Falkland Islands sovereignty

[spartan]

What is your opinion on the Falkland Islands sovereignty issue between Argentina (Who claim the islands as an integral part of their country) and the UK (Which the Falkland Islands is apart of)?

Now everyone knows that in 1982 the Fascist military junta in charge of Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands triggering the Falklands war, and that soon after a small British force arrived in the area and defeated the Argentines forcing their surrender and the collapse soon after of the military junta in charge of Argentina.

The Argentines still claim the islands (Which they call Las Malvinas) though from what i have gathered the majority of Falkland Islanders favour being apart of the UK, so what should be done?

Do we go with the majority of the Falkland Island residents wishes and allow them to remain apart of the UK?

Or should the Falklands be handed over to Argentina?

If the latter then how would this be justified?

Discuss.

Personally as an Internationalist i would like neither side to govern this island and would instead prefer self-governship by the Falkland Islanders themselves, however seeing how the majority of the islands population wish to remain apart of Britain i find it unfair to go against the majority of people's wishes and hand the islands to Argentina.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well as much as I hate imperialism, if the people from the island whish to remain part of the U.K. their opinion should be respeced.

[Zurdito]

It is a military base of an imperialist state off the coast of Argentina, stolen from the Argentine government by the British government.

When Latin America was decolonised, the British should have left too. The old territories ruled by Spain passed over to Argentina and that was just. The Malvinas too were ruled by Spain. Therfore the British snatching them was a blatant act of aggression by a colonial power against a recently liberated colony, which had thrown off the Spanish and declared independence from Spain. This included the Malvinas.

The fact that Britain still occupies them today is a colonial hangover and should be resolved. Maybe the inhabitants wish to remain part of Britain. Well so do Unionists in Northern Ireland, do we accept that occupation too?

British military OUT of Latin America.

[Marsella]

Big fucking yawn.

[spartan]

The fact that Britain still occupies them today is a colonial hangover and should be resolved. Maybe the inhabitants wish to remain part of Britain. Well so do Unionists in Northern Ireland, do we accept that occupation too?

Completely diferent situation as there arent two communities committing violence against each other because of what country they want to belong to in the Falklands (Its only outside forces who started committing violence, i.e. the Argentine invasion in 1982).

There is only a small majority of people in N.Ireland who want it to remain apart of Britain (Soon to be superseded by a growing Catholic population).

In the Falklands its the overwhelming majority of people who want to remain apart of Britain and that is unlikely to change in the near or distant future.

So as i said earlier if you wish the Falklands to be handed over to Argentina how can you justify this without going back in time when Imperial and colonial powers started making deals and war over territory?

Using your logic Zurdito i could argue for Sweden to invade and conquer Finland as it was taken off of them by Russia in the early 19th century.

Now obviously no sane person (Well perhaps a Nationalist) would be arguing for such a stupid thing as Sweden conquering Finland, so why use history to justify handing over the Falklands to Argentina Zurdito?

[Zurdito]

There is only a small majority of people in N.Ireland who want it to remain apart of Britain (Soon to be superseded by a growing Catholic population).


Irrelevant what people IN the 6 counties want, because NorthernIreland is a false construct. What matters is what the WHOLE of the 32 coutnies want.



So as i said earlier if you wish the Falklands to be handed over to Argentina how can you justify this without going back in time when Imperial and colonial powers started making deals and war over territory?

Argentina isn't an imeprial or colonial power it is a semi-colonial nation destroyed by imperialist finance capital. Part of its territory, the Malvinas, is occupied by a hostile imeprialist power, which previosuly tried to invade Argentina int he 19th centruy and which has penetrated Argentina economcially ever since. As part of that strategy the british have sent settlers to colonise this part of Argentina's territory. The reason no Argentine's live there is because the British KICKED THEM OUT. Much like Israel is doing with arabs. Do you also support Israel's existence?


Using your logic Zurdito i could argue for Sweden to invade and conquer Finland as it was taken off of them by Russia in the early 19th century.

Wrong because Finland was never rightfully Sweedish territory, and Finalnd's independence, a genuien national independence, does not opress Sweeden.

Ont he other hand the Malvinas rightfully became part of argentina as part of the decolonisation process, and are simply illegally settled by a community which is no more than a British buffer against Latin American attempts to liberate itself from imeprialism.

[Luís Henrique]

Well as much as I hate imperialism, if the people from the island whish to remain part of the U.K. their opinion should be respeced.

It's a small territory with a tiny population. It's demographic would change overnight if the British allowed Argentinian citizens to install themselves there.

Luís Henrique

[spartan]

As part of that strategy the british have sent settlers to colonise this part of Argentina's territory. The reason no Argentine's live there is because the British KICKED THEM OUT.

I have never heard of Argentines being kicked out before (Are you sure that they werent South American Gauchos?).

You might find this useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders


Following the abandonment of the archipelago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipelago) by the Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) authorities in 1811, the only inhabitants of the islands were persons who in their various capacities traveled back and forth, carried out a variety of commercial and shipping activities, sought refuge there, and through various efforts attempted to colonize the islands. Most numerous by far among them were the English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people) and American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA) sealers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting) who had pursued their industry on the Falklands at least since the 1770s, as pointed out by US Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State) Edward Livingston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Livingston)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders#_note-Maisch). The average number of English and American sealing vessels operating in the area is estimated between 40 and 50[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders#_note-2), meaning several hundred to 1,000 sealers involved.
If you read on you will soon discover that the islands were later multi-national consisting of anyone from Americans, Europeans and South American Gauchos with American and British sealers being the majority.

The notion that Argentina has some sort of right to the Falklands is right though they have about as much right to the islands as France, Spain and the US seeing how these nations also have strong histories with the islands.

So your historical claims cannot serve as any sort of justification for the handing over of the Falklands to Argentina, especially seeing how it was sailors of the English navy who first discovered and made efforts to settle the islands in the 16th century (Way before Argentina even existed).

Give me more than just histroy to justify Argentina's claims to the Falklands.

[Zurdito]

I have never heard of Argentines being kicked out before (Are you sure that they werent South American Gauchos?).

What do you think a "gaucho" is?



You might find this useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders


If you read on you will soon discover that the islands were multi-national consisting of anyone from Americans, Europeans and South American Gauchos with American and British sealers being the majority.


Maybe so. But they were governed by Argentina. Then when the British arrived, the Argentines were kicked out.

As part of the process of decolonisation in the 19th century, Spanish adminestered territory passed over to the new South American Republics. Why does this not also apply to the Malvinas islands?

[spartan]

What do you think a "gaucho" is?

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


Maybe so. But they were governed by Argentina. Then when the British arrived, the Argentines were kicked out.

As part of the process of decolonisation in the 19th century, Spanish adminestered territory passed over to the new South American Republics. Why does this not also apply to the Malvinas islands?

They were governing a multi-national island.

Using that logic you could argue that anyone governing any multi-national land at anytime in history has a right to that land after they lost it (That list would include Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire and so on:lol:).

[Luís Henrique]

I have never heard of Argentines being kicked out before

I don't think there is the need to kick them out, as they are not allowed in first place.

A good parallel to the Malvinas situation would be that of Aland (there should be a diacritic over the first "A", but I don't know how to make it).

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

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

So why would you say this:


I have never heard of Argentines being kicked out before (Are you sure that they werent South American Gauchos?).

seeing as a gaucho is an argentinian?

it's like me saying "we didn't expell anyone English but we did expell some Liverpool dockers".

Get it?


They were governing a multi-national island.

gordon Brown governs a multinational country. Doesn't mean that every community within Britain can claim independence from Britain.:lol:


Using that logic you could argue that anyone governing any multi-national land at anytime in history has a right to that land after they lost it (That list would include Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire and so on:lol:).

Actually you don't know what you're talking about. The viceroyalty of the Rio de La Plata liberated itself from Spain between 1811-1822, dividing into Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Bolivia. The Malvinas under the Viceroyalty had simply been part of the Viceroyalty governed from Buenos Aires with no identity of their own, like the Isles ofScilly or something. Some British may have travelled there. so what? I've travelled to Spain, doesn't mean I have a claim to it.

[Luís Henrique]

What do you think a "gaucho" is?

Well, I am one.:laugh:

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

Well, I am one.:laugh:

Luís Henrique

well I'd say you're a gau-usho, or however you say it.

Internacional or Gremio btw?

Not that I am stereotyping you or anything. :D

[Luís Henrique]

well I'd say you're a gau-usho, or however you say it.

A gaúcho.


Internacional or Gremio btw?

Grêmio. Red is for politics.

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

Interesting. I always liked the shirt.

[spartan]

Gauchos arent just Argentinian (Thats tantamount to saying that all Arabs are Muslims).

Alot of Gauchos are from Chile, Paraguay, southern Brazil and Uruguay.

Argentine claims of sovereignty rely on the fact that they governed the islands for less than a decade but so has France and Spain for even longer periods so why dont they still go around claiming them?

This link (Especially the timeline of de facto control on the right side) is quite useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Its also important to note that Britain (Who first discovered the islands in 1690) never renounced sovereignty over the islands despite later Spanish control.

Therefore Britains claims of sovereignty over the islands goes back a full 139 years before any Argentine claims to the islands started to appear.

So if i were someone researching the history of these islands (From a non-Socialist perspective) to decide who had the better claim to sovereignty over the islands, then it would be Britain who historically have a more rightful claim to the sovereignty of the Falklands not America, Argentina, France or Spain.

Anyway my personal (Socialist) viewpoint on this matter is that the islands should have a degree of self-governing with both Argentina and Britain sort of sharing responsibility for certian areas of the islands (Defence and economy seeing how they cant do this alone because of lack of resources to survive, etc) but neither of them should have full governing powers over the islands due to its nature of not having strong enough ties with either of the two countries to warrant full governing powers by one of them.

Or alternatively let the Falkland Islanders decide themselves which country they want to be apart of via a referendum (The Democratic way as opposed to war).

Having said all that i still want to here opinions from both sides of the arguement so keep the responses coming.

Intrestingly Hugo Chavez recently called for Britian to leave the islands after meeting the new President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (What are her politics by the way?).

[Zurdito]

Gauchos arent just Argentinian (Thats tantamount to saying that all Arabs are Muslims).

Not really, can we stay on topic anyway, you claimed that no Argentinians were kicked out, just gauchos. I don't know where you got this information were from. In any case, Argentinians were kicked out, whether or not they were gaucho's.


Anyway from what i have researched the majority of the population of the Falklands has never been Argentianian in its entire history.

From what you've researched. Let me help you with your research. It goes like this:


Spain conquers Latin America and divides it into viceroyalties with regional governments.
The Viceroyalty of the rio de la Plata governs both modern-day Argentina and modern day Malvinas Islands. TheMalvinas Islands have no distinct regional autonomy or identity, they are just part of the region within the Viceroyalty governed from Buenos Aires.
The Viceroyalty liberates itself between 1811 and 1825. Argentina declares independence in 1812. The impetus was this was when Argentinians succesfully defeated, on their own, a British invasion of Buenos Aires in 1806.
The Malvinas pass under the jurisdiction of Buenos Aires, as part of the decolonisation process, whereby previously occupied territories become independent under republican government.
Then the British just illegally occupy the Malvinas, unilaterally expell all Argentines from the Island, "replace" the governor, and call it theirs.
To cement their unwelcome imperialist presence in Latin America, they send settlers there.Those are the facts. Defend those actions if you like but don't deny them.



Sure Argentina governed the islands for just over a decade but so has France and Spain for even longer periods so why dont they still go around claiming them?


For the reasons above, Argentina has a legitimate claim to them, no-one else does.



Or alternatively let the Falkland Islanders decide themselves which country they want to be apart of via a referendum (The Democratic way as opposed to war).


It's as democratic as asking the inhabitants of the 6 counties which country they want to belong to. However as the Malvinas are simply being occupied by animperialist state with no legitimate claim over them, I don't base my opinion on opinion polls of the settlers placed there by the imperialists.



Intrestingly Hugo Chavez recently called for Britian to leave the islands after meeting the new President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (What are her politics by the way?).

She is centre-left and moving rightwards.

[spartan]

Then the British just illegally occupy the Malvinas, unilaterally expell all Argentines from the Island, "replace" the governor, and call it theirs.

There isnt enough evidence to prove that the Argentine population was forcibly expelled by the British (The claim is also only in reference to the Argentine population of Port Louis).

It is simply an Argentine claim that isnt backed by the sources from the time (1833) which dispute this assertion saying that the colonists were encouraged to stay under Louis Vernet's (A Frenchman who was governor of Port Louis in the years immediately preceding British reclaimation of the Falklands in 1833) deputy Matthew Brisbane.

The story is that on the 2nd of January 1833 Captain John Onslow of the Royal Navy landed on the Falklands and delivered a written request to the highest ranking military person there, one Captain Jose Maria Pinedo who was dealing with civil disturbences, requesting that he lower the Argentine flag and replace it with a British one which he did after realising that he was outnumbered (Though he did ask if Argentina and Britian were at war which Onslow said they were not but that Britain was reclaiming the islands which it never renounced sovereignty over since the Spanish forced them out).

Pinedo left under protest and this is where the claims that Britain also forced the explusion of the Argentine population of Port Louis arose.

[Zurdito]

The story is that on the 2nd of January 1833 Captain John Onslow of the Royal Navy landed on the Falklands and delivered a written request to the highest ranking military person there, one Captain Jose Maria Pinedo who was dealing with civil disturbences, requesting that he lower the Argentine flag and replace it with a British one which he did after realising that he was outnumbered (Though he did ask if Argentina and Britian were at war which Onslow said they were not but that Britain was reclaiming the islands which it never renounced sovereignty over since the Spanish forced them out).

Pinedo left under protest and this is where the claims that Britain also forced the explusion of the Argentine population of Port Louis arose.


So imperialist Britain invaded the Malvinas and forcibly expelled the recently establish post-colonial Argentine government. Isn't that an invasion? What about that do you think justifies continued British presence?

[spartan]

So imperialist Britain invaded the Malvinas and forcibly expelled the recently establish post-colonial Argentine government. Isn't that an invasion? What about that do you think justifies continued British presence?

You have to ask why the British did it.

Economically you have little to gain from being possesion of the Falklands, so we thus have to go to Britains claim of sovereignty, that predates not only Argentina's claim of sovereignty but was also before Argentina was even a nation, for why Britain eventually took back control over the Falklands.

As for the British military presence there shouldnt be any military presence (Be it British or Argentinian) in the Falklands but when you consider that the Argentines invaded not so long ago its kind of understandable why there is still a British military presence in the Falklands.

Anyway i have changed my position on the whole claims of sovereignty and history issue (I suddenly saw how stupid it was for leftists like us going back into history to find claims of sovereignty by Bourgeois nations over an island) as this is for the Falkland Islanders themselves to decide via a referendum.

The choices should be clear:

1) Remain apart of Britain.

2) Become apart of Argentina.

3) Become independent.

4) Have both Argentina and Britain share the islands as joint protectors (That doesnt mean that the island will be split in half just that they will both work together on the island as opposed to one or the other having it all to themselves completely).

Anyway as leftists can we really choose one side or the other in this when both are as bad as each other?

[Luís Henrique]

Economically you have little to gain from being possesion of the Falklands, so we thus have to go to Britains claim of sovereignty,

Or, much, much, much, more probably, the strategic importance of Falkland/Malvinas for the control of the Southern Atlantic...

