no one else but Argentina expressed interest in them. And losing territorial status of some kind doesn't include forced evacuation, I don't know why anyone would interpret it that way. Mind you, the British, afaik, are still denying the Chagos Islanders their "right to return"...

[melvin]

Why? You are again misrepresenting the issue, which is: is it wrong for a power to defend its citizens basic human rights when they are subverted an invading fascist regime. Your argument suggests that because Britain is capitalist, it must by default be wrong to defend its citizens from fascists. So, presumably, therefore, you also accept that France had no right to resist the 1940 invasion by Nazi Germany. After all, it was the French attempting to maintain French capitalism through military power when it is under attack from a rival capitalist power. Or how about Poland? Norway? Or how about State Capitalist powers like the Soviet Union? Perhaps the Chinese should not have attempted to resist the Rape of Nanking?

This is the clear logical extension of your argument.You act as if Thatchers Britain was on much higher moral grounds than Argentina, despite the millions dead at the hands of the UK, and they were continuing to kill even throughout the 1980's. And you even compare Argentina to Nazi Germany. But I'm the one making faulty comparisons...


So basically, you're saying that you don't support Argentina's military expansionism, but if they do it anyway, then you end up tacitly supporting it, because you oppose any application of military force to prevent said invasion? Well let's hope that your home doesn't get invaded by a fascist power and you never have to be placed in that predicament. The Falklanders were not so lucky.I guess "tacitly support" in the same way that being opposed to American entry into World War II after the US was attacked by Japan would be "tacit support" to fascist Japan.


Well, you are arguing that the descendants of white European colonists are subservient the rights of fascist dictators operating brutal regimes in South America.It's funny I'm being accused of being sympathetic to right wing politics by a Union Jack waver.

[Vanguard1917]

Firstly, who gives a fuck what a fossil like Trotsky thought? Secondly, Trotsky wrote that in 1938 when Britain was a superpower with a vast empire. Neither were the case in 1982. By 1982 Britain was a former power in state of terminal relative decline.

But Britain, though declining, was still a major Western power, whereas Argentina was, as i said, a 'third world' country in South America. The basic relationship described by Trotsky - oppressor nation/oppressed nation - had not fundamentally altered.


The gross relativism you display in the nature of what occurred in the Falkland's war is really quite shocking. You contend that Britain invaded the Falklands, when in reality Argentina invaded the islands. And when that is pointed out to you you whine about 'semantics'. The difference is not a semantic one - your "argument" hinges on an ahistorical lie, on the contention that events played out in a manner which is simply did not occur.

It doesn't hinge on that. 'Invasion' was a mistake on my part, since in technical terms, Thatcher's war was obviously not an invasion. But nonetheless, in concrete terms, it was an aggressive move by a Western state keen to boost its international authority in the historical context of the time. To repeat, it had absolutely nothing to do with defending the inhabitants of the islands.


I used to agree with you, I supported self-determination for the Islanders without wanting to support the British policy or claims. However, now I see is that it is one or the other. You either support their right to self-determination and with it the British post-imperial policy, or you support the fascists and their policy. It strikes me that you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and I think you've chosen wrongly.

I disagree that i have chosen wrongly. I oppose all wars which set out to strengthen the power Western states. I hope that they lose all such wars, and i believe that such losses can help intensify the contradictions of the global capitalist system. I believe that imperialist dominance is the main cause for the rise of the Galtieries of this world, and, though this might seem counterintuitive to the non-Marxist, i believe that victories against the West can create conditions far more favourable for liberty and socialism - worldwide.

[Rurkel]

I guess Argentina's rating of "Westerness" is relatively high, but Britain obviously scores much more then Argentina anyway, so never mind.

[Lord Hargreaves]

It is impossible. The Argentine government will not be happy unless it controls the islands, it is written into the very constitution of the Argentine state. Meanwhile, the Falklander's will naturally oppose any actions which strips them of their right to self-determination, through collusion by the Argentine and British government at their expense.

I'm not sure what "self-determination" means in the context of the Falklands. The islands are utterly dependent on the UK. If relations were normalised between the islands and the mainland, then they could probably attain something like self-determination.

Do they have a veto over the entirety of British foreign policy toward the region? It seems unlikely that Britain is a completely unwilling partner in its relationship with the Falklanders, and that they have no interest themselves. The political establishment in Britain plays on the jingoism relating to the Falklands for their own benefit

Similarly, I don't see why Argentina would necessarily be unhappy with a rapproachement short of full sovereignty over the islands. It is rather a lazy argument to say this is so just because there is a commitment in their constitution: since when have such things been taken seriously by anyone?

I'd be interested to hear more about what you think on these issues.

