February 20, 2010
For Argentineans the long simmering territorial dispute between Britain and Argentina is coming to a head, as a British oil rig travels
to what analysts say is a 60 billion barrel reserve of high-grade oil
located in a 200 square mile zone surrounding the Malvinas (Falkland)
Islands. This would make it one of the largest oil reserves in the
world. Argentina had instituted a naval embargo of the islands but has recently permitted the oil rig to land in Port Stanley, capital of the island.
The
delivery and installation of the oil rig will substantially alter the
fundamental economic character of the disputed islands from fishing and
sheep-raising to the exploitation of one of the world’s most sought
after commodities: petroleum. The exploitative economic character
Britain is unilaterally imposing exacerbates the national tensions
between Argentina and Britain. This conflict has brought the
relationship between the two countries to their sharpest point since
the 1982 war over the Islands.
The Argentine government of President Christina Kirschner is set to bring the matter before the United Nations
Security Council and is mustering its diplomatic resources to bring
this matter to a negotiated end. In addition, President of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez,
has correctly demanded that Britain cede the Malvinas: “The British are
desperate for oil since their own fields in the North Sea are now being
depleted," Chavez said in a televised speech. “When will England stop
breaking international law? Return the Malvinas to Argentina!"
Argentina and Venezuela are both members of Mercosur, the common market
covering much of South America.
The Anti-Imperialist Character of the Conflict
This conflict is not, however, a simple land dispute or even an oil resource dispute. The question of
the return of the Malvinas Islands is an explosive national issue for
most Argentines, who see the haughty imperial occupation and
colonization of their islands as symbolic of their nation’s
relationship to western imperialism. Argentina is a country whose
national wealth is sapped by the wealthiest financiers of London,
Madrid, and New York City. The vast
majority of the Argentine people view the continued occupation of the
Malvinas Islands by Britain as a fundamental injustice. Argentina
attempted to seize the islands in 1982 but was defeated by the British
after a short-lived, but bloody re-occupation of the colonial outpost.
The conflict resulted in nearly 1,000 deaths with two-thirds of the
dead from the Argentine military. The invasion was a military disaster
for Argentina and a stunning loss in the fight against imperialism
which bolstered the fanatical anticommunism of Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan. Then, too, the conflict was bathed in the waters of the
Nicaraguan Revolution, the Grenadian revolution, and the civil war in
El Salvador, not to mention the U.S.’ sponsored swath of
counter-revolutions in Chile and Argentina.
Despite
the failure of the Argentine military in 1982, the question still must
be answered: What right does Britain have to a colony in the South
Atlantic 7,800 miles from London? Britain claims it has the right to
defend “self determination” when this seems as a convenient cover for
British interests in the expansion of its capital. In keeping with
this, the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, the local
governing body for the 3,000 plus residents of the Falklands, announced
on February 5, that it would oppose any Argentine firm exploring for
oil in the territory.
21st Century Colonialism or 21st Century Socialism
The
British, French, Dutch, or U.S. governments have no business
maintaining colonies in South America, or anywhere else on the globe.
The Malvinas are properly Argentine territory, and workers in Britain
have no interest in maintaining the old Empire territorial claims that
Labor and Tory governments, including those of Thatcher, Blair and Brown, have vigorously defended.
In
this sense the Falkland Islands are no different than returning Hong
Kong to the Peoples Republic of China, India to the Indians, or Ireland
to the Irish. What seemingly complicates the matter is that there are
virtually no Argentine nationals on the Falklands. The local residents
vigorously support continued British control, much like the reactionary
Unionists of Northern Ireland.
Central
America, South America, and the Caribbean are dotted with direct
colonial possessions of the United States (Puerto Rico, American Virgin
Islands), Britain (British Virgin Islands, etc.), the Netherlands
(Curacao, Dutch West Indies), and France (Guadeloupe, Martinique,
French Guiana). With the century-long occupation of Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands as examples, it is clear that the United States has no
genuine inclination toward the establishment of democracy or
independence for the remaining subjugated nations of this region.
