Follow workers.org on
RED HOT: TRAYVON MARTIN
CHINA,
AFGHANISTAN, FIGHTING RACISM, OCCUPY WALL STREET,
PEOPLE'S POWER, SAVE OUR POST OFFICES, WOMEN, AFRICA,
LIBYA, WISCONSIN WORKERS FIGHT BACK, SUPPORT STATE & LOCAL WORKERS,
EGYPT, NORTH AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST,
STOP FBI REPRESSION, RESIST ARIZONA RACISM, NO TO FRACKING, DEFEND PUBLIC EDUCATION, ANTI-WAR,
HEALTH CARE,
CUBA, CLIMATE CHANGE,
JOBS JOBS JOBS,
STOP FORECLOSURES, IRAN,
IRAQ, CAPITALIST CRISIS,
IMMIGRANTS, LGBT, POLITICAL PRISONERS,
KOREA,
HONDURAS, HAITI,
SOCIALISM,
GAZA
|
|
On anniversary of Malvinas War, whose islands?
By
John Catalinotto
Published Apr 7, 2007 9:41 AM
The Malvinas Islands should belong to Argentina. If you call them the Falkland
Islands, as British imperialism does, they should still belong to
Argentina.
No matter what its name, the archipelago in the South Atlantic with about the
same surface area as the state of Connecticut, which has been an outpost of the
British Empire since the British Navy seized it by military force in 1833 and
British imperialism re-seized it in 1982, is part of Latin America in general
and Argentina in particular.
The Malvinas are in the news again this April 2, the 25th anniversary of the
beginning of the 1982 Malvinas War. They are in the news also because British
imperialism is using this island outpost to plunder more natural wealth from
Argentina, first through the fishing rights in Argentine waters and second
through demands for rights to search for oil on Argentina’s continental
shelf.
The corporate media—along with British politicians and officials and
their U.S. allies—are rewriting and distorting the history of the
Malvinas and of the 1982 war as they retell the story of that battle. While
this struggle is well understood in Latin America, it is important that it be
told straight here in the United States.
The story of the Malvinas War contains lessons important for today’s
anti-imperialist movement in judging whose side to be on. These lessons are all
the more valuable because they involve an apparently complicated situation
regarding the relationship between Argentina, the U.S. and Britain in 1982 and
today.
Relationship of forces in 1982
In April 1982, the U.S., with the rightist Ronald Reagan as its president, was
the dominant imperialist power—and still is. Britain was
Washington’s most reliable junior partner—as is even more so today.
Both were and are oppressor countries, using their capital and, when necessary,
their military to pillage the people of the world.
Argentina in 1982, as today, was an oppressed country in relationship to world
imperialism. It was ruled by a brutal military junta that had come to power six
years earlier with the planning aid of the CIA and the complete backing of
Washington. It had by 1982 executed 30,000 revolutionaries, progressives and
trade unionists and jailed many others, all illegally, secretly, without even a
phony trial.
The Argentine generals were favorites of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s
ambassador to the United Nations. Two of the three top military junta generals
were graduates of the School of the Americas, which under a new name still
turns out hundreds of killers and torturers each year to serve U.S. and local
capitalist interests in Latin America. Kirkpatrick’s friendliness
apparently fostered the illusion among these generals that they were somehow
equal allies of the imperialist U.S., at least as much as Britain was.
Despite Kirkpatrick’s enthusiasm for the murderous way the generals
treated progressive Argentines, the U.S. double crossed their clients in Buenos
Aires and cooperated with Britain during the war, providing intelligence and
logistic support. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was only too happy to direct
a military attack. The British even gratuitously sunk an Argentine troop ship,
the General Belgrano, after it was headed back to its Buenos Aires port,
killing 323 Argentine troops.
The battle was not completely one-sided, as the Argentines fought bravely and
had their own advanced arms, but in the end 655 Argentines died, along with 255
British troops. The junta, ill-equipped to lead a war of liberation, conceded
to British imperialism. Within a year the generals were driven out of power,
although most of them have not yet received the punishment they deserve for
their crimes against the Argentine people.
Workers World, which had considered the Argentine generals criminals and
killers, nevertheless defended Argentina against the attack from the two major
imperialist powers. This defense was in the same tradition as the 1930s
anti-imperialist defense of the absolute monarchy of Haile Selassie when
Ethiopia was attacked by imperialist Italy.
WW members participated in and helped organize demonstrations protesting the
British attempt to re-seize Argentine territory—the Malvinas.
Self-determination for whom?
A false argument that was raised over and over at the time to excuse British
intervention was the claim that the 1,800 inhabitants of the Malvinas, who were
settlers or descendants of settlers from the British Isles, wanted to remain
British “subjects.” (In 1982 they were not British citizens.) Thus,
it was argued, applying “self-determination” would mean supporting
the choice of these settlers and thus supporting Britain.
But the Malvinas/Falkland Islands were a special outpost of the British Empire,
just as Hong Kong, Diego Garcia, Aden and the Suez Canal were in other periods
of its history. Or as New Caledonia (Kanaky) is for French imperialism. Or as
the Panama Canal Zone is for U.S. imperialism. They are military or commercial
bases with some civilian population.
It is possible to colonize an area with people from the metropolis, in some
cases killing or driving out the Indigenous population. The result can be a
majority that prefers to be an extension of the imperialist metropolis. This
only shows that the “self-determination” argument is not absolute.
You have to evaluate what strengthens world imperialism and what weakens
it.
The British presence in the Malvinas—which now includes 1,200 soldiers,
sailors and air force personnel—puts imperialist pressure on all of South
America. Indeed, the vast majority of Latin Americans side with
Argentina’s continued desire to take back the Malvinas.
A strategic alliance
It should have been no surprise when the two imperialist allies stuck together
to slap down an upstart regime ruling an oppressed country. And these two
powers have done so since. They have joined in an effort to reconquer the
colonial territories that were freed by liberation struggles during the period
when the Soviet Union existed as a counterweight to imperialism.
They joined with other NATO powers to reconquer the Balkans in the 1999 war
against Yugoslavia. They are together trying to reconquer Afghanistan and Iraq
today, although their efforts to occupy these territories are running into the
determined resistance of the local populations. They threaten to intervene in
Iran, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in a similar attempt to
impose a new form of colonial rule. All these are reactionary and often brutal
interventions.
Anyone who supports national liberation, who supports the oppressed nations
against imperialism, has to be for the defeat of this alliance of two predator
nations against the people of the world. This means supporting the resistance
movements in the Middle East. And it means supporting the Argentine effort to
take back the Malvinas.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: [email protected]
Subscribe [email protected]
Support independent news DONATE
|
|