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

Economically you have little to gain from being possesion of the Falklands, [/quote]

Wrong, as Luis siad. Also, oil companies like Shell project the South Atlantic to be a major source of oil in the future.

Furthermore, a base near Argentina would be very important for an imperialist power like Britain which greatly exported Argentina's economy for nearly two centuries. Today, the imperialist states still exploit Argentina. Undoubtedly having this base within Argentine naval territory is of constant use as a threat to Argentina should it try to resist imperialist exploitation.


so we thus have to go to Britains claim of sovereignty, that predates not only Argentina's claim of sovereignty but was also before Argentina was even a nation, for why Britain eventually took back control over the Falklands.

what does that prove? Spain's claim also predates Argentina's? Does that mean that when Argentina became independent, we didn't view it's claim to its own territory as superior to those powers which had once occupied that territory? Do you think All Latin American independence movements were redundant, therefore, as Spain's claim to Colombia also predates Colombia's claim to Colombia.


As for the British military presence there shouldnt be any military presence (Be it British or Argentinian) in the Falklands but when you consider that the Argentines invaded not so long ago its kind of understandable why there is still a British military presence in the Falklands.

You think British military presence in Latin America is "understandable"? Wow.

No, it's understandable, the military presence existed there before Argentina took back the Malvinas from the British occupiers.


Anyway i have changed my position on the whole claims of sovereignty and history issue (I suddenly saw how stupid it was for leftists like us going back into history to find claims of sovereignty by Bourgeois nations over an island)

you "suddenly realised", or you realised you lsot that argument?


as this is for the Falkland Islanders themselves to decide via a referendum.

Wrong. They are settlers in Argentine territory. The British empire invaded, it expelled the Argentines, it sent British settlers. Like in Northern Ireland. Referendum doesn't solve the issue, because every Argentine worker is oppressed by British presence in the Malvinas. They should have a say too therefore.

[spartan]

You think British military presence in Latin America is "understandable"? Wow.

I didnt say in Latin America i said in the Falkland Islands, so stop quoting stuff that i never said.


No, it's understandable, the military presence existed there before Argentina took back the Malvinas from the British occupiers.

Yes it did and this military presence consisted of less than 100 hundred Royal Marines with a small contingent of Royal Navy ships and sailors and civilian volunteers.

So its hardly anything to worry about especially when across the sea you had the best equipped army in Latin America at the time.

And Argentina didnt "liberate" anything.

It was simply the Fascist military junta's way of diverting the frustrated peoples attention away from the crippling economic crises gripping the country to try and evoke a popular Nationalist sentiment that would gain the junta the support that it so desperately needed.

This was also the same military junta that persecuted the left wing movements, that led to the infamous "disappeared" cases, so it seems odd that you would come out in support of them and their invasion, when the left movements in Argentina were calling for general strikes and suffering persecution for their political ideals (Which one Argentine judge recently characterised as "genocide").


you "suddenly realised", or you realised you lsot that argument?

I didnt lose anything.

I thought to myself "Why the hell are we both backing the claims of two Bourgeois states fighting for the sovereignty of some small islands?".

I am an internationalist so i say leave the decision of what happens to the Falkland Islands up to the people who live there in a referendum.

You are such a Nationalist that you blindly repeat that these islands are apart of Argentina without care to the fact that the majority of the islands population want to remain apart of Britain.

So do you care about the wishes of the majority of the people who live on these islands?


Wrong. They are settlers in Argentine territory.

"Argentine territory" thats a bit too Nationalist for my liking.

The Falklands belong to the people who live and work there everyday not to a nation claiming sovereignty over them.

Coincedentally the majority of these people who live and work there want to remain apart of Britain so what are you going to do about that?

I personally would go with a compromise and call for a referendum where the Falkland Islanders get to decide their islands future themselves (Whatever that might be).

You just go around saying that the islands are "Argentine territory" and call a war started by a Fascist military junta that persecuted the left, an attempt at "liberation" which you support.

[Zurdito]

I didnt say in Latin America i said in the Falkland Islands, so stop quoting stuff that i never said.

Same thing.



Yes it did and this military presence consisted of less than 100 hundred Royal Marines with a small contingent of Royal Navy ships and sailors and civilian volunteers.

So its hardly anything to worry about there especially when across the sea is the best equipped army in Latin America at the time.


Which ultimately couldn't defeat the British armed forces (though the result wasn't as inevitable as many historians now suggest), so, what's your point?

It's not a very Marxist analysis to say "oh don't worry about that British naval base off your coast, it's only a few ships". You can only be so dismissive of the seriosuness of the issue if you have no udnerstanding of the history between Argentina and Britain anyway.



It was simply the Fascist military junta's way of diverting the frustrated peoples attention away from the crippling economic crises gripping the country.

That was part of the motivation, but it doesn't make Argentina's claims illegitimate in themselves. Your thread asked about the legitimacy of the claims, not about the Junta. you should stop moving the goalposts.


This was also the same military junta that persecuted the left wing movements, that led to the infamous "disappeared" cases, so it seems odd that you would come out in support of them and their invasion, when the left movements in Argentina were calling for general strikes and suffering persecution for their political ideals.

They are two seperate issues. To my knowledge absolutely no-one within the persecuted Argentine left who you opportunistically back agree with you on the Malvinas issue anyway, because they unlike you understand that the working class of semi-colonial countries are bound by double chains, those of their own bourgeoisie, and those of imperialism, and that therefore anti-imperialist struggles must be supported.

You know better than them though obviously, and think it's ok to stay neutral as Britain reimposes the colonial order on Latin America.



I thought to myself "Why the hell are we both backing the claims of two Bourgeois states fighting for the sovereignty of some small islands".

Because it's an important issue obviously.


I am an internationalist so i say leave the decision of what happens to the Falkland Islands up to the people who live there in a referendum.

Why did you start the thread in "learning" then if you just want to repeat liberal dogma? I've alreadys aid why that isn't adequate, and you have jsut ignored it. You don't appear to care much for history.



You are such a Nationalist that you blindly repeat that these islands are apart of Argentina without care to the fact that the majority of the islands population want to remain apart of Britain.


I critically support the nationalism of the oppressed against the oppressors, yes.


So do you care about the wishes of the majority of the people who live on these islands?

Yes but I also care about the wishes of the Argentine working class to get imperialist British presence out of its territory.




"Argentine territory" thats a bit too Nationalist for my liking.


Hypocritical. If I defined Snowdonia as Welsh territory you wouldn't bat an eyelid.



The Falklands belong to the people who live and work there everyday not to Argentina.


No, all of Argentina, including the Malvinas, belongs to all Argentines, including the Kelpers.

A small enclave within Britain can't just declare independence and immunity from tax, British laws etc.

But you hypocritically endorse this when Britain enforces this on argentina, in the name of "democracy".

Double standards spartan.


Coincedentally the majority of these people who live and work there want to remain apart of Britain so what are you going to do about that?

Oppose them obviously.



I personally would go with a compromise and call for a referendum where the Falkland Islanders get to decide their islands future themselves (Whatever that might be).


They willl vote to remain part of Britain, because they are settlers within Argentine territory, place there by the British as a buffer, after an illegitimate occupation We've benn through this, you didn't respond before so I doubt you will now.

[spartan]

They are two seperate issues. To my knowledge absolutely no-one within the persecuted Argentine left who you opportunistically back agree with you on the Malvinas issue anyway, because they unlike you understand that the working class of semi-colonial countries are bound by double chains, those of their own bourgeoisie, and those of imperialism, and that therefore anti-imperialist struggles must be supported.

Argentina was at the time a major non-NATO ally.

Before the economic crises Agentina was the most advanced of the Latin American countries and was the military powerhouse of the region.

Argentina wasnt a victim of Imperialism it was a dutiful ally of Imperialism, much in the same manner as Colombia and Israel are today, which strayed off the rails because a corrupt and unpopular military junta wanted to gain back the support of the majority of the Argentine people by appealing to their sense of national pride (Always a clever Bourgeois tactic) with a quick and easy conquest of the Falklands.


You know better than them though obviously, and think it's ok to stay neutral as Britain reimposes the colonial order on Latin America.

What the fuck?

How exactly was Britain "reimposing the colonial order" in Latin America?

Britain had done absolutely nothing to Argentina and even tried to resolve the Argentine occupation of Thule Island (Apart of Britain's South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands territory) in 1976 by diplomacy instead of resorting to war.

Argentina then invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 which led Britain to send a task force to force the invaders out which they did.

Colonialism doesnt come into it as it was Argentina who started it!

You could however claim Imperialism on Argentina's part when you consider its actions.

Indeed i think that you are only using such words to try and make Argentina look like the oppressed victim of the Imperialists, when in actual fact Argentina would be classed as an ally of these Imperialist states or even an Imperialist state in its own right judging by its military actions against the Falklands (Which included forcing people to drive on the right hand side of the road and replacing English language signs with Spanish ones).

The Falklands war was primarily an inter-Imperialist struggle between two nations in an unimportant region of the world, because one (Argentina) couldnt let go of the past and wanted to gain a strategic geographic advantage in the southern Atlantic/Antartic region over not only Britain but Chile (Argentina also claims parts of the Antartic which overlap both British and Chilean claims and has always wanted to completely control the south Atlantic waters at the disadvantage of Chile).

I critically support the nationalism of the oppressed against the oppressors, yes.
Oh come on Argentina is being oppressed by Britain just as much as Britain is being oppressed by Argentina.


Yes but I also care about the wishes of the Argentine working class to get imperialist British presence out of its territory.

The working class has no country or are you an Argentine Nationalist now?

You are using arguements that are the favourites of apologists for the military junta!


Hypocritical. If I defined Snowdonia as Welsh territory you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Like the Falkland Islands Snowdonia belongs to the people who live and work there.

Whether they are Welsh or not is unimportant to me seeing how i recognise that workers dont have any countries unlike you.


No, all of Argentina, including the Malvinas, belongs to all Argentines, including the Kelpers.

As far as i am concerned those islands belong to the people who live on them whatever there expressed nationality.

Argentina and Britain shouldnt come into it but they do because one side (Argentina) cant accept that we have moved on from nearly two centuries ago.


Oppose them obviously.

Why?

Do you ever consider the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong here?

I am arguing for the inhabitants of the islands to decide their future themselves, you are arguing for the immediate cession of the Falklands to Argentina without a care for the majority of the Falklands inhabitants wishes because you support Argentine Imperialist claims that, on the face of it, arent as strong as the claims of the current occupiers.


They willl vote to remain part of Britain, because they are settlers within Argentine territory, place there by the British as a buffer, after an illegitimate occupation We've benn through this, you didn't respond before so I doubt you will now.

You are not playing that "Its mine" game again are you?

Well if you are then let me remind you that it was England who first discovered the islands, England who first tried to settle the islands and England who never renounced their sovereignty over the islands despite there occupation by the French and later the Spanish and Argentines.

And this was all before a country called Argentina even existed!

Your claim that Argentina was taking back what was rightfully theirs in 1982 can be applied to Briatin in 1833 when they took back the islands from what they saw as foreign occupation (Seeing how they never renounced their sovereignty over them) by Argentina.

You see two can play that game (Argentina certainly did in 1982).

But i wont as i find such historical claims to be utterly irrelevant in this situation.

All that matters in my mind (Though i doubt in yours) is now and what the islands population themselves think and the overwhelming majority have expressed that they want to remain apart of Britian so that should mean case closed as far as i am concerned.

Though i have expressed my willingness to compromise with Argentina by deciding this once and for all with a referendum?

But you dont agree with this because i am guessing that Democracy and people expressing their wishes scare you Zurdito because what they say and eventually decide might not be to your liking?

As far as i am concerned the Argentine establishment can stay stuck in the past whilst everyone else moves on if it wants to, and i say let them as the Falkland Islanders wont give a damn.

My final few words on this are that Argentine, British and Falkland workers should be uniting against their own oppressive masters not fighting each other so that their masters, and not them, can benefit from it.

Your support of Argentine Nationalism and Imperialism puts you in a position of direct opposition to class unity just because you uphold stupid claims by a Bourgeois state made in a bygone era that should have no bearing on what happens today.

Class struggle should come before the claims of two Bourgeois states over a frozen little rock with more sheep than humans.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Argentina's claim to the Malvinas nowadays is irrational. What would be the purpose? It's inhabitants probably don't want anything to do with us, and even though it could be argued that Argentina has a "legitimate" claim over it, it is because of Spain, which wasn't much better than Britain.

I once saw someone from this forum (can't remember who, but a trotskyist, and not argentinian or even south american as far as I remember) try to defend in some way the 1982 invasion on the grounds that it was an "anti-imperialist" action, although it was done by a military dictatorship which was annihilating leftists and obviously defending the local ruling class' interests. Somehow the kids that were sent to die there by an idiotic conservative dictatorship were "collateral damage" for the third world proletariate or some shit. Pathetic. But then again, I'm not surprised.

[chegitz guevara]

It's not important which capitalist country owns the Falklands. The only thing that is important is the wishes of the inhabitants (and maybe the former inhabitants, if you can identify any of them).

[Holden Caulfield]

surely this would have implications on the Israel situation 'who was there first' etc and so any action by the Brits would be discouraged by the USA,

i would say the right of the inhabitants should prevail in this situation, however it is a sensitive issue and has wider context to consider before making any real life desicion

[chegitz guevara]

surely this would have implications on the Israel situation 'who was there first' etc and so any action by the Brits would be discouraged by the USA,

i would say the right of the inhabitants should prevail in this situation, however it is a sensitive issue and has wider context to consider before making any real life desicion

The difference between Israel and the Falklands is that the original inhabitants are still alive. The seizure of Palestine is still within living memory. You can point to the very people whose land was stolen. It is highly unlikely you could find the decedent of a Malvinas Islander today.

[RedAnarchist]

The difference between Israel and the Falklands is that the original inhabitants are still alive. The seizure of Palestine is still within living memory. You can point to the very people whose land was stolen. It is highly unlikely you could find the decedent of a Malvinas Islander today.

Weren't the first known settlers from St Malo in France, hence the name "Malvinas"?

[Invader Zim]

Argentina never had an undisputed claim to the Falklands, Argentina never established a colony there which was lasting and did not have sovereignty of the Island when the United Provinces of the River Plate gained independence. Vernet, actually asked the British permission to (re)form a colony on the island in 1828, after the British and Spanish withdrew their colonies. His decisions led to the capture of American fishing vessles, which (indirectly) caused the British to re-assert their military presence on the Islands. So which external nation has legitimate control over a small group of Islands with a lengthy and complicated history? The answer? None of them. The people who live there are the only ones with a valid 'claim' to the islands. Fuck anyone else.

[chegitz guevara]

Weren't the first known settlers from St Malo in France, hence the name "Malvinas"?

I wouldn't know.

[Zurdito]

Argentina was at the time a major non-NATO ally.

Before the economic crises Agentina was the most advanced of the Latin American countries and was the military powerhouse of the region.


What does this prove?


Argentina wasnt a victim of Imperialism it was a dutiful ally of Imperialism, much in the same manner as Colombia and Israel are today, QUOTE]

Rubbish, firstly you have been listening to too much Chavez: there is no comparison between Colombia (or Argentina) and Israel.

