Tibet vs Iraq: good and bad occupations?
Posted on Sunday 31 January, 2010
Filed Under Industrial relations
IT MUST take a considerable degree of doublethink simultaneously to oppose the US-led occupation of Iraq and support the Chinese occupation of Tibet. That doesn’t stop some on the left giving it a go, of course.
The idea of a right to self-determination is common coinage for liberals and socialists alike. If Iraq deserves that privilege – and I think that it does – then Tibet surely merits it as well.
After all, it was Karl Marx himself who suggested that ‘a nation that oppresses another will never itself be free’, and the force of that observation is not diminished simply because the oppressor nation makes some sort of claim to adhere to socialism.
The business of the left is to oppose all occupations, and if we are to be consistent, that stance should not be conditional on who is doing the occupying.
I have been thinking about this question as a result of reading programme here in Hong Kong, which over the last couple of weeks had taken in many aspects of China’s politics. A number of books have left me yet clearer than I was before that the country can be characterised as imperialist, at least in the pre-Leninist usage of the term.
The Tibetans are clearly distinct in religious, linguistic and ethnic terms, and Tibet must be classified as a nation on any standard theoretical basis. Any argument that it has been ‘part of China’ for centuries is patently historical nonsense. In short, China shouldn’t be there.
Beijing – and therefore its fellow travellers – make much of the notion that Tibet was for centuries nominally a tributary state. But then so was the Vatican, as far as Han supremacists are concerned. The designation is effectively meaningless.
Nor can too much store be set by the 1950 ‘liberation’ of Tibet by Maoist armed forces. This was simply a de facto handover of an independent country to foreign rule by Quisling elements in the ruling theocracy over the heads of the population.
China has since then systematically exploited Tibet’s natural resources, and has resettled Han Chinese colonists there to the point where Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland.
Yet the literature – even the most anti-communist of it – concedes that Chinese rule has meant social advance, most notably the eradication of serfdom and extensive land reform.
An argument can be constructed that the occupation has been historically progressive, in the sense that Marx used the term to apply to British imperialism in India. While Marx was absolutely clear that this contention should not be adduced to justify continuing British presence, the impact is worthy of dispassionate note.
Yes, I know. The catchphrase ‘but it was historically progressive, comrade’ long formed a favourite construct in the lexicon of apologists for Stalinism. Seemingly there was nothing that the USSR did that could not somehow be excused with reference to the notion. Heaven help those who got in the way.
Which brings me back to Iraq. I don’t resile from the idea that the invasion was wrong, and still want to see withdrawal in short order.
But is it entirely heretical to suggest that in the long-run, the overthrow of a wicked dictatorship and the re-emergence of a legal political left and an organised working class will prove to have been, well, historically progressive, comrade?
<<Go back
Comments
84 Responses to “Tibet vs Iraq: good and bad occupations?”
In all this talk about nations having the right to self-determination, why does no one ever start with the Cherokee or the Lakota Sioux? It looks to me like they’ve had a much rougher time of it than the Tibetans have had.
Tibetan independence would be a fantastic way for the Americans to pick up another strategically important piece of central Asia on the cheap – it seems only fair that they return the favour by allowing the Chinese to create a client state in Oklahoma.
Just published: AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A FORMER COMMUNIST
Please share this link with those who might be interested.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/mybook2.html
P.S. The book is waiting for a reviewer
“The business of the left is to oppose all occupations”
Really? To oppose the liberation of Iraq from a fascistic dictatorship because it is ipso facto an imperialist act of occupation?
I never thought that the last bastion of strict nationalism would be on the left.
“Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland”
Surely you mean, as you pointed out a while back in the British context, “further mass immigration obviously has the potential to rejuvenate the population” !
Surely the Tibetans are going to need plenty of Chinese to improve their economy, add a welcome diversity of cuisine (non-stop tsampa gets pretty dull), and to pay their pension and medical bills ?
Excellent post.
I am sure that those apologists for China’s occupation of Tibet will be foaming at the mouth, and they are sure to advance any number of specious arguments, but it’s worthwhile considering the materialistic aspect of the occupation.
A common argument when Western countries invade or coerce other nations is that they do it for material purposes, for exploitation, for their own benefit, etc and it is a very good argument.
