[changed mv view Thatcher's Socialist Organiser DOS 80…]

Scan page 11

changed mv view Thatcher's Socialist Organiser DOS 80 and 81 carried two articles expressing my opinion on the Falklands or Malvinas conflict. In them, my opinion was in accordance with the standpoint of the paper, which can be summarised in the expres"No to war" and •Let the Falklands people decide".

I am now of the opinion that that standpoint was the result of a confusion, taking into account unilaterally the dictatorial character of the Argentinian government but forgetting the imperialist nature of the problem (a territorial occupation).

There was a deflection in character, opportunist, and objectively pro-imperialist.

Now, I strongly hold that Socialist Organiser ought to modify its standpoint to be unconditionally in favour of Argentina, in support of the downfall of British imperialism and the immediate withdrawal of its fleet.

The fact that the existing political regime in Argentina is blood-thirsty military dictatorship and that the government of Galtieri has wanted to divert attention towards a territorial problem, secondary in importance to the impeiralist exploitation in the country, ought not to let us forget that this is a real problem.

The Malvinas Islands, the Georgias and South Sandwich are Argentinian for reasons of geography, history and militarily.

The inhabitants of British stock were transplanted (as in Northern Ireland) to strengthen and justify that possession, in those days of great use to control the Magellan straits. The resources of the islands and of the surrounding sea are of value and belong naturally to Argentina.

On the other hand, the defending livelihood islanders British government is not whose has depended essentially on the relationship with Argentina, and whom the British government does not recognise as British subjects); and it is defending more than the resources - expressly, the juridical (imperialist) British world wide order.

Under orders of Galtieri the repossession of the Malvinas has been this strategem, but on occasion it coincides (but is not identified with) the national enterest exploited imperialism. Objectively the repossession of the Malvinas has been totally correct.

Arise it oat is account precisely that Galtieri playing with fire: the milit. ary government and the Argentinian bourgeoisie are unable to sustain the resulting struggle, including, that relating to the Malvinas, because the Argentinian bourgeoisie is structurally bound up with demonstrate, they are at the same time shouting down the military dictatorship; and as the conflict is protracted, they will tend naturally to attack the knot of the imperialist exploitation of the country.

Running through this secondary contradiction (between British imperialism supported by the United States and the Argentine bourgeoisie which is structurally its agnet) there emerges quite real contradiction between the Argentine masses and imperialism.

When Galtieri's government appealed to it, manoeuvring to contain the rise of the masses, it had to seek support from the bourgeois parties which it had suspended and the outlawed directorate of the CGT.

And if the front-line sectors of the working class which retreat before the manoeuvre of the dictatorship unite with moderate sectors which took to the streets to demonstrate for the Malvinas, then the working classes can in fact impose democratic rights, take the initiative in the defence against the imperialist attack, extend the war to the expropriation of imperialist capital and depose the military dictatorship.

There is however another aspect which has already given to this conflict a great international repercussion: and that is the direct action to settle the repossession of the Malvinas, ignoring the resolution of the United Nations and with it the world imperialist juridical order. This step encourages the remaining colonial possessions in the British Empire to follow in the footsteps of the struggle.

Polarised

This is what the British government has to face and which prompts the United States to join forces with it.

But besides all this, the repossession of the l Mavinas and the defence put up against the piratical attack of the British has polarised the mass of the Latin American nations, even including the bourgeoisies, which, in the OAS, (with opposition from the US, and the exceptions of Chile and Colombia) have supported Argentina and have condemned Great Britain and the EEC on account of its measures.

The international consequences brought about by the confrontation in regard to the Malvinas demand more than ever a categorical definition. As regards all this I am in full agreement with the attitude of the IWL (Fourth International).

The two main battle cries might be "ArgentinMalvinas" and 'Immediate withdrawal of the fleet and let us destroy British imperialism"

CARLOS GARCIA seas 50, We invite readers to send us their letters, up to a usual maximum length of 400 words.

Send to Socialist Organiser, c/o 28. Middle Lane. London N8. to be applied to Argentina. However dressed up, this means economic warfare by the imperialist powers to show the economic muscle they can exert over the rest of the world.

Denounce This is a shade to the left of Foot, who wants war without bloodshed, but we should denounce economic warfare - EEC sanctions etc as categorically as we dénounce the shooting war.

War On the broader issue of our attitude to the islanders' rights, Race says that 'We have a responsibility to ensure that the Falklanders are not physically assaulted" Who does he mean by. "We"? 'Britain"? That simply gives the right wing their excuse to support the Tories.

We cannot consistently call for unconditional withdrawal and renunciation of British claims, while we talk without qualification about the islanders' rights to decide their own future. This would have to include their 'right' to remain a part of the British Empire. Indeed, given the present situation it is almost certain that they would make such a choice.

Alliance

In this respect - though not in others - the analogy with the 'Unionist veto' on Irish unity does hold good.

We should spell out quite clearly that the only possibility of a lasting, democratic settlement for the islanders lies in an alliance with the Argentine working class.

TONY GARD, Lewisham. on

----- pull-quotes -----

imperialism the When the masses