Many semi-colonies can at times be ruled by pro-imperialist governments. bolivia has also been ruled by pro-imperialist governments, so has Guatemala, does that make these countries analogous with Israel? Every empire uses local allies and governors as a vassal for its exploitation of colonies, so what?

Maybe you should just leave Israel out of the discussion altogether as it is a unique case and cannot be compared to anywhere in Latin America.

[quote]
What the fuck?

How exactly was Britain "reimposing the colonial order" in Latin America?

Britain had done absolutely nothing to Argentina and even tried to resolve the Argentine occupation of Thule Island (Apart of Britain's South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands territory) in 1976 by diplomacy instead of resorting to war.

Argentina then invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 which led Britain to send a task force to force the invaders out which they did.

Colonialism doesnt come into it as it was Argentina who started it!


So because Britain didn't go to war with Argentina in 1976 this means Britain is not an imperialist power and Argentina is not a semi-colony?

Imperialism arises because capitalism outgrows national boundaries, and as an answer to over-accumulation of capital, the bourgeoisie of one state needs to export capital to another to maintain an expanding rate of profit which they can't maintain purely within their own borders.

Britain is an exporter of capital, Argentina is an importer, therefore Britain is imperialist and Argentina is a semi-colony.

and no Argentina didn't "start it", Britain keeping a military base off Argentin'a coast and within Argentina's waters "started it". Do I see Argentina keeping a naval base in British waters? Oh I wonder why? Maybe because Britain is an expansive neo-colonialist power, and Argentina isn't.



You could however claim Imperialism on Argentina's part when you consider its actions.


Only if you don't know what imperialism is.


The Falklands war was primarily an inter-Imperialist struggle between two nations in an unimportant region of the world,

oh I thought you were an internationalist? exposing your bigotry again eh spartan?


Oh come on Argentina is being oppressed by Britain just as much as Britain is being oppressed by Argentina.

Rubbish, the imperialist powers, including Britain, through the IMF and World Bank etc. exploit Latin America, opening it up for their capital and constantly waging a war on internal markets. Latin American states don't do the same to Britain


The working class has no country or are you an Argentine Nationalist now?

That's just dogmatic. Go tell someone they don't have a country when they are starving to death precisely because of the country they were born into.


You are using arguements that are the favourites of apologists for the military junta!

And you are using arguments favoured by British imperialism.


Like the Falkland Islands Snowdonia belongs to the people who live and work there.

Wrong, not every little enclave int he world has the right to cut itself off from the surrounding country and then invite imperialists to plant miltiary bases there. How "internationalist" is that?:lol: One moment you tell me the working class has no country and the next you're in favour of seperatism for every little region that wants it?



Argentina and Britain shouldnt come into it but they do because one side (Argentina) cant accept that we have moved on from nearly two centuries ago.

We haven't moved on, clearly, as the colonialists still have bases in Latin America.

Why?



Well if you are then let me remind you that it was England who first discovered the islands, England who first tried to settle the islands and England who never renounced their sovereignty over the islands despite there occupation by the French and later the Spanish and Argentines.

And this was all before a country called Argentina even existed!


Well we've already had this argument and you ignored my response. You really are amazingly dishonest making people repeat themselves. I already said, so what if Britain discovered the Malvinas before Argentina existed? Spain discovered Colombia before Colombia even existed, so does this mean that Spain has more of a claim to colombia than Colombia does!?

It works like this: the European colonialists were expelled from Latin America (as we now call it) in the 19th century. The Spanish and Portuguese left. So should the British. Instead, they refused to respect the process of decolonisation, and instead occupied part of the territory of one of the newly formed Republics.

You say: "but it was never Argentina's". Answer: yes it was, but that doesn't matter, even if it wasn't, logically, a sparsely inhabited island just off the coast of Argentina with no established non-argentine community which had been part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata along with the rest of Argentina and politically and economically integrated into this, should have been allowed to be decolonised like the rest of the region, and integrated into Argentina. There was NO justification for Britain occupying these islands whatsoever. There was NO oppressed British community there - yes, maybe some British businessmen travelled there, so what, they also travelled to Patagonia does this eman the British have a right to Patagonia too?




All that matters in my mind (Though i doubt in yours) is now and what the islands population themselves think and the overwhelming majority have expressed that they want to remain apart of Britian so that should mean case closed as far as i am concerned.


Well no that's not all that matters in my mind, because not every enclave within every country has a right to anounce independence and then invite the military base of an imperialist power into the national territory of an oppressed nation.


But you dont agree with this because i am guessing that Democracy and people expressing their wishes scare you Zurdito because what they say and eventually decide might not be to your liking?

It doesn't "scare" me, I know full well they want to remain part of Britain, the reactionary little england nationalism of manykelpers,w ho regard Margaret Thatcher as a hero, is not exactly a secret. ;) In fact I already said I knew this. Maybe you should read more carefully.




Your support of Argentine Nationalism and Imperialism puts you in a position of direct opposition to class unity just because you uphold stupid claims by a Bourgeois state made in a bygone era that should have no bearing on what happens today.


"No bearing"? All that oil n the South Atlantic is irrelevant is it? Go tell Shell, who happen to putting a lot of resources into exploringthe region right now. Go tell all the Argentine workers whose struggle against imeprialist capital is undermined by the permanent presence of imperialist miltiary bases within Argentina's waters.

[Unicorn]

I support the position of Argentina. Obviously, the conflict was caused by Britain's imperialist and colonialist aggression. That was also the position of Brezhnev. Argentina was a major trading partner with the Soviet Union.

[Invader Zim]

I support the position of Argentina. Obviously, the conflict was caused by Britain's imperialist and colonialist aggression. That was also the position of Brezhnev. Argentina was a major trading partner with the Soviet Union.


The war was caused by a highly right wing demagogue, whose gross nationalism required foreign policy victory in order to retain power. Funnily enough that applies to both leaders at the time of this conflict, both in Britain and Argentina.

But, in seriousness your talking crap. The cause of the war was an economic crisis in Argentina which led to a period of social unrest. The response of Galtieri was to whip up nationalistic sentiment, and then use the annexing of the Islands, which he gambled Britain would do nothing about, as a means of satisfing that nationalism. In doing so he hoped to placate his people, by becoming a great hero and stateman, and ultimately stop from kicking him from power. That was the cause of the war, and it is worth noting that Galtieri's failure to annex the islands indefinately led to the fall of his regime.

Quite why leftists here feel the need to defend the military actions of a fascist, who caused thousands and thousands of leftists to 'disappear', attempting to cling to power is mystifing. I also find the claims of rampant imperialism in the early 80's smewhat bizarre, when one considers that Britain had after the Second World War steadily chopped lumps off its empire. Indeed less than fifteen years before the Falklands war Britain had actually tried to convince the local inhabitants of the Islands to let the Argentinians have the islands.


I already said, so what if Britain discovered the Malvinas before Argentina existed?Indeed, but of perhaps more pertinence, is that when Argentinia became independent it was without the Falklands, it did not during that period attempt to liberate the Falklands and it was only after (and several years after at that) that the Argentinians descided to form a colony on the island. The colony that was eventually established lasted only a few years before its governer managed to piss off just about the entire international community of the day. So basically, the Argentine claim is based on the formation of a colony which lasted as manhy years as you can count on one hand. it is also not like the islands were ever even part of Argentinia when it claimed independence, like the others who laid claim to it, it was a colony was created after Argentinia came into existance. In other words, colonialism.

Of course the British claim is not at all better, in fact worse. But at the end of the day the idea that either side has some kind of 'legitimate' claim to the islands is ridiculous; and the comparisons between Palestine and Ireland are moronic in the extreme.

[Zurdito]

The war was caused by a highly right wing demagogue, whose gross nationalism required foreign policy victory in order to retain power. Funnily enough that applies to both leaders at the time of this conflict, both in Britain and Argentina.

But, in seriousness your talking crap. The cause of the war was an economic crisis in Argentina which led to a period of social unrest. The response of Galtieri was to whip up nationalistic sentiment, and then use the annexing of the Islands, which he gambled Britain would do nothing about, as a means of satisfing that nationalism. In doing so he hoped to placate his people, by becoming a great hero and stateman, and ultimately stop from kicking him from power. That was the cause of the war, and it is worth noting that Galtieri's failure to annex the islands indefinately led to the fall of his regime.

Quite why leftists here feel the need to defend the military actions of a fascist, who caused thousands and thousands of leftists to 'disappear', attempting to cling to power is mystifing.

well the original post was about the claims to the island, not about the military.

1.) nearly the entire argentine left who you claim to be concerned about in fact back Argentina's claim
2.) a large part, probably majority, of the argentine left, supported Argentina against Britain in the war - and the disappeared (30 000 people) were mostly hard-line nationalists linked to groups like the Montoneros who in fact launched a small mission into the Malvinas in the 1970's

So if you are really interested in the struggles of the disappeared and the victims of Junta in general, you should read the thread to understand Argentina's claim instead of just saying the most obvious thing which any disinterested liberal could have said.

[Invader Zim]

I see in that post you abjectly failed to address any single point I made; instead bleating on about the nationalism of Argentina’s leftists, which is utterly irrelevant.


well the original post was about the claims to the island,I didn't quote the original post.


you should read the thread to understand Argentina's claimI understand the claim perfectly, its bullshit, as is Britain’s. In 1828 the Argentina actually ceded the island to a Frenchman, and then in 1831 Argentina lost all control of the islands, and when a new governor was sent to re-establish control in 1832 he was murdered by the islands inhabitants. The British government then was petitioned by the remaining British to restore order to the islands, and restore the legal control over the islands which had never actually been given up (and our aforementioned Frenchman actually acknowledged), and the rest is history.

Oh, and do you have a source to show that the Argentinian poplation was forcably removed from the Islands?

[Unicorn]

The war was caused by a highly right wing demagogue, whose gross nationalism required foreign policy victory in order to retain power. Funnily enough that applies to both leaders at the time of this conflict, both in Britain and Argentina.

But, in seriousness your talking crap. The cause of the war was an economic crisis in Argentina which led to a period of social unrest. The response of Galtieri was to whip up nationalistic sentiment, and then use the annexing of the Islands, which he gambled Britain would do nothing about, as a means of satisfing that nationalism. In doing so he hoped to placate his people, by becoming a great hero and stateman, and ultimately stop from kicking him from power. That was the cause of the war, and it is worth noting that Galtieri's failure to annex the islands indefinately led to the fall of his regime.
Yes but Britain's motivation was reactionary resistance to decolonization. Britain was condemned by the socialist countries because of the war.



Quite why leftists here feel the need to defend the military actions of a fascist, who caused thousands and thousands of leftists to 'disappear', attempting to cling to power is mystifing. I also find the claims of rampant imperialism in the early 80's smewhat bizarre, when one considers that Britain had after the Second World War steadily chopped lumps off its empire. Indeed less than fifteen years before the Falklands war Britain had actually tried to convince the local inhabitants of the Islands to let the Argentinians have the islands.
If Argentina was Fascist why did the Soviet Union support Argentina's nuclear weapons program? Most of the grain Argentina exported went to the Soviet Union.

[Invader Zim]

Yes but Britain's motivation was reactionary resistance to decolonization

That may have been the reaction of various portions of the public. The actual reason was so that Thatcher could get re-elected. The British government didn't give a shit about the islands or de-colonialisation for the most part, and had been bribing and coercing various people living in colonies to up and leave so that they could cede them off. As I noted in my post to you, they actually tried that in the Falklands a few years before the crisis.


Britain was condemned by the socialist countries because of the war.

Here's a little bit of news for you, there hasn't been a 'socialist' country, by any cohernat definition of the term, sinse the 1930's.


why did the Soviet Union support Argentina's nuclear weapons program?

Who cares? The Soviet Union's typically reactionary positions on most issues doesn't stop Galtieri being a highly right wing, anti-leftist, militaristic, ultra-nationalist, dictator.

[Zurdito]

I see in that post you abjectly failed to address any single point I made;

what point did you make? Galtieri killed leftists. what's that got to do with anything?


instead bleating on about the nationalism of Argentina’s leftists, which is utterly irrelevant.

No because your whole point was that the Junta was oppressing the left, which is an ironic reason to stay neutral in a battle against imperialism when most of the same argentine left knew it's biggest enemy was imperialism.


I understand the claim perfectly, its bullshit, as is Britain’s. In 1828 the Argentina actually ceded the island to a Frenchman, and then in 1831 Argentina lost all control of the islands, and when a new governor was sent to re-establish control in 1832 he was murdered by the islands inhabitants. The British government then was petitioned by the remaining British to restore order to the islands, and restore the legal control over the islands which had never actually been given up (and our aforementioned Frenchman actually acknowledged), and the rest is history.


what are you talking about "ceded control to a Frenchman"? The Islands were governed by Argentina until the British arrived.


Oh, and do you have a source to show that the Argentinian poplation was forcably removed from the Islands?

if you'd read the thread you would already have seen spartan put up a link describing how the Argentine governor was removed and the British took political control. that's an invasion.



That may have been the reaction of various portions of the public. The actual reason was so that Thatcher could get re-elected. The British government didn't give a shit about the islands or de-colonialisation for the most part, and had been bribing and coercing various people living in colonies to up and leave so that they could cede them off. As I noted in my post to you, they actually tried that in the Falklands a few years before the crisis.



This is wrong, the Malvinas are an important base in a potentially hugely resource rich area. The British army doesn't go to war just for one Prime Minister, the British state and bourgeoisie don't back wars jsut for one political career. The Malvinas were important to british interests and Britain had actually made no serious attempts to giving them up, ever. You should read the book Signals of War by Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse which goes in detail into how Britain had made it so clear to Argentina that no progress would be made on handing back the Malvinas, despite various vague promises of co-operation, the the government finally resorted to military action as something of a last resort.

Also the Labour Party in the Commons made a huge deal about the need to reclaim the Islands, so really, it was not jsut a Thatcherite plot, but an issue of improtance to the British state.

[Invader Zim]

The portion of my post which you quoted numbered 180 words; you addressed just nine of them.


No because your whole point was that the Junta was oppressing the leftNo, like I said, that was just nine words of my post.


"ceded control to a Frenchman"?Yes, Vernet. See Paul D. Dickens, 'The Falkland Islands Dispute Between the United States and Argentina', The Hispanic American Historical Review Vol. 9, No. 4, (1929), p. 473.


The Islands were governed by Argentina until the British arrived.Wrong. The islands spent near ten years, following 1811 not being governed by anyone. Then a privateer under the commission of the Provinces, when he ran out of food landed their re-stocked his ship, raised a flag so he could rob a ship wreck, then left. After this, Areguati was in name alone given the title of Governor (and he never even went there) and Vernet attempted to start a few colonies; they failed. Eventually Vernet did succeed in 1828, before invoking the wrath of the Americans who destroyed his colony; the captain of the American ship then declared the islands to be free of government. The Provinces then attempted to send a new Governor, who was swiftly murdered. The British stepped in, citing their dubious legal control over the islands, the danger posed to British citizens on the islands and a fear that the Americas would be in there if they didn't beat them to it and told remaining Argentineans to replace the provinces flag with the British one.

So no they weren't. Immediately before Britain took control, nobody was; when the provinces attempted to instate a person to govern he was murdered. The Argentinean who quelled the mutinying soldiers and locals was not governor or any kind of official figure beyond his military rank. But even if we were to accept that, then the Argentinian claim to the islands is based on just a couple of days control of the islands prior to the arrival of the British, who actually still retained de facto claim to the islands.