Yet when the apologists of Beijing’s occupation of Tibet come to examine it, they consciously ignore the fact that the Tibetan countryside has been raped and mined for raw materials.
Tibet contains a number of specialist raw materials only found there, that is excluding the water resources, etc
So the material question, who benefits from China’s occupation of Tibet ? Rarely gets asked and certainly never gets answered, by those willing to excuse the occupation.
And the reason for that is fairly obvious because it leads to only one inescapable conclusion, those who benefit from the occupation are China’s ruling classes and their allies.
“Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland”
Why is it on the question of Tibet that so many faux-socialists end up sounding like Nick Griffin?
Modernity,
George Orwell had that mentality figured out nearly 60 years ago in his Notes on Nationalism.
“But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British.”
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html
To answer Laban and Simon, there’s one rather simple way of distinguishing economic migration from occupation: do the people coming in get the best or the worst jobs?
And to rewrite Dave’s opening line: It must take a considerable degree of doublethink simultaneously to oppose the Chinese occupation of Tibet and to support Israel. That doesn’t stop modernity giving it a go, of course.
This has turned into a web of “but what about [whatever]“.
I’m of the opinion that national sovereignty is important in a world of nations. Being an internationalist doesn’t mean allowing one nation to occupy another.
This is a very tentative opinion of mine- I can see the argument that undeveloped despotisms may need help to develop, but I don’t think history supports that narrative. Occupying countries with “civilising missions” have always gone about developing countries in a direction that serves them- rearranging whole economies towards a single product useful to the first world for instance- leading to underdevelopment in the long run.
Occupations are – in principle – neithr good nor bad. It all depends on who’s doing it, and why. International/Un law shouldn’t constarin socialists. Foe intance the “Western” invasion of the former Yugoslavia in defence of the Muslims there, was probably “illegal” in terms of international (UN) law: few (except pro-Milosevic nutters) would now deny that the ‘West”s intervention was 100 per cent good.
Similarly, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
stopped a humanitarian distater of genocidal proportions: it was probably “illegal” in UN terms: so what? We on the left have our own criteria for judging these matters. It’s all very well for the “Stop The War Coalition” to chunter on about “legality”: socialists operate by different rules: what is in the interest of the working class.
A fair point from Jim D re the leftist attitude towards legality.
The issue here though, is the connivance involved in getting Goldsmith to declare the invasion ‘legal’ in the face of expert civil service advice to the contrary, where Parliament and the military would not approve the invasion without the legal stamp of approval.
I seem to remember that forcible absorption of Northern Ireland into the Republic was once thought very progressive,despite the doubts of the Communist Official IRA and lots of British lefties who stopped going to meetings.As a “pro Milosevic nutter” I can’t see how the bombing of cities to split up a ramshackle socialist republic where nationalism was suppressed was such a good idea.Nor do I think getting rid of President Najibullah by dishing out Stinger missiles to mojahadeen was too clever.A lot of these liberations of oppressed nationalities were direct attacks on socialist or secular federations in favour of religious nutters ( and I include in that the Irish Catholic Church which was suppressing evidence of child abuse and the abuse of Magdalens ).
chjh – Dave was talking about the Tibetans becoming a minority, not who got what jobs. Apparently that’s bad for the Tibetans, but good for the English.
(In the UK context many of the natives don’t get a job at all, of course – but that’s another story)
“a ramshackle socialist republic where nationalism was suppressed”
I’m sorry – you mean Yugoslavia???
The man who runs Tibet is not, unsurprisingly, a Tibetan.
He is an appointee from Beijing, the Party Secretary and he is kept in power by a massive security apparatus.
Any dissent is dealt with swiftly, Tibetans are readily brutalised by the security services, thrown in jail on almost any excuse, etc etc
The last Confederate general to surrender McGazz was a Cherokee Indian by the name of Stand Watie. The Cherokee were slave owners and tended to side with the South. Anyway, they are pretty well integrated so independence is not on their cards.
If it ever becomes an issue then sure let’s cheer ‘em on. Anything to weaken the USA and globalised capitalism. For that reason we sided with Yugoslavia in 1999. If it is good for the man it is bad for us and vice versa.
Although, try telling that to some bovine Trots.
Laban is right, of course.
