Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
>I reserve to my own people the right to resort to
military means (or any other) to put an end to this abject era of
imperialist exaction and social crime that Argentina is passing
through since 1975 at least..
Fair enough. I am surprised, however, by your implication that you would
count among the exercises of this right the diktats of oppressive military
>1) Thatcher's use of the Argentinian war over the Malvinas (Falklands
is a wrong name, sorry, it is as if you explained a Palestinian that
Israel is the name of his/her own land) in 1982 and the duty of an
I am well aware of this, and my use of the name "Falklands" was never
intended to be a slur upon you or any other Argentinian member of the list.
Surely the tone of my previous contribution sufficiently communicated my
opposition to the official British line.
>If, as Tam Dalyell has shown, Thatcher prepared the war in order to
win her elections, the duty of a socialist or a progressive in
England would have been to support Argentina.
Supporting "Argentina" in this case would have been to support Galtieri and
his entourage. As a socialist/progressive/call it what you will, I, in
retrospect (being the tender age of 14 at the time) do not consider it my
duty to have done so. There were many who actively opposed the needless
slaughter of Argentinian conscripts by British forces under direct orders
from an administration eager for some "good copy". And much of the
information to which I referred became known only subsequently, making it
rather difficult to identify "duty" at the time. Nevertheless, the lack of
that information did not preclude active opposition to Thatcher's
>Had Thatcher lost the
war her carreer would have melt down.
That is very probable.
>But British Leftists (with
exceptions, some of which I am proud to be friend to) preferred to
hide their pro-imperialist soul by adducing that this war against the
sovereign rights of a Third World people was, in fact, a war against
"tyrant Galtieri". In so doing, they immediately ranked with the
Thatcher they said to defend.
That's a gross over-statement. There were many within Thatcher's own party,
administration even, who were very unhappy with the manner in which she
conducted the entire episode. Her foreign secretary, Francis Pym, for
example, spent much of his time trying to find a means to a negotiated
settlement and found himself frozen out of Thatcher's "Star Chamber" as a
result. And whatever the capitulations of the Labour Party leadership, there
were plenty of leftists who campaigned against a "military solution".
>For an imperialist "progressive" it is absolutely unimportant whether
the armies of a semicolonial country are aiming at their own
population or at the invading armies of the imperial powers. For a
true progressive, this "slight" difference is full of meaning. And it
certainly was full of meaning for us here in Argentina, who were tear
gassed on March 30th 1982 and were surprised to see that, by a chance
of History, the same regime adopted a progressive position on the
basic issue of sovereignty that marks the essence of being a Third
So opportunism had nothing to do with it then?
>I am convinced that many in the Western Powers will
"explain" away, with the shallowness of an empyricist sociologist
from Harvard or London, that we Argentinians were goaded into a
frenzy of nationalism by a decaying military regime, just as the
lower strata of their own countries saw themselves intoxicated with
(this time, yes) chauvinistic militarism. This is very logic, they
are taking care of the backs of the imperialists, they are "Her
Majesty's opposition". The problem, however, is that precisely
because they are members of an imperialist community they exert a
strong pressure on people in the countries under military and
economic attack from their own ruling classes. Cultural imperialism
is the name of this, and it is a basic weapon in the arsenal of Meggy
Bloodihands. Ah, the strange roads by which the Empires are built....
Well I guess that's me sorted out then. I had no idea I was such an
imperialist for not backing Galtieri.
For what they are worth, my views on the Malvinas are very simple. Geography
alone would suggest that they are a part of Argentina, and I would recognise
Argentinian sovereignty. I don't recognise the progressivism of opportunists
who employ nationalism as a means (unsuccessful in Galtieri's case) to
distract the oppressed from their oppression. And if you read my original
post you will find that I made that point squarely with regard to the
actions of Margaret Thatcher and her administration.
Thank you for your earlier post on Peron.