Arguments on the Malvinas (1982)

Originally published by Workers Power (Britain) in WP 32 in May 1982.




Note from the Editor: Workers Power (Britain) and its international organization, the LRCI, were the predecessor organization of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency.



IN TRADE UNION and Labour Party meetings many workers will voice support for Britain's war drive because it is being waged FOR "self determination" and AGAINST a "fascist junta'. We don't think that this is what this war is about. It is about Imperialism's ability to maintain its colonies and military bases to police and exploit the imperialised world. That's why we have no doubts as to which side we are on in this conflict. But socialists must be able to tackle these arguments -articulated most dishonestly and hypo­critically by the Labour leaders - in their struggle to defeat Thatcher's war drive. The following article deals with some of the most common arguments that have been voiced within the labour movement.


YOU SOCIALISTS TALK a lot about "democratic rights" but what about the rights of the Falkland Islanders, don't we de­fend their right to live where they are and under what regime they choose?


The Falkland Islanders are not a distinct nation with their own culture, tradition and language. Their hold on the Falkland Islands depends on the power and commitment of British Imperialism to hold on to these South American islands. In fact they are all British settlers who were moved into the Malvinas after it was seized by the British from Argentina in 1833.


They have never expressed their desire to exercise any "rights of self ­determination" i.e. to become an independent state. Of course, in practice this would be impossible for 1800 people on an isolated island. Their practical dependence on Argentina has already been demonstrated. It was the soldiers of Argentina who built the only airstrip on the islands, which has now been blown up by the British. It was the Argentine air force which provided the only air service to the islands, it was Argentine hospitals which provided for the seriously ill, and Argentine colleges which provided the only route to higher education for the islanders.


What the islanders have declared in favour of it remaining part of the British Empire. Socialists can have no truck with this desire. To do so would allow every group of British settlers, or British citizens who benefit from imperialism, to continue to occupy someone else's territory. The Malvinas is a South American island, claimed by Argentina as early as 1820 after her struggle for independence from Spain and settled by her. The British settlers have two choices; either to live under Argentine rule, and, we would hope, join with their fellow Argentinean workers and small farmers in the fight to overthrow the dictatorship, or to leave the islands for somewhere of their own choosing. "


But doesn't support for Argentina mean supporting a fascist junta that is an even more ferocious enemy of the working class than Margaret Thatcher?


Not at all. We support the demands of the Argentinean people against British imperialism, not the Junta that is trying to solve its own crisis by fighting for those demands. The blood stained Junta hoped it would deflect attention away from the 13% unem­ployment and 130% inflation through a diversionary action that was certain to be popular with the masses. They hoped that exercising their rights over the Malvinas would head off mounting opposition from the working class.


However, the Junta has met with resistance. Their invasion of the Malvinas was popular, but it has not made the tyrannical Junta itself pop­ular with the masses. Demonstrations in Buenos Aires have called the anti-imperialist credentials of the Junta into question. Peronist forces in the unions have openly taken to the streets with their own banners and slogans. The Left has been able to distribute 'leaflets and papers against the Junta and for Argentina's right to the Malvinas. Under pressure, the Junta, which is committed to the imperialists' stranglehold over the eco­nomy, was forced to block the re­patriation of foreign profits and halt the removal of the foreign invest­ments on April 21st.


The nationalist sentiments of the masses, which the Junta is trying to ex­ploit, are rooted in the imperialised status of Argentina. The flag waving patriotism of the British, the extent that it is not a media creation, is rooted in Britain's imperialist past - and present. The task we set ourselves is to drive a wedge between the workers and the Junta, not to deny the rights of the Argentinean people, even if these happen to be advocated by the Junta at the moment.


The Argentinean workers can break with the Junta by developing and ex­tending the struggle against imperialism, including the struggle for the Malvinas. Anyone who says the Argentinean masses only have the right to fight British imperialism once they have dumped the Junta is, what­ever their claims, siding with the imperialists against the Argentine workers.