If immigrants with enough raw armed power added to the weight of their numbers succeed in becoming a majority in the territory into which they have immigrated, they have won the game and the losers, if there are any survivors, end up as second-class citizens.
The U.S.A., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Chile and Uruguay are white-ruled, Singapore is Chinese-ruled, Anatolia is Turkish-ruled.
If the immigrants are not numerous enough, they lose the game; Rhodesia, South Africa and Algeria have been abandoned – or are in the process of being abandoned – by those who ruled them two generations ago.
If the Palestinian leadership was really serious about winning a real victory a generation or two generations from now, they would accede to every Israeli demand and imposition and simply do everything possible to encourage and subsidise the Arab-Israeli birthrate, already disproportionately large in relation to the Jewish population of Israel.
One look at the map immediatley brings one glaring difference to light!
“The business of the left is to oppose all occupations”
Really? To oppose the liberation of Iraq from a fascistic dictatorship because it is ipso facto an imperialist act of occupation?” (parasite).
**********
Great stuff. I didn’t know that Peaches Geldof also wrote such comment to centre-left blogs.
Worra girl. There must be a CLP just crying out for her? An Inquiry? Text Chilcot now.
Slightly off thread but I think relevant. I was thinking about the US Army in Haiti and how they are helping with the clearing up. The SWP are hysterically claiming that this is occupation by stealth. (Reminds me of the WRP’s claims back in the 70s of concentration camps set up on the Isle of Wight etc)I yield to no-one in my distrust of the Yanks, but quite honestly, who else is going to do the heavy civil engineering work that is going to be needed? Who else is going to provide the man-power necessary? The UN is a ‘long streak of piss’ (as my father would say), so someone has to do it. Bill Corr’s suggestion for the Palestinians is interesting as always. Except, I have long thought that a lot of it is about extorting money from the International Community, and to appear to peacefully integrate would remove that source of revenue. Except that perhaps they could ask for setting up costs.
Dave,
“But is it entirely heretical to suggest that in the long-run, the overthrow of a wicked dictatorship and the re-emergence of a legal political left and an organised working class will prove to have been, well, historically progressive, comrade?”
Excuse me? Any actual evidence that the Shia islamist government perched atop militia domination in the localities in Iraq actually permits the left and independent trade unions to function and build themselves by the means “normal” in – to take a comparator not from the “advanced countries” – Latin America?
The question for socialists is do we line up with our own ruling classes in support of these occupations or not?
We should fight independently on a class based solution, as Jim Denham indicated (I can’t believe I just said that!). The problem with Denham’s position is he says we should support anything that is in the ‘interest’ of the working class which judging by his views on these topics must mean that he believes that we can rely on the ruling classes to act in the workers interests. His quote on Yugoslavia: “the “Western” invasion of the former Yugoslavia in defence of the Muslims there” shows that this cretin believes anything the ruling class tell him, shall we say a rather strange position for a revolutionary Marxist to take!
I think nationalism, though a glaring reality in our world is ultimately a negation of socialism. We should always bear in mind however that occupations are made in the name of nationalism, too often this is forgotten and only the struggle against occupations are considered nationalist. As socialists we should not be arguing that occupations are neither good nor bad, we should argue they are bad and that we want a world where cooperation replaces competition, we should be saying that socialism will begin to a build a world where occupations become a relic of the past. We should see occupations/wars etc as a problem inherent in class societies.
We should point out that the imperialist powers want to divide the world into smaller nations when it suits their interests; Kuwait is a prime example of this where key resources have been made the preserve of a small elite and deprived of a large number of people. Therefore we shouldn’t be too fixated on nationalist struggles as this can divert us from the real battle. We should recognise that aligning ourselves with the imperialist powers does nothing more than re enforce this system of divide and rule.
Our job is to unite the proletariat from around the world but I cannot see how this can be done by supporting these brutal occupations, anymore than it can be done by supporting the regimes that oppress them.
But we should never forget that we are oppressed also, or do the Jim Denham’s of this world no longer think we are?
Also Interesting to note is how the apologists for imperialism on the left think nothing of slagging off the United Nations but call anyone criticising the EU reactionary.
and nobody talks about the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara
Entdinglichung is right to mention an issue of which we are dimly aware a fraction of 1% of the time.