[Invader Zim]

You act as if Thatchers Britain was on much higher moral grounds than Argentina, despite the millions dead at the hands of the UK, and they were continuing to kill even throughout the 1980's. And you even compare Argentina to Nazi Germany. But I'm the one making faulty comparisons...

This is somewhat naive. The fact is that under Galtieri, our leftwing politics would likely have been a death warrent. So you can say what you like about Thatcher's reactionary politics, but at least you could say them without fearing arrest, torture and execution. Your post reminds me of those individuals on this board who like to decry, Thatcher, Bush, Reagan and Obama as 'fascists', when the reality is very different.

As for the comparison, I never suggested that Argentina and Nazi Germany were analogous beyond their capitalist governance, I asked you: are your willing to apply your argument and your logic to those states invaded and occupied by the Nazi regime? Which, incidentally, you still haven't addressed. It is a very simple yes or no question. Given that you oppose military reactions by capitalist powers victims of fascist aggression, does this also apply to victims of Nazi aggression? Your refusal to address this question leads me to suspect that the answer is 'no', which kind of calls your argument into question.


I guess "tacitly support" in the same way that being opposed to American entry into World War II after the US was attacked by Japan would be "tacit support" to fascist Japan.

This is problematic on several levels. Firstly, I'm going to say this again because you don't seem to have fully grasped its significance, Argentina invaded the Falklands. Japan did not invade the US, she bombed US Naval resources while in harbour. There is no issue of sovereignty or self determination at stake in regard to Pearl Harbor. Secondly, by opposing a US response to Japanese aggression then you are indeed suggesting that Japan should have been left unopposed in her militant and genocidal activities in and around the Pacific rim.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't know why the arguments, at least appear to me, are over the UK's claim or Argentina's claim.
I don't care about those claims.

The people of the Malvinas voted to remain part of the UK and that's their choice and it should be respected. It's like how Puerto Rico voted recently to be a US state, personally I ideally would prefer independence but if the people chose it than that's that: I'm tired of leftists, particularly from elsewhere/foreign, pretend as if their opposing opinion matters at all (and even more ridiculous is the idea any of this has to do with leftism and the claim that there's a "true leftist position," national liberation isn't really or shouldn't be a major concern within leftism). In cases like these, only the will of the people in question matters.

I feel an issue is because some think that "revolution/socialism" will be easier to accomplish under one banner than the other (at least this is the case regarding Puerto Rican self-determination and the left). I don't think that's the case/it matters.

[Thirsty Crow]

All because the UK is an imperialist power doesn't make it sensible to hand over the islands to Argentina, it makes no economically-structural difference between one bourgeoisie and another despite that one may be a imperializing world power.
This I think doesn't paint the whole picture.

Namely, this is no black-and-white situation - both Argentina and the UK are imperialist powers, and in fact, imperialism is not a term that is used to describe a special property of certain states.

The very fact that the Argentinian state is engaged in attempts at territorial expansion - for the sake of economic opportunities, opportunities for either domestic or foreign capital but regulated by the Argentinian state - should clear this up. Unless one would argue that territorial expansion cannot be considered a manifestation of imperialism and its international tensions and rivalries.

As for the fact that some here explicitly endorse the view on decolonization which is nothing more than a support for one state over another (this is clear as day as Falklands were previously uninhabited), it is obvious that this is quite ridiculous.

But where do such arguments come from? Maybe from the fact that (revolutionary) politics is more often than not understood as the game of picking sides, whom to support. This amounts to being defeated right from the start. Colonized, so to speak, by the perspective of the ruling class.

What is at stake here is clear understanding of the conflict and the details of the situation - in terms of class.

[Lord Hargreaves]

This I think doesn't paint the whole picture.

Namely, this is no black-and-white situation - both Argentina and the UK are imperialist powers, and in fact, imperialism is not a term that is used to describe a special property of certain states.

The very fact that the Argentinian state is engaged in attempts at territorial expansion - for the sake of economic opportunities, opportunities for either domestic or foreign capital but regulated by the Argentinian state - should clear this up. Unless one would argue that territorial expansion cannot be considered a manifestation of imperialism and its international tensions and rivalries.

As for the fact that some here explicitly endorse the view on decolonization which is nothing more than a support for one state over another (this is clear as day as Falklands were previously uninhabited), it is obvious that this is quite ridiculous.

But where do such arguments come from? Maybe from the fact that (revolutionary) politics is more often than not understood as the game of picking sides, whom to support. This amounts to being defeated right from the start. Colonized, so to speak, by the perspective of the ruling class.

What is at stake here is clear understanding of the conflict and the details of the situation - in terms of class.