Administration
after administration prattles on about democracy in countries with
which it is interested in interfering. Yet the actions of the U.S.
government, whether those run by Democrats or Republicans, while
courting figures like the Dalai Lama, are intractable in their overlord
status in Puerto Rico. The disgusting example of Vieques, an island off
the coast of Puerto Rico, comes to mind. The U.S. has shelled the
island for decades as a military training ground. The U.S. refuses to
clean up the dangerous waste, which includes carcinogenic pollutants
and unexploded ordinance. This has led to absurdly high levels of
cancer on Vieques.
Meanwhile,
against this backdrop of unresolved colonialism, a new social power is
emerging, the resurgent continental resistance to imperialism by
Central and South American working people in recent years. A prime
example of this is the movement that has thrust the Bolivarian
Revolution in Venezuela to move sharply to the left in the direction of
socialism. The specter of social revolution is haunting the oligarchies
of South America and the imperialists of the northern hemisphere. The
crisis in the South Atlantic cannot be seen outside the context of one
imperialist provocation against this process: the military buildup in
Colombia against Venezuela, the U.S.-backed separatist movements in
Bolivia, the U.S.-sponsored removal of President Zelaya in Honduras,
and the influx of U.S. and other imperialist troops in Haiti.
The Anti-Imperialist Potential of the Crisis
The
overwhelming anti-imperialist sentiments of the Argentine working class
could be ignited into mass action by the British provocation. Given the
historic militancy of the working class in Argentina, which propelled
hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets to demand economic
relief from the government in response to the economic crisis of
2000-2001, one president after another was forced to leave office.
Consequently, the Kirschner government will have to act boldly if it is
to stay in power.
However,
the capitalist government of Argentina is tied hand and foot to the
imperialists it is attempting to challenge. President Cristina
Kirchner, whose political support includes the businesses and bankers
who are in large part dominated by British financial interests, may
find it difficult to be successful with her government’s diplomatic
efforts or with an attempt at a semi-military blockade of the islands.
Argentina
has long been dominated by British capitalism. The direct occupation of
the Malvinas Islands by the British only serves to underscore the
position of Argentina as a neo-colonial subject nation. A working class
upsurge opposed to further British machinations would in all likelihood
expose the country’s subjugation at the hands of British imperialism
and lay the blame squarely in the Argentine government’s inability and
or unwillingness to seize the islands.
Working Class Unity is Critical to Defeat Imperialism
Imperialism
can be defeated and will be defeated only when workers politically
unite and act independently of their own capitalist-controlled
governments so as to lead their respective nations in taking successful
actions in defense of the right of all countries to self-determination.
One possible action that could be promoted would be to attempt to unite
American, British, and Argentine dockworkers with other South American
port workers in refusing to load or unload shipments of oil equipment
or military related cargo to or from the Falklands. If the British and
U.S. workers do not take a stand in support of their Argentine brothers
and sisters, there is no reason Argentines should wait. South American
workers could demand a halt to all these type of shipments.
It
is unlikely that once pushed into independent political action the
working class will resume their subservient political role in Argentine
politics. The question of working class power was raised in recent
Argentine history when workers in 2000 to 2002 took over many
workplaces, the streets, the national plaza, highways and even towns.
What about the Falklanders?
As
for the Falkland residents themselves, they, too, are unfortunate
victims of British Imperialism. Although many families have lived for
generations on the islands, the illegitimacy of Britain’s claim has
been well known for over a century. Falkland laws against Argentine
interests must be voided by the Falklanders themselves if they wish to
be on the right side of history.
The
Falklander’s parochial interests are secondary to the basic question of
national self-determination and sovereignty of Argentina. The
Falklanders are not a separate nation from Britain. They are its
colonists. Their fear of domination by Argentina is a foil for British
economic interests. Britain’s capitalist elite has little regard for
its subjects when its economic interests are at stake. It did not grant
the millions of residents of Hong Kong the right to elect its own
leaders when it was in its interests to secede the Territory to the
Peoples Republic of China. Nor ultimately will it consider the
interests of the residents of the Falklands equal to their own economic
interests.
A
victory in the Malvinas for the Argentine working people would be like
a beacon for South and Central America’s long and incomplete fight for
territorial and political independence from imperialism.