Every so often the issue surfaces very briefly; the Moroccans have treated the UN with as much contempt as have the Israelis, but the cause of Western Sahara is as unknown as the cause of West Papua or – until recently – the cause of Eastern Turkestan.
Oddly enough, Western Sahara was in the news quite recently – a female militant went on hunger strike over the issue of her passport – it was on PRESS-TV.
Western Sahara is, or was, recognised by quite a galaxy of countries like India – NOT just Algeria.
Here is one grouping of the unrecognised:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization
This is as good an entry point as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Foreign_recognition
Sadly, if, hypothetically, Western Sahara wherever to be claimed by China, then I’m sure we’ll hear any number of questionable arguments, along the lines of “Western Sahara…has always been…part of….China” and not a moment’s irony heard!
Of course, population replacement can take more than one form.
This is from an ungoodthinkful source about Malmo:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/entry/sweden_again_posted_by_david
In part, Modernity is right.
Once the Sultans of Morocco ruled a much larger area than is ruled from Rabat now.
“In part, Modernity is right.”
Bill, stop it you’ll make him blush.
Mike McNair wrote:
“But is it entirely heretical to suggest that in the long-run, the overthrow of a wicked dictatorship and the re-emergence of a legal political left and an organised working class will prove to have been, well, historically progressive, comrade?”
Excuse me? Any actual evidence that the Shia islamist government perched atop militia domination in the localities in Iraq actually permits the left and independent trade unions to function and build themselves by the means “normal” in – to take a comparator not from the “advanced countries” – Latin America?
Dave of course can speak for himself. But you’ve missed the point I took him to be making – not that things *have* turned out rosily in Iraq, but that potential progress is measured differently by many on the left for Western imperialist and Stalinist states.
For instance, you certainly could make the case that Thatcher’s war on Argentina had a progressive outcome, measured by, say, the existence of a legal left and trade unions, elections, the fall of a wicked dictatorship, and what have you. Opposition to Thatcher’s war would not preclude you from assessing these things to be possible outcomes of it. And if you had – in that case correctly – postulated these as possible outcomes, you might get a bit irritated by others on the left declaring you a pro-imperialist.
You can assess putative or retrospective positive (‘progressive’) outcomes without thereby losing your political orientation – opposition to capitalist governments.
“You can assess putative or retrospective positive (‘progressive’) outcomes without thereby losing your political orientation – opposition to capitalist governments.”
Comrade Clive (as ever) makes the point I’ve been trying to make, but(he’s) much more snappily and persuasively. But then he is (like Dave) a professional writer…
Sorry to ruin your wish fulfilment Mr Corr but it’s Zimbabwe now. Sue R – fascinating insight into the Palestinians – nothing to complain about clearly, so they could only be in it to tap others up.
Sue R – you say:
(i)The SWP are hysterically claiming that this is occupation by stealth.
Is there any way they could be claiming this non-hysterically?
(ii)I yield to no-one in my distrust of the Yanks,
Obviously you do.
(iii)but quite honestly
Hmmm.
(iv) who else is going to do the heavy civil engineering work that is going to be needed?
Haitians?
(v) Who else is going to provide the man-power necessary?
Haitians?
Shame that Dave hasn’t managed to provoke any Stalinist hypocrites into defending the Chinese occupation, which I assume was the intended purpose of the post.
Taking on the last point about Iraq:
But is it entirely heretical to suggest that in the long-run, the overthrow of a wicked dictatorship and the re-emergence of a legal political left and an organised working class will prove to have been, well, historically progressive, comrade?
The jury’s still out on whether what has replaced Saddam is better. A legal political left and an organised working class sound like historically progressive things, but the reliance on outsiders to right things doesn’t seem like a step on the road to self-emancipation.
I think it’s not only Stalinists who defend the Beijing dictatorship, but a few misguided socialists, who probably learnt their politics 20+ years ago and have forgotten the essence:
Additionally, I very much doubt that anyone would have the competence, or confidence, to defend the Beijing dictatorships’ long list of crimes, as abrogation of facts is a requirement for anyone who wishes to sanitise their invasion, occupation and brutal rule of Tibet.
It is not that they don’t believe it, but they know, in their heart of hearts, what a dodgy set of arguments they would have to bring forward to defend the Chinese ruling classes’s activities.
