barrage for a lot longer Reagan's war drive.
Thatcher's adventure.
of self-determination'.
series of questions and answers tionary solidarity with the Fourth International.
which side are you on?
The the British, are an inalienable part nations sovereignty over the islands Britain has held the islands colony seized them by force 150 years ago. London should give claim to its colony and stay out.
But much more is nov involved than the islands done. economic, and diplomatic clary.
OCIWCCIl of the world's mintiest powers and a country oppressea by imperialism. In this conflict, we side unequivocally will lne coulltry that is the victim of imOctalisili We demand that Britain turn its fleet around, lift its economic embargo, and recognise Argentine sovereignty Over Malvinas.
Your position is clear enough. HOL convinced. Isn't there a real over sovereignty?
* glance ai the map will tell that, geographically, the Malvinas are part Historically, ine story is ine same. In une 1700s Britain, Spain and France all made claims on the islands.
The Spaniards bought out the French and drove out Spain governed the islands, as it «le buenos Ares and mosI of Latin America. When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it claimed sovereignty over all of its territory and took control of the islands.
In 1833, however, British warship took the islands by force. The Drusa rules nave enored Argentina's protests for a century and a half.
Yes, but whatever the historical merits, how can you side win ine EVERY EVENING our 'democratic and freé' television and newspapers bombard us with pro-war propaganda. Over the North Atlantic, American viewers have been getting a similar The TV and media are full of denunciations of Argentinian aggression against peaceloving Britain who, with no empire left to defend, is 'standing up for the right Socialist Challenge reprints on this page a which were carried by the American revoluI guess the last answer wasn't clear They have held it by force years the According to the imperialists' moral code, if they steal someone's land and hold on io ll long enough, it becomes theirs.
Whenever oppressed peoples anywhere the world fight to regain control over their own territory, they are called the 'aggressors' What's more, Britain refused every Argentine effort to negotiate in good faith. In 1965 Argentina finally got resolution passed in the United Nations calling on the British to negotiate. As recently as this past February, Argentina's diplomats at the UN pressed for a speedup the drawn-out talks. The British refused.
about the residents of the Islands?
Margaret Thatcher says Britain has no interests in the islands and fighting solely for tite right of the islanders to self-determination. don't really believe her, but isn't the issue itself important?
having the British meet anack ine samos ano Black.
capitalism in more tish absentee landlords. A cent of the land, rain The FIC has OlIC legislative councillor from OI shareholders Argentinian workers demonstrating in favour of their recovery of Malvinas-Falklands MOTe Britain's racist immigraton law ine Islanders no longer even have. the right to move to Britain.
The islanders are vic100 -perialism. The will Dencill. above all. trom a worldwide movement that can force the British fleet to turn back.
OK, I agree that it's absurd that the British imwould be fighting anywhere for self-determination. Look at their occupation of Northern Ireland! But, then, WAGL are tney fighting for?
Like John Reed said: specificY®" Can't MOre Sure. Oil, for Some estimates have said the the waters around the Malvinas could rival the rich deposits. According to the Christian Science Monitor of 6 April, 'Bernardo F MOSI Arco are engaged exploratory Argentine for oil OTI the the quite fuss about the reserves unknown And US overcal officials are displaying humaniBut some US oil have Sovereignty over the islands also bears directly on ownership of the seabed, the Antarctic, and the vast potential wealth there.
Of course, profits are at stake in a broader sense well. concerns London and Washington — is that the masses of the colonial and semicolonial world are getting the idea that now is a good time to take back belongs them. They see the weakness of especially since was defeated in Vietnam. That is what Reagan is running up against in Central America today.
Okay, I see what London and are up to. But your posi tion still makes me uncomfortable. How can workers support the bloodsoaked military dictatorship In Buenos Aires? Aren't they the immediate enemy?
It is not a question of the military dictatorship. To support struggle against British imthe A Call. workers al c giving political support lo the they justifiably detest. Their goal Is to bring down ine generals, and they correctly see a deteat tor Britain as a step forward toward that objective.
Class-conscious Argentine workers are the most resolute in the fight the But they don't count on the military government lead an uncompromising struthe last thing te.
thing generals want is to mobilise ine working pec ple in the kind of struggle it will take to deteat Bri tain. In fact, the government's occupation of the Malvinas was timed to curb the mass struggle and ly shaky rule But the regime's motives and intentions are not at issue. A conflict is way between imperialism and a country oppressed by imperialism. In this conflict the workers have a decisive interest.
The struggle of the workers and farmers government is m separalo from the struggle against imperialism. It is part of it. The Argentine workers and peasants. in order to bring to power a government that defends their interests, have to fight free their country from imperialist domination victory for Britain would increase the subjugation of Argentina to exploitation and oppression by foreign capital. The workers and armers wil suricl On the other hand, if Britain fails in its efforts to bring knees, working people there will be in a better position to carry forward the fight against the military dictatorship and