There is a difference between - on the one hand, subserviently taking sides in a nationalist conflict, which clearly we shouldn't do; and - on the other, trying to retain one's own moral revolutionary purity above all, by refusing to say anything of relevance.

In the Falklands situation, as it exists in 2013, I don't see how a "down with states! to hell with capitalism! decolonization is bourgeois opportunism!" approach is anything more than naval-gazing. Of course it would solve the problem, but then again there would no longer be problems if this was achieved. Yes, we want a world communist revolution with the abolition of all government, don't we all, but what could we say of practical import today?

There are at least 2 very clear actors here, two states, and two very real military forces. Avoiding pointless conflict is not a distinctively class war position, but it is the morally correct baseline, and it is necessary. A viable, stable, negotiated settlement between the Argentinian and the UK governments, with the backing of the US and the United Nations, is the best hope for peace and shared prosperity in the region.

[Engels]

There is a difference between - on the one hand, subserviently taking sides in a nationalist conflict, which clearly we shouldn't do; and - on the other, trying to retain one's own moral revolutionary purity above all, by refusing to say anything of relevance.

It isn’t a matter of “moral revolutionary purity” (which is a straw man); it’s about simple class analysis, i.e. applying a communist critique whereas you seem to prefer eschewing it in order to give the impression of appearing practically relevant.

[melvin]

This is somewhat naive. The fact is that under Galtieri, our leftwing politics would likely have been a death warrent. So you can say what you like about Thatcher's reactionary politics, but at least you could say them without fearing arrest, torture and execution.Unless you were in Northern Ireland where they did exactly that. Not to mention that Britain didn't exist independently of world politics, it was a part of a power bloc where the majority of countries involved did just that to left wingers. Which Britain completely supported.


Your post reminds me of those individuals on this board who like to decry, Thatcher, Bush, Reagan and Obama as 'fascists', when the reality is very different.They're not fascists. But Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, and Obama have each individually (and by individually I mean the states they lead) killed much more civilians than the Argentinian dictatorship. So I am completely indifferent to this statement.


As for the comparison, I never suggested that Argentina and Nazi Germany were analogous beyond their capitalist governance, I asked you: are your willing to apply your argument and your logic to those states invaded and occupied by the Nazi regime? Which, incidentally, you still haven't addressed. It is a very simple yes or no question. Given that you oppose military reactions by capitalist powers victims of fascist aggression, does this also apply to victims of Nazi aggression? Your refusal to address this question leads me to suspect that the answer is 'no', which kind of calls your argument into question.I am opposed in general to the Allied entry into World War II. So yes, I am opposed to allied response to fascist aggression (understanding world politics as power blocs is important because self determination does not exist). The allies only increased the amount of death in Europe. I don't believe they reduced it.


This is problematic on several levels. Firstly, I'm going to say this again because you don't seem to have fully grasped its significance, Argentina invaded the Falklands. Japan did not invade the US, she bombed US Naval resources while in harbour. There is no issue of sovereignty or self determination at stake in regard to Pearl Harbor. Secondly, by opposing a US response to Japanese aggression then you are indeed suggesting that Japan should have been left unopposed in her militant and genocidal activities in and around the Pacific rim.Genocidal activities during world war II? Like the allies working and starving people to death in the third world to support the war effort? Oh wait, that didn't quite make the history books. Because your perception of history lies on the distortions of the allied and western view that does not see them as the brutal murderous force that they were, which is so hegemonic that it is considered offensive to question it.

[Lord Hargreaves]

It isn’t a matter of “moral revolutionary purity” (which is a straw man); it’s about simple class analysis, i.e. applying a communist critique whereas you seem to prefer eschewing it in order to give the impression of appearing practically relevant.

So what's the "class analysis" here that I'm missing?

[20ARM13]

The Falklands/Malvinas are irrelevant. They define the term "petite Bourgoise". A nation of little Englanders. The vote was as anti Argentine as it was pro U.K. They have no concept of workers struggle, only self interest.

[Invader Zim]

Unless you were in Northern Ireland where they did exactly that.

It is certainly the case that elements of the British military, in collaboration with paramilitary groups conspired to murder individuals in Northern Ireland. But to suggest that was either policy, common, or congruent with the policies of the Galtieri regime, which murdered tens of thousands of people in the late 1970s, is quite frankly absurd.

I remember the Troubles, do you?


But Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, and Obama have each individually (and by individually I mean the states they lead) killed much more civilians than the Argentinian dictatorship.

Certainly, these states have been engaged in conflicts during the administrations of these leaders, but to suggest that they have been involved in the mass extermination of political and civil undesirables, in the manner conducted by Galtieri's regime, is as absurd as your previous statement.