So, I'm sorry but the Argentinian claim to the islands is, in reality, very weak.


if you'd read the thread you would already have seen spartan put up a link describing how the Argentine governor was removed and the British took political control.See directly above, Pinedo was not the Argentine governor, he was a military official attempting to re-assert control over a colony the provinces had lost and quell his own mutinying troops, as well as what little was left of the local population.


This is wrong,You have been repeatedly wrong in this thread, and you are absolutely true to form now. I can assure you that in the latter years of the 1960's the British government did lobby the islands population not to oppose a transfer of sovereignty.


the British state and bourgeoisie don't back wars jsut for one political career.Going to war didn't save Thatcher’s career alone, but rather the Conservative parties hopes of winning the 1983 general election. I find it a lot more than coincidence that Thatcher would remove a warship from the area just months before the coming invasion. But then again, maybe I dislike the vile shit and can think anything of her; but what is clear is that if the whole thing wasn't on her back, she certainly reacted the way she did to save her career.


the government finally resorted to military action as something of a last resort.If by the then government you are referring to the Junta, you are wrong; they did it to save the regime. Just as Thatcher did.


Also the Labour Party in the Commons made a huge deal about the need to reclaim the IslandsOf course they did, it is political suicide to appear unpatriotic.

[Zurdito]

umm Luis Vernet was the Argentine governor of the Malvinas. so what if he was born in France, he governed on behalf of Argentina. therefore argentina never "ceded control to a Frenchman" any more than the USA cedes control of California to an Austrian

as for the rest of your psot, the fact that the war was a response to economic crtisis has nothing to do with the issues over the islands sovereignity, and the fact that many countries had previously jostled control over them rpoves nothing, as you would know if you had read the thread: the Islands had since at least the 1760's been governed as part of the viceoyalty of the rio de la plata, and NO, there was NO oppressed British communty there, so therefore no legitimate claim of Britain to deny this part of the Vicroyalty the same process of decolonisation as was happening to the rest of the Viceroyalty. To say that the newly formed post-colonial republic of Argentina and the colonialist British Empire had equal claim to these Islands is ridiculous, you might as well claim britain had a right to any part of Latin America then.

And if you don't know why I suggest you look at a map even if you can't bring yourself to learn some history.

[spartan]

And you are using arguments favoured by British imperialism.

Arguing for the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders is considered a favoured argument of British Imperialists?

Ironically self-determination was central to the process of decolonialisation in the 20th century.

Anyway at least i care about the people who live on the islands and what they think, you just say "The islands belong to Argentina whether you like it or not so give them to us now you evil Colonialists".

There may be no right for Britain to be in the Falklands but there certainly isnt any right for Argentina to potentially be there either.

[Zurdito]

Anyway at least i care about the people who live on the islands and what they think,

you care about what settlers think, well done.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The colonists there want to belong to Britain, it would be retarded and hypocritical to hand the territory back over to Argentina. Same with NI. Zurdito's arguments here, particularly on the first page, are bullshit.

[spartan]

you care about what settlers think, well done.

Oh please.

These settlers settled there to contribute to the islands economy as it was practically deserted.

There was no evil plot on the part of the British government to destroy the other inhabitants and there was no malice on the part of the settlers towards any of the native population (Only a minority of whom could be described as being of Argentine origin).

This isnt Palestine we are talking about it is the Falklands, so come back down to reality.

[Zurdito]

There was no evil plot on the part of the British government to destroy the other inhabitants

there was no evil plot, just an invasion of Argentine territory only 27 years after the same empire had tried to invade Buenos Aires.



and there was no malice on the part of the settlers towards any of the native population (Only a minority of whom could be described as being of Argentine origin)


no, you're still ignoring the fact that the "native population" does not just mean the native population of the islands, it means the whole population of Argentina. The islands were indistinct as a region they had for decades been no more than an integrated part of the viceyoyalty of the Rio de la Plata and its successors which followed on from it. Britiain occupying them would be no different to Britain occupying a functioning and integrated part of another country, sparsely populated or not.

[chegitz guevara]

you care about what settlers think, well done.

After over one hundred years of living there, they can hardly be called settlers. Frankly, if you're going to pull that BS argument out of your ass, I'll trump you and deny Argentine legitimacy to Argentina, since they stole it from the Indians and are nothing but a bunch of colonists. So you only care what the settlers think. Well done.

[RedAnarchist]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spartan http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1113973#post1113973)
There was no evil plot on the part of the British government to destroy the other inhabitants

there was no evil plot, just an invasion of Argentine territory only 27 years after the same empire had tried to invade Buenos Aires.

Was there?

[Zurdito]

After over one hundred years of living there, they can hardly be called settlers. Frankly, if you're going to pull that BS argument out of your ass, I'll trump you and deny Argentine legitimacy to Argentina, since they stole it from the Indians and are nothing but a bunch of colonists. So you only care what the settlers think. Well done.

if you are a trotskyist as you claim then you should know that Argentina is a semi-colony and therefore it's workers do not count as settlers. it's not just your ancestry that makes you a settler or not it's your role in relation to imperialism. the kelpers are a priveledged enclave acting as a buffer for imperialism against the semi-colony of Argentina. this is what makes them settlers

[Zurdito]

Was there?

What makes you think there wasn't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

[RedAnarchist]

there was no evil plot, just an invasion of Argentine territory only 27 years after the same empire had tried to invade Buenos Aires.

That took place in 1806, and the Falklands in 1982, so it was a little strange when 27 years was mentioned.

[Zurdito]

That took place in 1806, and the Falklands in 1982, so it was a little strange when 27 years was mentioned.

Britain invaded the Malvinas in 1833.

[RedAnarchist]

My mistake, sorry :blushing:

[Zurdito]

no problem :)

[Demogorgon]

I am sorry, but are we really saying it is just that the Falklands be handed from one bourgeoisie society to another against the will of its inhabitants based on disputes over what happened in the Nineteenth century?

Surely as Communists our interests lie with the affected workers in the Falklands as opposed to the Argentine bourgeoisie?

To say that the Islands are an integral part of Argentina is to put Nineteenth century ideals of "National Integrity" above the right of people to self determination.

[chegitz guevara]

if you are a trotskyist as you claim then you should know that Argentina is a semi-colony and therefore it's workers do not count as settlers.

Bullshit. You think the oppressed can't be oppressors at the same time? How should we see Cherokee slave owners. The U.S. was committing genocide against them, but they owned slaves. Are they oppressors or victims?

[Zurdito]

Bullshit. You think the oppressed can't be oppressors at the same time? How should we see Cherokee slave owners. The U.S. was committing genocide against them, but they owned slaves. Are they oppressors or victims?

the oppressed can be oppressors at the same time, clearly. but this doesnt change the fact that the kelpers are priveleged settlers occupying a small part of Argentine territory on behalf of the British empire, whereas the Argentine masses bear the full brunt of living in a semi-colony and therefore do not qualify as settlers.

[chegitz guevara]

Just because you can play Twister doesn't make it true.

[Zurdito]

ok then you ignore all the facts in the thread about how British naval presence in the Malvinas is a constant act of aggression against Argentina. ignore the obvius way in which the kelpers are the buffer for this. keep on equating the two camps as "settlers", based on European ancestry and not their actual role in relation to imperialism. etc. etc. etc. You find a way to shirk your duty and stay neutral as a semi-colony fights the empire. But just remember this quote from Trotsky:



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 that 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 in 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.

[Invader Zim]

Therefore argentina never "ceded control to a Frenchman" any more than the USA cedes control of California to an AustrianActually, yeah they did. Try doing some reading, then come back to me. You can start with that article I pointed you to; you know the one from a scholarly journal, not wikipedia, which is the best you seem to be offering.



And if you don't know why I suggest you look at a map even if you can't bring yourself to learn some history.LOL, I've forgotten more about history, than you are ever likely to learn.


My mistake, sorry :blushing:

You're not mistaken, Z doesn't have a clue what he/she is talking about. The Falklands, in legal terms were not Provinces territory they simply had, at intermittent points (not at the time when the British arrived however), the America's had actually already removed Provinces control (and only colony) of the Islands in 1831. When the Provinces attempted to restore control to the Islands in very late 1832 the guy they sent was murdered by his own people. The British turned up in January 1833 literally just a few days later, ostensibly to protect the remaining British citizens, to find a Provinces military officer attempting to restore control of the island. As far as the British, and indeed Vernet, were concerned the British still had legal rights over the islands anyway; which is why Vernet asked permission to set up a colony on the island in the 1820s, as well as having control of the islands ceded to him by the Provinces government.


Oh, and Z; that quote from Trotsky implies a completely different scenario. It is talking about a British invasion of a nation of millions and the subsequent implimentation of control over that nation. In this scenario, the population are British, and were invaded by an external power.

[Zurdito]

Actually, yeah they did. Try doing some reading, then come back to me. You can start with that article I pointed you to; you know the one from a scholarly journal, not wikipedia, which is the best you seem to be offering.

No, Argentina governed the Islands until Britain took them by force unilaterally. In any case you obviously great importance on authority by quotation, so, is scholarly enough for you?:

When General Mario Benjamin Menendez arrived at Stanley on 7 April, following a few days after the occupying forces, he was to become the third Argentine Governor of the Islas Malvinas. The first such Governor had taken slightly longer to be appointed. A Frenchman, Louis Vernet, who had played a leading role in the attempt to establish a settlement on the Islands, did not take up his post until 1829. His period in office was almost as eventful as that of Menendez, for he also lost his position during the course of a major international crisis.

Signals of War, Martin Freedman/Virginia Gamba Stonehouse, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1991.

"Signals of War will stand as the authoritative work on the Falklands War." - Ruchard Ullman, Princeton University.

So did you read that? It's quite clear. Luis Vernet governed the Malvinas on behalf of Argentina. It doesn't matter where he was born. Who are you to judge that Argentina "ceded power to a Frenchman" then?


LOL, I've forgotten more about history, than you are ever likely to learn.

You may know a lot about history but you clearly don't know shit about anti-imperialist sturggles in Latin America, because you're on the wrong side.


The Falklands, in legal terms were not Provinces territory they simply had, at intermittent points


what does it matter if they were Provinces or a territory? Tierra del Fuego today is not a province of Argentina, but a territory. Do the British have a right to it? In Australia Northern Australia was in fact not a state but a territory until recently, and in fact that might still be the case. So what? Does Britain have a right to occupy that too?

You've contradicted your argument because by admitting that the Malvinas were an Argentine territory you've just backed me up.


(not at the time when the British arrived however),

Why not? Argentina thought they they were. What gives Britain the right to ignore that, considering that the Malvinas had been governed continually from Buenos Aires for years and integrated into the region since the days of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.


the America's had actually already removed Provinces control (and only colony) of the Islands in 1831.

They destroyed the settlement in response to Argentinian Governer Luis Vernet imposing regulations on behalf of Buenos Aires (a strange way to behave if he had no link to them). How is that legitimate?


When the Provinces attempted to restore control to the Islands in very late 1832 the guy they sent was murdered by his own people.

He was killed in a military revolt not some kind of rebellion by the natives of the Malvinas demanding independence form Argentina.


Wrong, there was an inter- The British turned up in January 1833 literally just a few days later, ostensibly to protect the remaining British citizens, to find a Provinces military officer attempting to restore control of the island. As far as the British, and indeed Vernet, were concerned the British still had legal rights over the islands anyway; which is why Vernet asked permission to set up a colony on the island in the 1820s, as well as having control of the islands ceded to him by the Provinces government.

what the fuck are you talking about by what law did the British still have legal rights over the settlements?


I don't know if Vernet asked the British for permission to set up a settlement, I've never heard that. If he did, then that's an example of a post-colonial society negotiating the liberation of its own territories with one of the old colonial powers who used to rule the region. So what? As a revolutionary I'm firmly on the side of the Argentines in that situation, I'm not going to legalistically look for loopholes to legitimate Britain's rape of the region. In any case your legalistic argument holds no weight, because if you read the thread you will notice I never used the argument that Britain's occupation of the Islands was "illegal", not once.

This is because I don't give a fuck about what "laws" the colonialists made to legitimise their own practices, I am only interested in the succesful booting out of all colonialist presence in Latin America. Now if Argentina had genuinely had no real links with the Malvinas at the time, and/or there had been an established British-descended community there, then maybe we could make an exception in this case, but no, as you see, neither of these criteria apply.

The only reason anyone would negotitate with Britain in that situation wouldn't be because Britain had some kind of right to the Falklands, but purely out of (justified) fear of violence from the British. None of this changes the fact that from our point of view as marxists and anti-imperialists, Britain had no right at all to those Islands, which had been governed from buenos Aires and integrated into the region (originally through the Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata) since long before the 1820's.


Answer me this anyway: when Spain pulled out of the region and its former possessions became decolonised, was this progressive or not?

Why don't you apply the same logic to Britain then? There was no British community on the Malvinas that needed "self-determination", there was no disctinct identity seperating the Malvinas from the mainland which they had been integrated into for years and governed from for years within the Spanish Empire (something you keep conveniently ignoring), so what reasonable - quite apart from legal - claim did the British have?


Oh, and Z; that quote from Trotsky implies a completely different scenario. It is talking about a British invasion of a nation of millions and the subsequent implimentation of control over that nation.

Where does it say invasion? He is talking about imperialist exploitation not necessarilly direct invasion.


In this scenario, the population are British, and were invaded by an external power

In what sense are they "British" then? They live in the South Atlantic off the coast of Argentina.

Seems to me their claim to be "Bitish" is based purely on the priveliges they gain as a protected enclave of British imperilaism. Since when do revoltuionaries defend the priveleges of settlers?

[spartan]

So did you read that? It's quite clear. Luis Vernet governed the Malvinas on behalf of Argentina. It doesn't matter where he was born. Who are you to judge that Argentina "ceded power to a Frenchman" then?

Why then did Vernet ask the British permission before landing on the island and once there provide regular reports to the British consulate in Buenos Aires?

It says alot about Vernet, and Argentina's suppossed sovereignty over the Falklands, that he would feel the need to ask the British permission to land on the Falklands and then once there provide regular reports to the British dont you think?


You may know a lot about history but you clearly don't know shit about anti-imperialist sturggles in Latin America, because you're on the wrong side.

Supporting the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders is being on the wrong side?

Your Nationalism knows no boundaries.

what does it matter if they were Provinces or a territory? Tierra del Fuego today is not a province of Argentina, but a territory. Do the British have a right to it? In Australia Northern Australia was in fact not a state but a territory until recently, and in fact that might still be the case. So what? Does Britain have a right to occupy that too?
Britain never claimed sovereignty over those areas.

They did however claim sovereignty over the Falklands in 1690 and the fact that the majority of people on the Falklands want to remain apart of Britain tells me that the British have more "right" to the Falklands then Argentina.


Why not? Argentina thought they they were. What gives Britain the right to ignore that, considering that the Malvinas had been governed continually from Buenos Aires for years and integrated into the region since the days of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.

What gave Argentina the right to ignore Britains claim of sovereignty over the islands which existed before a country called Argetina even existed?

It goes both ways i am afraid.


As a revolutionary I'm firmly on the side of the Argentines in that situation, I'm not going to legalistically look for loopholes to legitimate Britain's rape of the region.

That includes your support of a right wing military junta that suppressed left wing movements and then tried to "liberate" an island whose inhabitants didnt even want them there, right?