The workers of Argentina must take the oppor­tunity the army gives them to take up arms and be trained in their use. They should take advantage of the present situation to strengthen and extend their own organisations. They should refuse to relinquish their arms when the Junta feels its adventure has gone too far. Against the 'anti-imperialist' Junta of Galtieri, which is selling off state industry to inter­national capital, they must fight for all imperialist holdings to be nationalised under the control of the workers themselves.


Of course it is possible that the Junta might win a victory in the Malvinas over Thatcher and leave Esso and Royal Dutch Shell unscathed. Such a victory would not be a lasting one for the workers of Argentina. It would still leave them under the heel of imperialism. But a defeat for Thatcher would weaken one of their major props of the Junta and its like throughout Latin America. It would have served to arouse the workers themselves and weakened the base of the Galtieri regime.


But wouldn't a defeat for Argentina serve to weaken and undermine the blood stained regime far more immediately and dramatically?


By no means. Firstly, it would be a significant and potentially highly demoralising defeat for the oppressed Argentinean masses themselves. Secondly, there is no shortage of potential pro-imperialist right wing dictators to take Galtieri's place should the masses be demoralised and beaten back by Thatcher's imperialist war machine. Neither can we guarantee that the outcome would not be the chance for a Peron-type populist demagogue to come to power. Such a figure could use injured nation­alism to further enslave the working class. A victory to Thatcher could even serve to tie the masses to the Galtieri regime. Whatever the outcome of such a defeat, the oppressed masses of Argentina have nothing to gain from a British victory.


In fact, the whole question of the credentials of the Argentinean regime is a complete red herring from the Labourites There was no dearth of oppor­tunities for Labour's leaders to attack the regime before the Malvinas crisis. But the last Labour government was supplying 30% of the Junta's arms between 1974 and 1976. Diplomatic relations were broken because of friction over Britain's colony in the Malvinas - not because of Labour's anti-fascism.


Imperialism will always declare that its wars are directed against tyranny. Doesn't it claim that its nuclear arsenals are directed against the Russian dic­tatorship's threat to the 'freedom' and 'liberty' of the capitalist world Didn't it claim that the Allende regime in Chile was undemocratic and un­representative? Hasn't the Vietnamese regime por­trayed as being despotic and totalitarian when it took on the armed might of the US forces occupying Vietnam?


Supporting Imperialism in the name of demo­cracy pits Labour's anti-fascists behind the murder­ous Reagan and Thatcher war drive and against those struggling against oppression and exploitation at the hands of imperialism.


But wouldn't the best solution be to hand the question over to the UN? What way it would be out of the hands of both Thatcher and Galtieri?


No, it wouldn't be out of the hands of British Imperialism. The United Nations was formed after the Second World War to replace the previous "world organisation", the League of Nations which Lenin described quite rightly as a "thieves kitchen of the Imperialists". The great Imperialist powers, Britain, France and USA, together with the USSR and China, all have a complete veto over any actions which they think affect their direct interests. The Stalinists participate in the UN as part of their pur­suance of a modus vivendi with imperialism, and are quite willing to sell out the interests of the oppressed nations if it suits their own purposes.


The history of the UN confirms that its major role has been settling disputes in the interests of imperialism. In 194718 it played a major role in setting up the imperialist settler state of Israel, with the USSR voting in favour. In 1950, it acted as the collective armed force of western imperialism in the Korean War, at one time advancing across North Korea almost to the Chinese border while its


General Assemblies called for the unification of a capitalist Korea. In 1960, it was used to intervene when Belgian imperialism was threatened in the Congo. It played a devious role in the secession of Katanga, a rich copper mining area of the Congo, only moving to end the rebellion when Patrice Lumumba the Prime Minister, who was seeking aid from the Soviet Union, was removed and murdered.


By the time UN forces left in 1964 the Congo Was once again safe for imperialism, having been redivided between the Belgians and the USA. To hand over the Malvinas question to the UN would be to just let the imperialists barter for which of them should have the biggest slice of the Cake. The future of the Malvinas question is one for the Argentinean people to decide, not the collective arm of imperialism.