I am opposed in general to the Allied entry into World War II.

How precisely do you define the Allied 'entry' into the Second World War? Poland, for instance, an Allied nation, did not 'enter' the war, persay. It was invaded and occupied. Similarly, the United States did not 'enter' the war, at least not in the manner we are discussing, the Imperial Japanese state and Nazi Germany declared war upon it. Britain and France declared war upon Germany in the face of overwhelming and persistent military expansionism. What alternative policy do you envision that the majority of Allied nations could have pursued in 1939? Most leftists on this board criticise Britain and France for failing to form an alliance with the Soviet Union and not declaring war against Nazi Germany in 1937/38, your view is a little unusual, so I'm quite interested in precisely what it is you feel they should have done instead.


The allies only increased the amount of death in Europe. I don't believe they reduced it.

In what context? Allied, and in this instance I'm excluding the USSR and China for the moment, had relatively limited military impact on the course of the war until 1944. They certainly did not inflict or endure the kinds of mass casualties that were to be seen following Operation Barbarossa, even after we consider the policy of strategic bombing and the impact of the war on India.

This also raises the interesting, if morbid, question of Nazi extermination and enslavement policy. Had the Allied Nations, and now I'm including the Soviet Union, had not brought an end to the Nazi regime by military force then it seems likely that a vast number of people in Europe would have been subject to a policy of mass enslavement and murder. Precisely when the policy of industrialized mass murder would have begun is open to debate, but it seems probable that it would have begun sooner, or more probably, later. But it also would have endured longer.


Like the allies working and starving people to death in the third world to support the war effort? Oh wait, that didn't quite make the history books.

Perhaps not the ones you've been reading. However, famines such as the Bengal famine are well known to professional historians of the Second World War. Of course, the description of that famine as a genocide is problematic and debated (in not dissimilar terms to the causes of the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, though the work on that famine seems to be at a far more advanced stage). The work I've read on the famine suggests not necessarily a policy of genocide, desire, or callous disregard to suffering in the main, though doubtless it existed within elements of the Government of India, but it does not appear to have dictated policy. Rather it is suggestive of gross negligence, poor planning, unprecedented administrative failure, disbelief in London, very bad luck and obtuse almost religious adherence to failed economic ideology and policy. But if you want to pursue the argument that it was a genocide, and therefore by definition deliberate, then good luck to you trying to pick apart the abstruse historiography on the topic.

Anyway, a comprehensive study of the Famine was actually carried out by the authorities themselves in 1945, and they penned one of the most critical self-assessments you are ever likely to read. Of course, it has been cited, commented upon, mined and critiqued at length by historians and economists since, but it is a fine a place to start as any:

http://www.bowbrick.org.uk/Single%20page%20fic/FICpp1to49.pdf

You might also wish to examine the work of Sen and Tauger (who have seemingly been engaged in a spat over this issue for decades). I found one of Tauger's articles free to view here:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Bengal%20enlarged.pdf


Because your perception of history lies on the distortions of the allied and western view that does not see them as the brutal murderous force that they were

My 'perception of history'? And what, prey, is that?

I've spent my entire professional life unpicking the 'allied and western view' of the Second World War. The fact is that you certainly don't know anything about my 'perception of history', and my guess is that you also don't know that much about modern British history or the Second World War in general.

[Raúl Duke]

What is at stake here is clear understanding of the conflict and the details of the situation - in terms of class.I agree with that perspective, it's perhaps one reason why, in the end of the day, I don't really care what the outcome for the PR's referendum of status (especially since I don't live there, if I did I would probably vote for statehood due to economic considerations) or that of the Malvinas results. It doesn't matter what the status is or changes to, the possibility for "working class revolution" is available in all status and the status changes are basically mostly a change between bourgeoisie (i.e. neither side particularly benefits the working class). I think I mentioned a bit of this, prefacing that what I said previously is not in the realm of "leftist politics" and shouldn't be.

Although like Hargreaves said, talking about the subject under that lens (as leftist politics/class) is, or could lead to, navel-gazing/circle-jerk. What I'm trying to argue against is the idea that one side or the other would be more "good for the workers" or whatever that some seem to think and thus based their arguments on those grounds rather than the only legitimate angle in which these kinds of 'national questions' should take in the context of our current society: respect of the self-determination of the local people/nation. Of course, I also wish they understood how all this has nothing to do with class/leftism ultimately, but hey since they wanted to bring up the subject I just wanted to give a piece of my mind; my thoughts on the manner are not part of my left politics.

Yet, I would like to hear a more class, etc based analysis of this nevertheless, if it's different in conclusion and/or content than what has already been stated.