Good for you.


There was no British community on the Malvinas that needed "self-determination", there was no disctinct identity seperating the Malvinas from the mainland which they had been integrated into for years and governed from for years within the Spanish Empire (something you keep conveniently ignoring), so what reasonable - quite apart from legal - claim did the British have?

Actually during Argentina's time in control of the Falklands American and British sealers outnumbered any Argentine population on the island by a large margin.


In what sense are they "British" then? They live in the South Atlantic off the coast of Argentina.

Seems to me their claim to be "Bitish" is based purely on the priveliges they gain as a protected enclave of British imperilaism. Since when do revoltuionaries defend the priveleges of settlers?

The majority of the Argentine people are settlers on Indian land so dont go taking the high horse here.

[Zurdito]

Why then did Vernet ask the British permission before landing on the island and once there provide regular reports to the British consulate in Buenos Aires?

Well I've seen no proof of that, but good of you to now take up arguments you are jsut finding out, at least I admitted not knowing it! You'll be embarrassed if this turns out not to be true and you get shown up just accepting as fact whatever Zim says, won't you?

anyway I already answered that question:

I don't know if Vernet asked the British for permission to set up a settlement, I've never heard that. If he did, then that's an example of a post-colonial society negotiating the liberation of its own territories with one of the old colonial powers who used to rule the region. So what? As a revolutionary I'm firmly on the side of the Argentines in that situation, I'm not going to legalistically look for loopholes to legitimate Britain's rape of the region. In any case your legalistic argument holds no weight, because if you read the thread you will notice I never used the argument that Britain's occupation of the Islands was "illegal", not once.

This is because I don't give a fuck about what "laws" the colonialists made to legitimise their own practices, I am only interested in the succesful booting out of all colonialist presence in Latin America. Now if Argentina had genuinely had no real links with the Malvinas at the time, and/or there had been an established British-descended community there, then maybe we could make an exception in this case, but no, as you see, neither of these criteria apply.

The only reason anyone would negotitate with Britain in that situation wouldn't be because Britain had some kind of right to the Falklands, but purely out of (justified) fear of violence from the British. None of this changes the fact that from our point of view as marxists and anti-imperialists, Britain had no right at all to those Islands, which had been governed from buenos Aires and integrated into the region (originally through the Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata) since long before the 1820's



It says alot about Vernet, and Argentina's suppossed sovereignty over the Falklands, that he would feel the need to ask the British permission to land on the Falklands and then once there provide regular reports to the British dont you think?


It doesn't say anything at all, it shows that Britain was a very aggressive military power which argentina rightly feared.



Supporting the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders is being on the wrong side?


yes, you might as well support the "self determination" of white South Africans.



They did however claim sovereignty over the Falklands in 1690 and the fact that the majority of people on the Falklands want to remain apart of Britain tells me that the British have more "right" to the Falklands then Argentina.

Who cares about 1690. The empires were being booted out of Latin America in the 1820's. That was progressive. Why do you stand on the side of the colonialists who wanted to stay in a region which was winning for itself independence?


What gave Argentina the right to ignore Britains claim of sovereignty over the islands which existed before a country called Argetina even existed?

By this logic, Britain could rule over all of Latin America, because Britain existed before any Latin American country did.



Actually during Argentina's time in control of the Falklands American and British sealers outnumbered any Argentine population on the island by a large margin.


wrong.


The majority of the Argentine people are settlers on Indian land so dont go taking the high horse here

they aren't settlers, argentina is a semi-colony. The kelpers ARE settlers because they are a protected enclave of imeprialism, granted priveliges inr eutrn for acting as a buffer against the attempts of that semi-colony to liberate itself from imeprialist oppression. liek I said many times, this is what makes them settlers. why don;t you jsut read the thread? Why do you want the same arguments repeated ad nauseum?

[PRC-UTE]

The colonists there want to belong to Britain, it would be retarded and hypocritical to hand the territory back over to Argentina. Same with NI. Zurdito's arguments here, particularly on the first page, are bullshit.

You can't invoke self-determination to defend an inherently anti-democratic project- that's not even the argument used by the Unionists anyway. The argument is that they're British, they've got more guns, and they'll drive out the Catholics if they don't like the leftover rump of the glorious Empire. Keep in mind they don't usually use such diplomatic language.

[Andy Bowden]

The Malvinas Islands are the key to the UK seizing a whole shitload of oil and gas. They weren't profitable in the 80's, but the war was fought in the knowledge that when the price of oil skyrocketed, it be profitable to extract it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/22/oil.politics

As such, the continuing hold on the Malvinas is just another way for major imperialist powers to exploit resources. How else would the UK be able to extract billions of barrels of oil halfway across the world?

[spartan]

The Malvinas Islands are the key to the UK seizing a whole shitload of oil and gas. They weren't profitable in the 80's, but the war was fought in the knowledge that when the price of oil skyrocketed, it be profitable to extract it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/22/oil.politics

As such, the continuing hold on the Malvinas is just another way for major imperialist powers to exploit resources. How else would the UK be able to extract billions of barrels of oil halfway across the world?

The only Imperialism was from Argentina trying to seize an island that considers itself apart of Britain.

The mere fact that Britain seized back the islands in 1833 (When such resources that you mentioned werent known of in the area) suggests that Britain did not do this because of Imperialism.

And if what you say is true then how come in the 70's the British government was preparing the people of the Falkland Islands for eventual cession to Argentina which was seen as inevitable at the time?

You are also forgetting the wishes of the islands people, the majority of whom want to remain apart of Britain and not become apart of Argentina, so what are you going to do about that little fact?

Are you just going to invite the Argentine Nationalists there so that they can force the Islanders to speak Spanish, drive on the right hand side of the road or even force them out?

Like someone else said earlier why support the passing of territory from one Bourgeois state to another when the people themselves want to remain apart of the former?

In the case of the Falkland Islands the people's wishes (Which are to remain apart of Britain) should be respected, which is something that the pro-Argentine lot on here arent doing.

Also why are you supporting the passing of resources from one Bourgeois state to another Bourgeois state?

Its an utterly stupid thing to support because absolutely nothing will change!

Workers will still be exploited obtaining these resources, with the only difference being that it will be Argentine workers, and not British workers, who are the ones being exploited!

Now tell me where the hell is the logic in giving away territory from one exploiter to another exploiter, what good will ultimately come out of it?

[Zurdito]

The mere fact that Britain seized back the islands in 1833 (When such resources that you mentioned werent known of in the area) suggests that Britain did not do this because of Imperialism.


Britain was an empire trying to grab as much territory as possible. it wanted to exploit the resources of the South Atlantic at the time and wanted a buffer against Argentine attempts to resist it's ecnomic penetration by Britain. why else did they invade the Islands if not colonialism? Surely no-one denies that it was an act of colonialist expansion.


And if what you say is true then how come in the 70's the British government was preparing the people of the Falkland Islands for eventual cession to Argentina which was seen as inevitable at the time?

They didn't. They paid lip service to Argentina, knowing that the Islanders would never agree to a transfer,and that therefore they could keep argentina happy with their "efforts", whilst standing no danger of losing the islands.


You are also forgetting the wishes of the islands people, the majority of whom want to remain apart of Britain and not become apart of Argentina, so what are you going to do about that little fact?

No-one is forgetting that, stop repeating yourself please.


Are you just going to invite the Argentine Nationalists there so that they can force the Islanders to speak Spanish, drive on the right hand side of the road or even force them out?

Yeah savage argies. good old British troops keepign those horrible natioanlsits at bay eh spartan?:rolleyes:


Like someone else said earlier why support the passing of territory from one Bourgeois state to another when the people themselves want to remain apart of the former?

because it is a struggle against imperialism as has been said many times. Clearly you're a third campist, but some of us here are understand that as Trotsky said, the working class of semi-colonies are boudn by double chains, those of imperialism and those of the domestic bourgeoisie, and that therefore any struggle by the domestic bourgeoisie which undermines the chains of imeprialism ont he semi-colony should be critically supported by independently organising working class organisations.


In the case of the Falkland Islands the people's wishes (Which are to remain apart of Britain) should be respected, which is something that the pro-Argentine lot on here arent doing.

keep asserting it and repeating yourself, but this liberal dogma adds nothing


Its an utterly stupid thing to support because absolutely nothing will change!

Tellt hat to Argentine workers starving because of IMF imposed decrees. the imperialists are able to loot Argentina and super exploit the working class precisely because of their military power.

The Argentine workers struggle against imperilaism is therefore a progressive one, and the momentum of it can be carried over to a struggle against the whole bourgeoisie.

A defeat for this struggle however just reinforces the status quo.

[Invader Zim]

No, Argentina governed the Islands until Britain took them by force unilaterally.Actually, the Provinces didn't, they ceased governing the Island in 1831 when the Americans attacked and declared the islands ungoverned. When the Provinces attempted to restore a governer, and with him control, to the islands he was murdered. That in its self was one of the primary motivations for the British re-assertion (its called 're-assertion' for a reason btw).


In any case you obviously great importance on authority by quotation, so, is scholarly enough for you?Yes, actually I do. It indicates the quality of the information you are seeing, as anyone can post nationalistic crap (from both sides) on Wikipedia; which is why seriously engaged in this discussion I read half a dozen scholarly journal articles to get a reasonable idea of the topic before saying something silly. it is a methodology which I think allows one to better participate in such topics where one is initially unfamiliar.

But what, exactly, do you think yourquote actually proves? Vernet was granted the title after the Islands had first been ceded to him, but he was removed by the American's in 1831, at which point the islands for all practical purposes remained ungoverned.


Who are you to judge that Argentina "ceded power to a Frenchman" then?Its not me mate, like I said read the article i provided you.


but you clearly don't know shit about anti-imperialist sturggles in Latin America, because you're on the wrong side.Well, it seems that with just a few scholarly jounal articles from the library that 'shit' still exceeds yours. And I am not on a side, as I have said, both claims are weak; not to pick sides in 19th century colonial debates. The only side I am on is the people who live there who do not diserve to be kicked from their homes after 175 years or have their identity taken away from them against their will.



what does it matter if they were Provinces or a territory?Provices is Argentina, not the islands. In the period Argentina was called the United Provinces of the River Plate, not Argentina.


They destroyed the settlement in response to Argentinian Governer Luis Vernet imposing regulations on behalf of Buenos Aires (a strange way to behave if he had no link to them).I didn't say he had no link, keep your strawmen to you self. But while on the topic of links, did you know that Vernet also had 'links' to Britain... actually thats a silly question as I have already informed you of this.


He was killed in a military revolt not some kind of rebellion by the natives of the Malvinas demanding independence form Argentina.There is no such thing as 'natives' of the Malvinas, unless of course you wish to count the people who have been living there for the last 175 years.


what the fuck are you talking about by what law did the British still have legal rights over the settlements?The British held the 'legal' rights to the Islands and had arranged with the Spanish to allow them to create colonies and fish in there. But the Spanish were never actually granted legal sovereignty of the islands, which means that the British retained de facto control over the islands. As far as they were concerned, and apparently as Vernet was concerned, the relationship had not altered. Which is why when Vernet made plans to create a colony on the Island he first gained permission from the British consul. This is why the British protested when the Provinces government made Vernet, whom they had ceded control of the colonies to in 1828, Governer, as far as they were concered the provinces had no legal right to do so on the basis that, in their eyes the relationship hadn't changed. Now arguing the validity of these claims of de facto is a pointless use of ones time. Like i said its a weak claim, but it also exposes the weakness of the provinces claim; which is my point. Not, to foolishly try and right wrongs made 1780 years ago. I don't have a PhD in legal history, and neither do you, so debating it as if we know which is more valid for a fact is a waste of time and ultimately just going to be bullshit. I know that much, which is why your claim that Argentinia has complete moral and legal right to the islands is without actual foundation; after all how can it be?


If he did, then that's an example of a post-colonial society negotiating the liberation of its own territories with one of the old colonial powers who used to rule the region.No, its not. It is simply respecting Britains claims, dubious though you or I may think them.


As a revolutionary I'm firmly on the side of the Argentines in that situationWhy, you clearly know nothing about it. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to imagine standing on the side of dead men I know nothing about involved in a historical legal dispute of which I am equally ignorant; and then using this standpoint, based on a foundation of nothing more than igorant pre-conception, to justify the invasion, by a fascist military Junta's last ditch attempt to stay in power.


I'm not going to legalistically look for loopholes to legitimate Britain's rape of the region.It doesn't seem to have stopped you when it comes to the Argentine bid, which is based on equally dubious 18th and 19th century claims to legal control of the islands. Why the double standard? Indeed the very idea of national ownership of land is a social construct, I for one do not adhere to. And certainly not in the case where not a single person from an invading nation has lived on the island for generations and generations. It strikes me as penalising people simply for being born where they were born; a factor they have no control over.


I am only interested in the succesful booting out of all colonialist presence in Latin America.You seem to miss the point that the Argentinian control of the islands would be a colonialist presense; they would have annexed a colony against the wishes of those who already live there.


which had been governed from buenos Aires and integrated into the region (originally through the Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata) since long before the 1820's.Actually, ultimately the colony would have been controlled from Madrid? But, thats irrelevent centuries dead Spanish imperialists have no bearing on the Falklanders right not to be told to fuck off from their homes because they are unfortunate enough to have been born where they were.

And your non-existant logic can be extended back to the first settlers in the region; and the "semi-colony" argument to get round that double standard doesn't cut it. Ultimately leftists accept that people have a right to self determination, and that is the be all and end all of it.



when Spain pulled out of the region and its former possessions became decolonised, was this progressive or not?Yes, but that didn't involve ethnically cleansing the region 175 years after the event, a point you have repeatedly refused to get to grips with. You seem obsessed with bourgeois land grabbing in the 19th century and obvious to the material impacts this will have upon hundreds of people.



Why don't you apply the same logic to Britain then? Why don't you apply that logic to the native Americas? But the answer is simple, I would do but, despite my skill with a soldering iron and the glue gun I have yet to master time travel to go back and explain to the Admiralty the folly of their actions in 1833. We are left with the situation we are in, and that is of a nation where the legitimate grieved party are all dead, their children are all dead ad chances are those children are all dead. The people living on the Falkland islands, however, are very much alive and as such have the casting vote as has been explained to you by numerous other members.


Where does it say invasion? He is talking about imperialist exploitation not necessarilly direct invasion.Either way the point stands.


wrong.Do either you or Spartan have proof?


In what sense are they "British" then?The social consruct of nationality and social identification; come on now, this is elementary stuff. Nationality is based not upon geographic location but self identification.


Since when do revoltuionaries defend the priveleges of settlers?They have been there well beyond living memory. Using that silly logic that they are settler, then so are the rest of us, well 99.9..% of the worlds population anyway. And if the Argentinians were to gain control tomorrow, ethnically cleanse the Islands by deporting the local inhabitants and place a new colony there they too would be settlers.


Why do you want the same arguments repeated ad nauseum?You can, and have, repeated the argument at length it is true. But unfortunately for you, repetition of faulty logic doesn't aletr the fact that it is, well... faulty.



Tellt hat to Argentine workers starving because of IMF imposed decrees. the imperialists are able to loot Argentina and super exploit the working class precisely because of their military power.

Red-herring, that has fuck all to do with the hundreds of people living on the island you wish to deny self-determination based on the actions of long dead people.

