Add new comment

Submitted by Clive on Sat, 21/04/2007 - 20:03

You write: "How are the First Sea Lords comments relevent? Because they prove that the "self determination" of the Falkland islanders was no part of the war and that it was an invasion to reconquer "British soverign territory".
Therefore all of the AWL's flummery about the "rights" of the Falkland Islanders to "self determination" is exposed as irrelvent, from the mouths of the very people who undertook the invasion - the British Imperialists."

This is spectacularly confused. The argument that the people living on the Falklands islands have the right not to be occupied by a foreign power (in this case a military dictatorship responsible for untold atrocities, but the argument would hold even if Argentina were a bourgeois democracy) has got absolutely nothing to do with what the British ruling class was fighting about. Of course they weren't concerned about the Falklanders! This is one of the reasons to denounce them. And - can you read? - we opposed Thatcher's war.

The contention that Argentina was/is an oppressed nation, its national oppression expressed through, presumably, the mere existence of English-speaking people on some islands some hundreds of miles off the South American coast, and that these islanders constitute part of an 'oppressor nation' (of Argentina), is, if anything, even more spectacularly absurd. If people living on islands seized years ago - before Argentina was even meaningfully a nation, even - constitute an 'oppressor community' whose rights can be marched all over, this would condemn huge swathes of the world to such a programme.

Not least it would condemn Argentina! The population of Argentina is entirely of European extraction. If Argentina has a right to the Falklands (by virtue, pretty much, of just geographical proximity), who has the right to Argentina? This whole way of looking at the world is the most supine nationalism. National rights are about people, not bits of land; and they are about democracy, as I have already commented.

Your notion of the AWL's 'pro-imperialism', aside apparently from just a straightforward inability to read sentences in front of you, comes from this utterly corrupted (by Stalinism) conception of oppressed and oppressor nations, and of imperialism itself. You don't have to like us to debate with us, or think we're about to fuse, or something. Heaven forbid. But if you want to argue about this stuff, why not do it in person?

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.