[Random Precision]

Good posts, Zurdito. I'm also quite impressed by your patience with spartan.

[Invader Zim]

Britain was an empire trying to grab as much territory as possible. it wanted to exploit the resources of the South Atlantic at the time and wanted a buffer against Argentine attempts to resist it's ecnomic penetration by Britain.If you have any proof of your claim, I would love to see it. Until that point, it is necessary to dismiss it as an argument long in rhetoric but short in fact.


why else did they invade the Islands if not colonialism?It would seem, at first glance, three fold; ostencibly to protect British citizens on the islands who had requested aid, two to stop the Americans getting hold of the island and three to proect their legal interests which they felt, rightly or wrongly, were being ignored.

The 'land grabbing', as you put it, was not the same as in say India. The British, as far as they were concered did not invade, they re-asserted their rightful authority. We've been over this.


They didn't. They paid lip service to Argentina, knowing that the Islanders would never agree to a transferAgain, long on rhetoric short on facts. Source please. I don't doubt it is a possibility, but your theories while interesting, just don't hold the same weight as a historical study based upon primary evidence.


No-one is forgetting that, No, you aren't forgetting it, you just aren't dealing with it with an argument which is at all convinsing. You repeat the same argument, someone disagrees with it and says why, and you repeat the argument but dont adiquately address the issues raised with it.


Yeah savage argies. good old British troops keepign those horrible natioanlsits at bay eh spartan?Strawman.


because it is a struggle against imperialism...So you keep repeating, yet I still see no adiquate reason why people should suffer for imperialism which they, them selves, had no part in. And that, you have no answered.




The Argentine workers struggle against imperilaism is therefore a progressive oneAh, I think we have found the root of your misunderstanding here. The workers of Argentinian are not going to see any currently forseeable benefits from the Bourgeiosie of their country annexing a group of small islands hundreds of miles away from the nearest Argentinian worker; other than perhaps a fleeting moment of patriotic pride the Workers of the Falklands, from a material perspective stand to loose rather a lot more.

[Zurdito]

Actually, the Provinces didn't, they ceased governing the Island in 1831 when the Americans attacked and declared the islands ungoverned.

What does it matter that the Americans declared the Islands ungoverned? It wasn't their place to declare this, as they weren't the ones who had previously governed and the islands were not integrated into their state. The Argentine's had in fact been governing the Islands from buenos Aires before independence form Spain, and had claimed them as part of the (progressive from a marxist POV) process of decolonisation by which the various empire's who had previously ruled over Latin America ceded control over their territories to governments of the region.

so really, the only ones with the right to declare the Islands ungoverned were in fact the Argentines. Did they do this?


When the Provinces attempted to restore a governer, and with him control, to the islands he was murdered.

By Argentine sailors, in a mutiny. So what? Did they murder him int he name of British sovereignity of the Islands?


That in its self was one of the primary motivations for the British re-assertion (its called 're-assertion' for a reason btw).

1.) Why would this be a motive for British "re-assertion"
2.) I'm sure everyone here is well aware that the British had previosuly wrangled with Spain for control of the Islands. So what? Decolonisation means they both get out of Latin America.

Previous British expansionism is hardly a justification for continued expansionism and hardly changes the fact that the provinces had been integrated into Argentina/Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata politcally and economically since at least the 1770's. This previous british exoansionism does not mean that the islands themselves had developed any distinct regional characteristics entitling them, at the time, to anything resembling "self-determination". they were simply part of Argentina, albeit a fronteir.



Yes, actually I do. It indicates the quality of the information you are seeing, as anyone can post nationalistic crap (from both sides) on Wikipedia; which is why seriously engaged in this discussion I read half a dozen scholarly journal articles to get a reasonable idea of the topic before saying something silly. it is a methodology which I think allows one to better participate in such topics where one is initially unfamiliar.


Fair enough.


But what, exactly, do you think yourquote actually proves? Vernet was granted the title after the Islands had first been ceded to him, but he was removed by the American's in 1831, at which point the islands for all practical purposes remained ungoverned.

It proves that he was the Argentine Governor of the Malvinas.

Ungoverned "for all practical purposes" for how long? 1 year whilst Argentina was replacing a settlement destroyed by colonialist aggression? So what? The Islands had been governed from Buenos Aires and integrated into the region for at least 60 years before that. Argentina never gave them away. Argentina was still re-establishing its presence in recovery fromt he USA's attack when the British arrived, as evidenced by the fact that Pinedo had to be removed. Therefore, it was a theft.


I didn't say he had no link, keep your strawmen to you self.

It wasn't a strawman it was jsut poor expression.

He was imposing laws from Buenos Aires.

A strange way to behave were he not governing on their behalf.



The British held the 'legal' rights to the Islands and had arranged with the Spanish to allow them to create colonies and fish in there. But the Spanish were never actually granted legal sovereignty of the islands, which means that the British retained de facto control over the islands. As far as they were concerned, and apparently as Vernet was concerned, the relationship had not altered. Which is why when Vernet made plans to create a colony on the Island he first gained permission from the British consul. This is why the British protested when the Provinces government made Vernet, whom they had ceded control of the colonies to in 1828, Governer, as far as they were concered the provinces had no legal right to do so on the basis that, in their eyes the relationship hadn't changed. Now arguing the validity of these claims of de facto is a pointless use of ones time. Like i said its a weak claim, but it also exposes the weakness of the provinces claim; which is my point.

It doesn't expsoe the stupidity of that, because it is progressive to support the decolonisation process and if need be to support tearing up the treaties - this one itself a hangover from days under the Imperial yoke of Spain as the Spanish not the argentines had signed it - which legitimised the presence of the European Empires in Latin America.

Now I admit it was interesting to hear a clarification on Britain's legal claim and I am glad you psoted that. However regarding the argument, you are stretching it to say that Vernet respected this claim. Maybe all he respected was Britain's fire-power. In any case, Argentina has never officially recognised this claim imposed by Spain and Britain and never agreed to by either Argentina or the UPRDLP, so to speculate on the "real" opinions of the rulers of the time doesn't mean much. You may have a point if Argentina had ever officially recognised Britain's claim, but no.



Not, to foolishly try and right wrongs made 1780 years ago. I don't have a PhD in legal history, and neither do you, so debating it as if we know which is more valid for a fact is a waste of time and ultimately just going to be bullshit. I know that much, which is why your claim that Argentinia has complete moral and legal right to the islands is without actual foundation; after all how can it be?


When did I say it necessarilly had a complete legal right?

Moral right? Well I support the right of the semi-colony to complete this last bit of decolonisation, yes. The improtance of the history is that it's precisely the history of Britain's occupation of the Islands which make Argentina's claim one of decolonisation and not one of national chauvinism against the kelpers.



It doesn't seem to have stopped you when it comes to the Argentine bid, which is based on equally dubious 18th and 19th century claims to legal control of the islands. Why the double standard?

Actually no, the Argentine working class support for its state against Britain is based on the struggle agaisnt imperialism.

The point of arguing the history is simply to prove the illegitimacy of the "self-determination" argument or the idea that the Islands never were Argentine.


And certainly not in the case where not a single person from an invading nation has lived on the island for generations and generations. It strikes me as penalising people simply for being born where they were born; a factor they have no control over.

In what way are they penalised?


You seem to miss the point that the Argentinian control of the islands would be a colonialist presense; they would have annexed a colony against the wishes of those who already live there.

The same would be true if Ireland "annexed" (sic) the 6 counties.

When imperialism places settlers to colonise a peice of stolen land and act as a buffer against the state it oppresses, then the "self-determination" argument does not hold.


Actually, ultimately the colony would have been controlled from Madrid?

Yes. Your point? You could make that argument about any part of modern day Argentina. Does this mean they shouldn't have passed from rule from Buenos Aires under the Viceroyalty to rule from Buenos Aires under a Reublic? Does this mean Britain had just as much of a claim to any part of Argentina as Buenos Aires did?

If not, then what made the Malvinas different?

No: the fact that the US destroyed a settlement there doesn't really count. By this logic colonialists have a claim to any aprt of the world they can momentarily render uninhabited and lawless through sheer violence.


But, thats irrelevent centuries dead Spanish imperialists have no bearing on the Falklanders right not to be told to fuck off from their homes because they are unfortunate enough to have been born where they were.

Unfortunate? They ar ein fact highly fortunate comapred to most Latin Americns. Why? Well, precisely because of the very useful purpose they serve for imperialism against semi-colonial resistance.

And no, I do not support kicking them out of their homes or culturally oppressing them in any way. Taxing them just the same as any other citizen with comparable income and integrating the wealth of the region (and its surrounding waters) into the national economy. Yes, that's the very least that should happen.



And your non-existant logic can be extended back to the first settlers in the region; and the "semi-colony" argument to get round that double standard doesn't cut it. Ultimately leftists accept that people have a right to self determination, and that is the be all and end all of it.


So do Protestants in Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination?

We support self-determination for nations, not for any small enclave within a nation which wants to protect certain privileges.


Yes, but that didn't involve ethnically cleansing the region 175 years after the event,

wow you want to talk about strawmen? obviously I don't supprot ethnic cleansing. In fact this was never on the cards even under the Junta, and far less so today.


a point you have repeatedly refused to get to grips with. You seem obsessed with bourgeois land grabbing in the 19th century and obvious to the material impacts this will have upon hundreds of people.

what material impacts?

how about the material impacts today of imperialism on Argentina?


Do either you or Spartan have proof?

He said "massivley outnumbered". it's not up to me to disprove such an outlandish claim about some extremely sparsely populated islands, is it?


Nationality is based not upon geographic location but self identification.

No I'm sorry but it's also based on objective reality, the kelpers do not share a common day to day experience with people in Britain, they do not live in the same society, therefore aren't British, rather, inhabitants of Argentina territory with British descent.


They have been there well beyond living memory. Using that silly logic that they are settler, then so are the rest of us,

wrong, my logic was clear: they are settlers not purely because of their ancestry, but because they a protected enclave of biriths imperialism occupying the land of a semi-colonial state.

Not every descendent of an immigrant is a settler.



Red-herring, that has fuck all to do with the hundreds of people living on the island you wish to deny self-determination based on the actions of long dead people

wrong, the issue is the struggle of Argentina today against imperialism, and no the actions of long dead people. The historical debate is of use only to counter the arguments against supporting Argentina. If it were true that Argentina had never really integrated or governed the islands, or that there had been some kind of genuine independent Malvinas identity before Britain's invasion in 1833, then you may have a point. But no.


Good posts, Zurdito. I'm also quite impressed by your patience with spartan.

Thankyou.


If you have any proof of your claim, I would love to see it. Until that point, it is necessary to dismiss it as an argument long in rhetoric but short in fact.

I would think it's self-evident. If the motives for invading were not economic, what were they?


It would seem, at first glance, three fold; ostencibly to protect British citizens on the islands who had requested aid,

British citizens or British business interests? If citizens, why not just ship them out then?



two to stop the Americans getting hold of the island

So inter-colonial rivalry. Does this or does htis not have economic roots?


and three to proect their legal interests which they felt, rightly or wrongly, were being ignored.

Why have any interests in these legal claims if they were of no economic use?

You could say the invasion was largely to set a precedent for any country wishing to ignore Britain's "legal interests". In which case the root of the issue would still be economic, would still be based on the need of the Empire to appear strong. We should therefore oppose this.


The 'land grabbing', as you put it, was not the same as in say India. The British, as far as they were concered did not invade, they re-asserted their rightful authority. We've been over this.

And they would do this against their own economci and poltical interests?

Was there money to be made on the Islands or not? Did the British want a bigger cut in it as a result of occupying the islands or not?


Again, long on rhetoric short on facts. Source please. I don't doubt it is a possibility, but your theories while interesting, just don't hold the same weight as a historical study based upon primary evidence.

So the British state couldn't have easily bought off the islanders had it wanted to? I get the feeling they weren't lobbying very hard.

The British never took any concrete measures to hand the Islands back. Therefore I conclude they didn't really have an intention of doing so. Negotiations had been going on for what, 20 years before the conflict? How far exactly did they get?


So you keep repeating, yet I still see no adiquate reason why people should suffer for imperialism which they, them selves, had no part in. And that, you have no answered.

How should they suffer?

the onyl way they would "suffer" would be to change nationality on paper.

Now if they resist this in order to cling to certain privileges and a reactionary nationalism which calls for continued British presence within Latin American waters, then yes, they are opposing the struggle against imeprialism, and should have those specific demands ignored, quite frankly, because they are illegitimate demands.

however I obviously don't think they shiuld suffer any form of persecution or venegance from the Argentine masses, and in fact their struggle against the oppression fo the Argentine state, once they are part of Argentina, should be upheld by revolutionaries.


Ah, I think we have found the root of your misunderstanding here. The workers of Argentinian are not going to see any currently forseeable benefits from the Bourgeiosie of their country annexing a group of small islands hundreds of miles away from the nearest Argentinian worker;

This is a more complicated question and I'll reply to it tomorrow as it needs to be a long one. However I will say that there are three issues: 1.) the morale and consciousness of the Argentine and global semi-colonial working class and their subjective ability to challenge imperialism, a system which in great part rests on handing out "lessons" to those who challenge it, 2.) British military presence in Latin America, and 3.) control of the resources and wealth of the region.

[spartan]

British citizens or British business interests? If citizens, why not just ship them out then?

You seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that they might have actually liked to stay there?

This same logic was applied by those who opposed the Falklands war when they said that the money spent recapturing the islands would have been enough to resettle every Falkland Islander to Britain, house them and then give them 1 million pounds each to live off.

What these people and people like you fail to realise is that this issue really isnt as simple as a population transfer as these people on the Falklands wanted to live there and under British administration.

Why dont you respect there right to self-determination like any leftist would?

Despite what you have claimed there presence there isnt hurting anyone except some Argentine Nationalists feelings.


3.) control of the resources and wealth of the region.

Yes which will pass straight from the hands of the British Bourgeoisie and into the hands of the Argentine Bourgeoisie.

Exploited British workers will be replaced by exploited Argentine workers to obtain the resources in this area.

And you support all this just because of Argentina's 19th century national integrity?

It seems an odd and throughly unleftist principle to defend, indeed it hardly seems worth it IMO, especially when the inhabitants of the islands themselves dont want it to happen.

[Andy Bowden]

Far better to have the oil wealth in the hands of developing countries like Argentina than major imperialist powers like the UK.

Would you argue who owns Iraqi oil, the UK/US or an Iraqi government was irrelevant?

[Marsella]

The gas companies would probably remain in the hands of foreign multinationals.


Would you argue who owns Iraqi oil, the UK/US or an Iraqi government was irrelevant?

Its certainly irrelevant to the worker who works in such industries. They are exploited one way or another.

[Andy Bowden]

True, but if oil resources are technically subject to Argentine control then the Argentinian Govt will not be able to excuse the fact they've let foreign multinationals exploit their resources.

They can turn round and say its under British control, theres nothing we can do about it etc.

If it was under Argentinian control then workers and the Left could demand nationalisation and public ownership, and if the Argentine Govt didn't it'd be clear they'd made a conscious stance against workers.

[Unicorn]

When there is doubt about the position communists should have taken in some historical conflict it is a good idea to find out what the Kremlin thought about it. The Kremlin condemned Britain's actions in the Falklands War.

[spartan]

When there is doubt about the position communists should have taken in some historical conflict it is a good idea to find out what the Kremlin thought about it. The Kremlin condemned Britain's actions in the Falklands War.

Why should a Communist give a damn about what the USSR said on this matter?

The USSR would first have to be a Socialist state, something that it wasnt, for a true Communist to give a damn about what they say on an inter-Bourgeois conflict.

You would do well to remember the Soviet Imperialist desires on this continent (Home of their enemy America) which would lead them to say these things so as to try and open up a new sphere of influence with Argentina.

The Falklands conflict has got nothing to do with Socialism and everything to do with one nations Bourgeoisie (Argentina) trying to win resources from another nations Bourgeoisie (Britain) via the use of 19th century claims of sovereignty.

[Unicorn]

Why should a Communist give a damn about what the USSR said on this matter?
The USSR was socialist before Gorbachev's revisionism.



The USSR would first have to be a Socialist state, something that it wasnt, for a true Communist to give a damn about what they say on an inter-Bourgeois conflict.
Even if you have the Trotskyist position that the USSR was a degenerated workers' state it still right to side with a degenerated workers' state against imperialist capitalist state.



You would do well to remember the Soviet Imperialist desires on this continent (Home of their enemy America) which would lead them to say these things so as to try and open up a new sphere of influence with Argentina.
The Soviet Union was not imperialist and no respectable communist can claim so.



The Falklands conflict has got nothing to do with Socialism and everything to do with one nations Bourgeoisie (Argentina) trying to win resources from another nations Bourgeoisie (Britain) via the use of 19th century claims of sovereignty.
Although the conflict happened between capitalist powers it still affected the interests of the socialist states. Britain's imperialism also conflicted with the Soviet Union's commitment to world peace.

[Zurdito]

You seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that they might have actually liked to stay there?



You think Britain has the right to invade another country's territory just to protect some British citizens who happen to be trading there?

There was no established British community there in 1833, no distinct regional identity. Give up trying to argue that, you can't.

[spartan]

You think Britain has the right to invade another country's territory just to protect some British citizens who happen to be trading there?

Argentina didnt mind doing the same.

Or do you have double standards?


There was no established British community there in 1833, no distinct regional identity. Give up trying to argue that, you can't.

Evidence?

Besides the Falklands was a multi-national island where American and British sealers constituted the majority of the islands population and its main source of income.

That kind of tells you why both America and Britain would get involved in this region of the world.

[spartan]

The USSR was socialist before Gorbachev's revisionism.
Socialism in the USSR died in 1924.

Even if you have the Trotskyist position that the USSR was a degenerated workers' state it still right to side with a degenerated workers' state against imperialist capitalist state.
This isnt about which side i am taking, its about the USSR supporting one Capitalist state against another to suit its own Imperialist ambitions on the continent of America.


The Soviet Union was not imperialist and no respectable communist can claim so.

Then what the hell was East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968?

How about Afghanistan 1979-1989?

And all these events started before Gorbachev and his "Revisionism"!

Have you ever heard of Social Imperialism by any chance?


Although the conflict happened between capitalist powers it still affected the interests of the socialist states. Britain's imperialism also conflicted with the Soviet Union's commitment to world peace.

No it didnt effect any "Socialist" states intrests as they had absolutely no intrests in this region except for potential Imperialist ambitions to weaken their enemy America (Opportunism to suit their intrests not a desire to help the working class).

And as for the "commitment to world peace" remark all i can say is put your 1970's era Soviet propaganda posters away and come back down to reality with the rest of us.

[Zurdito]

Argentina didnt mind doing the same.

Or do you have double standards?


When did Argentina do the same?

And how could you apply the same standards to a recently decolonised Republic protecting Islands off its coast which it had governed for 60 years, and an Empire invading Islands nowhere near it?


Evidence?

Where's yours?


Besides the Falklands was a multi-national island where American and British sealers constituted the majority of the islands population and its main source of income.

London is also "multi-national", what's your point?


That kind of tells you why both America and Britain would get involved in this region of the world

What, because they care so much about their citizens well being?:lol:

[Unicorn]

Socialism in the USSR died in 1924.
Stalin had his faults but they were corrected by Khruschev and Brezhnev.



This isnt about which side i am taking, its about the USSR supporting one Capitalist state against another to suit its own Imperialist ambitions on the continent of America.
Did the USSR plan to acquire territory there? No. It was not imperialist.



Then what the hell was East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968?
Upholding socialism.



How about Afghanistan 1979-1989?
Assisting the socialist government in the fight against fascist rebels.



And all these events started before Gorbachev and his "Revisionism"!

Have you ever heard of Social Imperialism by any chance?
Yes, it is a revisionist Trotskyist/Maoist concept.



No it didnt effect any "Socialist" states intrests as they had absolutely no intrests in this region except for potential Imperialist ambitions to weaken their enemy America (Opportunism to suit their intrests not a desire to help the working class).
Argentina exported grain which helped to feed the working class in the Soviet Union.

[spartan]

Stalin had his faults but they were corrected by Khruschev and Brezhnev.

Granted there was less repression after Stalin but it still existed to a large extent and was simply better hidden by the authorities.


Did the USSR plan to acquire territory there? No. It was not imperialist.

They were obviously trying to secure allies in America's "backyard" to gain a new sphere of influence and weaken America, their Imperialist rival, in a resource rich region.

Remember that before the Falklands war Argentina was a major non-NATO ally of America.

Besides what makes the USSR's position on the Falklands issue even more absurd is that they supported the claims of a military junta, that suppressed Argentine leftist movements, over the wishes of the inhabitants of the disputed islands themselves.

Leftists should be supporting the inhabitants right to self-determination in regions of the world that are fought over and disputed by two rival powers.

Upholding socialism.
Keep saying it and you might one day actually start believing it.

Argentina exported grain which helped to feed the working class in the Soviet Union.
And?

The USSR and USA traded with each other and yet you didnt see the USSR supporting America during the Vietnam war did you?

[Sam_b]

Upholding socialism

Well if we 'uphold socialism' by crushing workers then its not the sort of socialism i would ever subscribe to.

That analysis is pretty grim.

[chegitz guevara]

The United Provinces in 1831. Notice that they don't even have ownership or control of Patagonia at this point.


http://www.davidrumsey.com/BrowserInsight/BrowserInsight?cmd=image-retrieve&cid=1&image=c%7F%7F%7B1%24%24%7C%7C%7C%25oj%7Dboy%7Efxnr %25hdf%24y%7Efxnr%24Xbqn8%24O%3B%3A%3A%3E%24%3B%3F 8%3D%3B%3D%3E%25a%7Bl&resolution=3&username=browserRumsey

[chegitz guevara]

Zurdito's method here is not a Marxist one. He has repeatedly stated that his method is that he puts his politics before the facts. This is not Marxism. It is dogmatism. Marxism, being a scientific theory, requires that our politics conforms to the facts, not that we fit the facts to our politics. So he creates arbitrary categories, where people who live on an island with no indigenous and permanent inhabitants before 1833 are today "settlers," while those who live on land taken from indigenous peoples, and who committed genocide against them, are not "settlers." On the basis of this arbitrary distinction, he declares that the only permanent inhabitants of the islands have no claim to them, but instead that the comprador bourgeoisie of a colonial settler-state has the moral claim to them, because they are subject to imperialism.

[Zurdito]

Zurdito's method here is not a Marxist one. He has repeatedly stated that his method is that he puts his politics before the facts. This is not Marxism. It is dogmatism. Marxism, being a scientific theory, requires that our politics conforms to the facts, not that we fit the facts to our politics. So he creates arbitrary categories, where people who live on an island with no indigenous and permanent inhabitants before 1833 are today "settlers," while those who live on land taken from indigenous peoples, and who committed genocide against them, are not "settlers." On the basis of this arbitrary distinction, he declares that the only permanent inhabitants of the islands have no claim to them, but instead that the comprador bourgeoisie of a colonial settler-state has the moral claim to them, because they are subject to imperialism.

actually, your post above (which shows up as a small red cross btw) highlights your method: you seem to think that if Argentina had had, in 1831, no control over a territory to which it was the nearest country - like Patagonia - that Britain would have had an equal right to it as Argentina! whether or not this is historically true is not even worth arguing right now - either way, Argentina has more claim to such a territory than Britain, as you can see by looking at a map.

You seem to have a highly degenerate attitude to imperialism, I can probably only attribute it to brainwashing in an imperialist coutnry that you think Britain has an equal right to territory in the South Atlantic as Argentina. No-one in LAtin America can even imagine their state holding territory in the North Atlantic, and therefore, nearly everyone in the region sees the complete unjustified absurdity of Britain holding territory in the South Atlantic, whatever the historical justification (which itself is non-existent). So yes, any struggle by a semi-colonial Latin American state to boot a North Atlantic power out of the South Atlantic is justified.

[spartan]

whether or not this is historically true is not even worth arguing right now - either way, Argentina has more claim to such a territory than Britain, as you can see by looking at a map.

So you are bringing geographical proximity into the debate now, give up already!

[Zurdito]

So you are bringing geographical proximity into the debate now, give up already!

Why wouldn't that be a factor?

Buenos Aires had been governing the Islands for at least 60 years before the British invasion, and they had been integrated into Argentina with no distinct identity of their own whatsoever. They were part of Argentina.

Even if this hadn't been the case, I'd support Argentina's war to get any British military or political presence out of the South Atlantic in 1982.

If you can't see why that would be progressive, maybe you should give up. ;)

I'll repeat to you what I said to chegitz:



You seem to have a highly degenerate attitude to imperialism, I can probably only attribute it to brainwashing in an imperialist coutnry that you think Britain has an equal right to territory in the South Atlantic as Argentina. No-one in LAtin America can even imagine their state holding territory in the North Atlantic, and therefore, nearly everyone in the region sees the complete unjustified absurdity of Britain holding territory in the South Atlantic, whatever the historical justification (which itself is non-existent). So yes, any struggle by a semi-colonial Latin American state to boot a North Atlantic power out of the South Atlantic is justified.

[chegitz guevara]

You seem to have a highly degenerate attitude to imperialism, I can probably only attribute it to brainwashing in an imperialist coutnry that you think Britain has an equal right to territory in the South Atlantic as Argentina.

No, I believe in the right to self-determination. The people living on those rocks have the highest claim. You place the claims of Latin American capitalists higher than the permanent inhabitants of those islands. You seem to think that because Latin America is the subject of imperialism, it has the right to screw over others. I reject that right.

[Zurdito]

No, I believe in the right to self-determination. The people living on those rocks have the highest claim. You place the claims of Latin American capitalists higher than the permanent inhabitants of those islands. You seem to think that because Latin America is the subject of imperialism, it has the right to screw over others. I reject that right.


Maybe you should choose your arguments more carefully then.

One argument is the one that historical injustices do not override the "self-determination" of the Islanders today. Fair enough. I disagree, but we can have that argument.

another argument is when you start making posts suggesting that you think that Britain taking territory in the South Atlantic wasn't even wrong at the time! Or at least, that it was no less justified than Argentina taking it, purely because they were bourgeois states.

Well I'm sorry, but that's idiocy.

Britain does have a more legitimate claim over, say, the Isle of Mann, than it did over the Malvinas in 1833.

Likewise Argentina did in 1833 have a more legitimate claim to the Malvinas than Britain did. You should admit this regardless of your opinion of the sovereignity of the Islands today.

why does it matter? Because if you are an internationalist you should show to the left in the semi-colonial world that you do understand the seriousness of colonialist expansionism by the rgeat powers, and you don't take some ridiculous position that just because they are both bourgeois states, that Argentina had, in the 1830's, no more right to territory in the South Atlantic than Britain had! That is ultra-left bullshit.

[chegitz guevara]

I think that any possible historical injustice committed by Britain in 1833 does not matter today. In consider it irrelevant, as I wrote previously. It is, believe, also Invader Zim's main point. What is relevant is the only permanent inhabitants in the history of those islands want to be part of the British Empire.

[Invader Zim]

I've gotta say, I find it bizarre that we are discussing bourgeois claims to land. Socialism, like the working class, is international by its very nature. As such, as a socialist, bourgeois claim to the Falklands don’t interest me. What I find important are the interests of the people who actually live on the islands. And as far as they are concerned they don’t want to change nationality and live under the rule of, what as far as they are concerned, is a foreign power. They do not want to have to leave the islands, they just want to live their lives how they have been for nearly two centuries. I find it odd that Z places the sovereignty rights of the bourgeoisie in Argentina, who have never placed a foot on the islands, over the workers.

I've said it before, and I say it again, nation and nationality are social constructs.

[Marsella]

I've gotta say, I find it bizarre that we are discussing bourgeois claims to land. Socialism, like the working class, is international by its very nature. As such, as a socialist, bourgeois claim to the Falklands don’t interest me. What I find important are the interests of the people who actually live on the islands. And as far as they are concerned they don’t want to change nationality and live under the rule of, what as far as they are concerned, is a foreign power. They do not want to have to leave the islands, they just want to live their lives how they have been for nearly two centuries. I find it odd that Z places the sovereignty rights of the bourgeoisie in Argentina, who have never placed a foot on the islands, over the workers.

I've said it before, and I say it again, nation and nationality are social constructs.

I agree Zim.

Flag changing ceremonies bore me no end.

[Martin Blank]

For what it's worth, these islands were periodically inhabited prior to the arrival of the Europeans. The Ona (indigenous to the Tierra del Fuego region) were known to come to the islands to hunt, and the Tehuelche (Patagonians) are also thought to have come to the islands for hunting and fishing.

The Ona stopped going to the islands when the first Europeans started appearing in the region. They avoided Europeans because of the latter's tendency to kill every living thing in a region for their own profit and use. In addition, because the Ona had no conception of private property, the Europeans thought they were bandits and poachers because they would hunt the sheep brought to the region for food and clothing. Ultimately, due to disease and imposed changes in centuries-old lifeways by the Europeans (as well as the genocidal massacre of hundreds of indigenous people in the region by gold miners and sheepherders), the Ona died out.

The Tehuelche have dwindled to only about 6,000 across all of Argentina, after once numbering in the tens of thousands. This was due not merely to disease and attempts at Europeanizing them, but also due to concerted military campaigns by the Chileans and Argentinians to wipe them -- and the larger Mapuche civilization to which they belonged -- off the face of the earth.

I guess I mention all this for a few reasons.

First, it is clear that these islands were seen as a part of the indigenous peoples' "earth", and thus it would be ridiculous to assume that they were truly uninhabited. Many indigenous societies, such as the Ona, traveled during the seasons and would be considered nomadic (though not truly nomadic, since they moved in regular patterns -- the more proper term would be migratory). Obviously, the European settlers did not recognize or respect such lifeways, and would have considered land not being constantly used as "uninhabited".

Second, the European settlers -- British, Spanish, French, etc. -- succeeded in eliminating those who were indigenous to the islands, only to open their own campaigns of "legal claim" and "sovereignty". If you wish to see the Argentines as the "successor" to the indigenous peoples of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, then the "sovereignty" argument is more or less settled (the current British residents notwithstanding). But that's only if you consider those who wiped out the indigenous people of the region to be their "successors".

Third, if you're going to argue from a perspective of historical materialism, you should do so from a truly internationalist perspective, and remember that the "New World" was only "new" to the European settlers, not to the millions of indigenous peoples who lived here for at least 10,000 years B.C. (Before Columbus). And in spite of conscious and unconscious attempts to ethnically cleanse the entire hemisphere of its indigenous population, there remain living links to the societies that were here first.

In terms of the original question, "What should be done?", I do not see the British claims as legitimate, therefore I think that talk about it remaining a "self-governing" British protectorate is little more than capitulation to imperialist interests. At the same time, while the islands are an historical part of modern Argentina, beginning with the Ona and Tehuelche, talk of them in terms of being "Argentine" rings rather hollow.

Zurdito's argument is valid, as far as it goes, but it is incomplete and Eurocentric -- though not intentionally, and certainly not as much as those who argue for the "sovereignty" of the British colonists.

Should a renewed conflict over the islands break out, I would be for the defeat of British imperialism. At the same time, I would be highly critical in any support for the reintegration of the islands into Argentina, given that, from a longer historical perspective, it is in many ways merely a transfer of power from one set of settlers to another -- albeit settlers from a semi-colonial state.

As a communist, I would argue that, should the islands come under the jurisdiction of Argentina, that the demand be raised to offer the remaining Tehuelche (since there are no more Ona) the right to take control of the islands as an autonomous and self-governing territory with a confederal relationship to Argentina. Should Britain become a workers' republic while retaining control of the islands, I would argue that they should end their "special relationship", withdraw all military forces and turn the islands over to Argentina with the proviso that the Tehuelche be given the right to take control. Should that be refused, I would encourage the British workers' republic to offer incentives to the Argentines, including possibly a majority stake in the oil and gas exploitation ventures, to see that this happens. Should Argentina become a workers' republic without the islands becoming a part of their territory, I would argue that the claim be maintained with the same provisos mentioned above.

[Zurdito]

For what it's worth, these islands were periodically inhabited prior to the arrival of the Europeans. The Ona (indigenous to the Tierra del Fuego region) were known to come to the islands to hunt, and the Tehuelche (Patagonians) are also thought to have come to the islands for hunting and fishing.

The Ona stopped going to the islands when the first Europeans started appearing in the region. They avoided Europeans because of the latter's tendency to kill every living thing in a region for their own profit and use. In addition, because the Ona had no conception of private property, the Europeans thought they were bandits and poachers because they would hunt the sheep brought to the region for food and clothing. Ultimately, due to disease and imposed changes in centuries-old lifeways by the Europeans (as well as the genocidal massacre of hundreds of indigenous people in the region by gold miners and sheepherders), the Ona died out.

The Tehuelche have dwindled to only about 6,000 across all of Argentina, after once numbering in the tens of thousands. This was due not merely to disease and attempts at Europeanizing them, but also due to concerted military campaigns by the Chileans and Argentinians to wipe them -- and the larger Mapuche civilization to which they belonged -- off the face of the earth.

I guess I mention all this for a few reasons.

First, it is clear that these islands were seen as a part of the indigenous peoples' "earth", and thus it would be ridiculous to assume that they were truly uninhabited. Many indigenous societies, such as the Ona, traveled during the seasons and would be considered nomadic (though not truly nomadic, since they moved in regular patterns -- the more proper term would be migratory). Obviously, the European settlers did not recognize or respect such lifeways, and would have considered land not being constantly used as "uninhabited".

Second, the European settlers -- British, Spanish, French, etc. -- succeeded in eliminating those who were indigenous to the islands, only to open their own campaigns of "legal claim" and "sovereignty". If you wish to see the Argentines as the "successor" to the indigenous peoples of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, then the "sovereignty" argument is more or less settled (the current British residents notwithstanding). But that's only if you consider those who wiped out the indigenous people of the region to be their "successors".

Third, if you're going to argue from a perspective of historical materialism, you should do so from a truly internationalist perspective, and remember that the "New World" was only "new" to the European settlers, not to the millions of indigenous peoples who lived here for at least 10,000 years B.C. (Before Columbus). And in spite of conscious and unconscious attempts to ethnically cleanse the entire hemisphere of its indigenous population, there remain living links to the societies that were here first.

In terms of the original question, "What should be done?", I do not see the British claims as legitimate, therefore I think that talk about it remaining a "self-governing" British protectorate is little more than capitulation to imperialist interests. At the same time, while the islands are an historical part of modern Argentina, beginning with the Ona and Tehuelche, talk of them in terms of being "Argentine" rings rather hollow.

Zurdito's argument is valid, as far as it goes, but it is incomplete and Eurocentric -- though not intentionally, and certainly not as much as those who argue for the "sovereignty" of the British colonists.

Should a renewed conflict over the islands break out, I would be for the defeat of British imperialism. At the same time, I would be highly critical in any support for the reintegration of the islands into Argentina, given that, from a longer historical perspective, it is in many ways merely a transfer of power from one set of settlers to another -- albeit settlers from a semi-colonial state.

As a communist, I would argue that, should the islands come under the jurisdiction of Argentina, that the demand be raised to offer the remaining Tehuelche (since there are no more Ona) the right to take control of the islands as an autonomous and self-governing territory with a confederal relationship to Argentina. Should Britain become a workers' republic while retaining control of the islands, I would argue that they should end their "special relationship", withdraw all military forces and turn the islands over to Argentina with the proviso that the Tehuelche be given the right to take control. Should that be refused, I would encourage the British workers' republic to offer incentives to the Argentines, including possibly a majority stake in the oil and gas exploitation ventures, to see that this happens. Should Argentina become a workers' republic without the islands becoming a part of their territory, I would argue that the claim be maintained with the same provisos mentioned above.

this was a very educated psot, I enjoyed reading it.

the key point is that those indigenuous communities that remain today are part of the argentine state, and are oppressed by imperialist capital just as Argentine workers are. Also, incidentally, most of those most oppressed by imperialism, are the Greater Buenos Aires urban proletariat, who in large part are descended from migrants from the north, and therefore have more indigenuous blood.

In any case, I'm not for opening up divisions along racial lines any more than in necessarry. Firstly, by taking the Islands away from Britain, I owuldn't be arguing to kick out the current inhabitants, rather I would be arguing that they integrate into argentina. I don't see the need to make them a scapegoat for indegenous landlessness, Argentina is a vast and underpopulated coutry, much better to fight to expropriate the large landowners than middle-income kelpers, who let's not forget are not "settlers" by virtue of their ancestry, rather by virtue of their pro-imperialist role as a priveleged enclave. Once this is removed they can just be integrated into Argentina as a rural working class/petty bourgeoisie.

So I think this idea of land reform alogn racial lines is a dangerous one, if we can move forward and redistribute the vast welath in Argentina, or anywhere, to benefit everyone, then this is a more noble long term goal than re-settling old scores between different sets of workers based on their ancestry.

Regarding the fight against imeprialism then and how it relates to this: Argentine workers and indegenuous communities have a common cause against imperialism, as do all the masses of Latin America. Of course, it doesn't follow that indigenous liberation will necessarilly come as part of the struggle of imperialism, because of coruse we can't be sure how event swill pan out. This is why any anti-imperialist united front must be critical support, not poltical support - it will only be progressive if the working class takes the lead of the anti-imperialist struggle and makes it so.

The Junta in Argentina had no common cause with the working class, but it was forced to act against imperialism because of its growing contradictions. As part of the war momentum of an ongoing successfull defeat of Britain, the Argentine working class would need to keep pushing forward: they were in the streets, the war happened precisely because the Junta's repression was failing, therefore the working class needed to keep up the momentum, demand immediate expropriation of all British capital, land and resources in Argentina, and demand this be used for social reform.

Of course this is the point of critical support for anti-imperialism - to challenge imperialism the "national" borugeoisie must lean on the popular masses of their own state, because they ar eweak, a comrpador bourgeoisie, they either lean on their masses or work for imperialism. Therefore when it is the former, then yes, the workign class should take advanage - from a position of class independence - and push the pseudo-anti-imperialist "national" bourgeoisie further than it ever itnended to go. And at the point it pushes back, as will inevitably happen, is the point when you mobilise directly against them.

Now I accept that none of this directly relates to indegeuous land reform or of remedying the genocide carried out on the indegenuous peoples of Argentina, rather, it concentrates on the wider goal of working class liebration. I do supprot immediate demands for idnegenous land reform at the expense of large landowning oligarchies, but I don't think this necessarilly applies to the malvinas. Certainly, when it comes to resources, I'm not sure what your opinion is: I don't support giving indigenous communites control over oil at the expense of the wider workign class,r ather, I argue for the kelpers, the mainland argentine workers, and indigenous communities to commonly own this oil and gas, with a view to all of Latin America commonly owning and benefitting from it.

But for the record yes I do support expropriating the olgirachy directly for the benefit of indigenous communities, who should have the right and work towards to operating as soviets within Argentina.

[Martin Blank]

this was a very educated post, I enjoyed reading it.

Thank you.


the key point is that those indigenous communities that remain today are part of the Argentine state, and are oppressed by imperialist capital just as Argentine workers are. Also, incidentally, most of those most oppressed by imperialism, are the Greater Buenos Aires urban proletariat, who in large part are descended from migrants from the north, and therefore have more indigenous blood.

You might want to ask the indigenous communities of Argentina if they do consider themselves a part of the Argentine state in any sense other than being a conquered and occupied people. I understand that some would identify more with Argentina than their indigenous past, but others would likely not.

In terms of who is "most oppressed", I think that it is a false question. The urban proletarians of Buenos Aires who are of indigenous ancestry are certainly suffering under superexploitation and superoppression because of their social being. The same can be said for the Tehuelche. The difference is in the forms of superexploitation and superoppression. It would be ridiculous to attempt to arrange a "hierarchy of oppression" in this or any other situation.


In any case, I'm not for opening up divisions along racial lines any more than in necessary. Firstly, by taking the Islands away from Britain, I wouldn't be arguing to kick out the current inhabitants, rather I would be arguing that they integrate into Argentina. I don't see the need to make them a scapegoat for indigenous landlessness, Argentina is a vast and underpopulated country, much better to fight to expropriate the large landowners than middle-income kelpers, who let's not forget are not "settlers" by virtue of their ancestry, rather by virtue of their pro-imperialist role as a privileged enclave. Once this is removed they can just be integrated into Argentina as a rural working class/petty bourgeoisie.

If you read my comments carefully, I do not say anything about removing the British inhabitants. I do say that the British military should be removed, but that is it. I would favor attempting to integrate them into a broader Argentine society. I imagine they would have an easier time integrating than the indigenous have had.

Also, this is not merely racial oppression, but national oppression. The indigenous peoples of the region do each qualify by any measure of "Marxist" criteria: common language, culture, geography, internal economy, etc. The difference is that in these communities, which were taken from either the primitive communist or indigenous communist stage of human development right into pre-industrial and industrial capitalism, class stratification is still something relatively alien to them and their experiences.


So I think this idea of land reform along racial lines is a dangerous one, if we can move forward and redistribute the vast wealth in Argentina, or anywhere, to benefit everyone, then this is a more noble long term goal than re-settling old scores between different sets of workers based on their ancestry.

If my experience with indigenous peoples can be taken as a guide (given that I am in North America, and many of the nations here have a different culture than those of South America), I don't think there is much of a concern about "re-settling old scores". Most indigenous peoples are willing to share the land as long as the land, and the right of all people to share in it, is respected.

(It should also be noted here that we are talking about making and offer of the islands to the Tehuelche, not a forced displacement of them to the islands. Should the Tehuelche not want to take control of the islands, that should be equally respected.)


Regarding the fight against imperialism then and how it relates to this: Argentine workers and indigenous communities have a common cause against imperialism, as do all the masses of Latin America. Of course, it doesn't follow that indigenous liberation will necessarily come as part of the struggle of imperialism, because of course we can't be sure how events will pan out. This is why any anti-imperialist united front must be critical support, not political support - it will only be progressive if the working class takes the lead of the anti-imperialist struggle and makes it so.

In many ways, you are correct that the indigenous communities and the workers of Argentina have a common enemy in world imperialism. But, if history is any guide, any common struggle is incidental and guided by objective factors, with very little subjective elements to it. In many indigenous communities, non-indigenous workers are seen as extensions of that imperialism -- as compradors in their own right. They see non-indigenous workers talking and acting like the very people we say are their common enemy (due to that pesky little fact about the ideas of the ruling class being the dominant ideas in any society) and ask themselves to what end do we seek to build a unity. I mention this because it is something that communists have to contend with when it comes to building a real unity among indigenous and non-indigenous working people.


The Junta in Argentina had no common cause with the working class, but it was forced to act against imperialism because of its growing contradictions. As part of the war momentum of an ongoing successful defeat of Britain, the Argentine working class would need to keep pushing forward: they were in the streets, the war happened precisely because the Junta's repression was failing, therefore the working class needed to keep up the momentum, demand immediate expropriation of all British capital, land and resources in Argentina, and demand this be used for social reform.

Of course this is the point of critical support for anti-imperialism - to challenge imperialism the "national" bourgeoisie must lean on the popular masses of their own state, because they are weak, a comprador bourgeoisie, they either lean on their masses or work for imperialism. Therefore when it is the former, then yes, the working class should take advantage - from a position of class independence - and push the pseudo-anti-imperialist "national" bourgeoisie further than it ever intended to go. And at the point it pushes back, as will inevitably happen, is the point when you mobilize directly against them.

Fair enough. That's a better explanation of that position than I normally see around here.


Now I accept that none of this directly relates to indigenous land reform or of remedying the genocide carried out on the indigenous peoples of Argentina, rather, it concentrates on the wider goal of working class liberation. I do support immediate demands for indigenous land reform at the expense of large landowning oligarchies, but I don't think this necessarily applies to the Malvinas. Certainly, when it comes to resources, I'm not sure what your opinion is: I don't support giving indigenous communities control over oil at the expense of the wider working class, rather, I argue for the kelpers, the mainland Argentine workers, and indigenous communities to commonly own this oil and gas, with a view to all of Latin America commonly owning and benefiting from it.

A couple things here. First, one thing we as communists need to understand is that there is not a counterposition between the liberation of the working class from capitalist exploitation and oppression, and the liberation of indigenous peoples from the same through self-determination and autonomy. On the contrary, indigenous peoples have much to teach, and we have much to learn. Unlike those of us who do not come from indigenous communities, there remains a vestigial living memory of life in a classless society -- even if it was one of primitive communism or indigenous communism. There are historical lessons we can learn: about developing a society of generalized freedom; about striking a balance between human industrial/technological development and sustainability in nature; about production for need and use, not profit; about social relationships defined outside of a class structure; about administration and political discourse in a stateless system; etc. True, the exact forms might not do us much good, but the principles and values that guide them can give us a valuable insight into what we as communists seek.

Second, in terms of the resources, what I was getting at was this: If Britain was to become a workers' republic ("workers' state"; "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- just in case it wasn't clear), it should withdraw its state presence from the islands and, in the process of working out the handover to Argentina, propose they be made into an autonomous entity within the country under the control of the Tehuelche (and, of course, allowing the kelpers and others to continue to live there as free and equal citizens). Should Argentina initially balk, incentives such as offering Argentina majority control of some (or all) of the existing British oil and gas exploitation projects in the southern Atlantic should be floated as a means of encouraging Argentina to agree to offer handing practical control of the islands to the Tehuelche. This is what I was getting at.


But for the record yes I do support expropriating the oligarchy directly for the benefit of indigenous communities, who should have the right and work towards to operating as soviets within Argentina.

That wouldn't be a hard sell, based on my experiences.