I think part of the problem, is a sort of Kissingeresque type of geopolitics, which excuses, or seeks to excuse almost any country, group, nation etc as long as they display a certain anti-Westernism, all is forgiven or certainly forgotten.
It is a rather perverse mentality, but more likely a consequence of the decline of the Left in Britain and the growth of Third Worldism as an auxiliaries set of ideas which filter across traditional political boundaries.
There is no Western government to my knowledge that supports an independent Tibet. Even when the US gave (limited) support to an armed insurgency against the Chinese occupation in the 1960s it was only to be a nuisance to the PRC. Western leftists who support the Tibet as China are not ‘leftier than thou’ – they are entirely onside with mainstream foreign policy thinking.
In the long stretch of history it is difficult to be politically consistent about occupations. What political conclusions can you actually draw in the 21st century from being ‘against’ the Roman occupation of Britain beyond sympathy for the suffering involved?
Morality wrote:
“Additionally, I very much doubt that anyone would have the competence, or confidence, to defend the Beijing dictatorships’ long list of crimes, as abrogation of facts is a requirement for anyone who wishes to sanitise their invasion, occupation and brutal rule of Tibet.
It is not that they don’t believe it, but they know, in their heart of hearts, what a dodgy set of arguments they would have to bring forward to defend the Chinese ruling classes’s activities.”
Yeah, that’s right, Morality, they don’t even have the ability to support a corrupt regime in bad faith, do they? Stalinists just aren’t what they used to be.
skidmarx. Most Stalinists are dead or have one foot in the grave. Thankfully.
Algeria and Rhodesia were abandoned by all but a tiny handful of Europeans years ago. South Africa is in the still-early stages of falling to bits.
Wish fulfilment about Rhodesia, Doug?
Far from it; anyone could recognise that the place was heading down the drain the moment majority rule was established, whether under the nice moderate Joshua Nkomo [remember him giggling on TV about the Victoria Falls airliner massacre?] or Robert ["I have degrees in violence"] Mugabe.
Sure, thanks to plentiful foreign aid from sapheads like the Canadians and Scandinavians and the effect of what is crudely known as living-on-capital-until-it-runs-out, apparent normality was maintained for a while, although those on the spot noticed that roads and pavements weren’t being repaired, that routine maintenance was being skimped and that pilferage was increasing daily, but it took a few years for the place to REALLY start sliding down the toilet.
No decent Guardianista foresaw the Zimbabwe Central Bank issuing worthless banknotes denominated in the billions at the same time that Grace Mugabe was on her Imelda Marcossian shopping sprees in Hong Kong.
The same process of decay and abandonment is visible in South Africa right now; the East Indians of Natal are very eager to acquire Australian passports, the younger Jews are well aware that there is no future for them in South Africa and are departing in droves.
The rich, like Sir Mark Thatcher, live on gated compounds with armed guards around the clock.
As for Algeria, there is simply nothing good to be said; when I was first there, in 1973, the faded ALGERIE RESTERA FRANCAIS daubs painted by OAS sympathisers – as most pieds noirs were before the exodus of 1962 – were faded but still visible, yet as poignantly meaningless as a faded ARMS FOR SPAIN on a Manchester factory wall.
Even then, a mere 11 years after De Gaulle recognised the inevitability of the inevitable, the notion that Algeria could have retained its French Connection seemed as absurd as continued British rule over the 13 American Colonies.
• There’s a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.
Denham said,
“Comrade Clive (as ever) makes the point I’ve been trying to make, but(he’s) much more snappily and persuasively. But then he is (like Dave) a professional writer…”
But Clive, Denham has been retrospectively saying that Iraq has been a roaring success even with the evidence starkly contradicting this position. His site was full of feel good stories about the new Iraq. This is why he should be considered an imperialist apologist.
On the Falklands, so you judge this based on the idea that some trade union rights were won as a result of the dictatorship but what about the loss of the economic benefit of the Falklands to Argentina? What do we now say about that Clive?
Scratch a retrospective positive outcomes analyser and underneath invariably lies an imperialist apologist.
Johnno: so you judge this based on the idea that some trade union rights were won as a result of the dictatorship but what about the loss of the economic benefit of the Falklands to Argentina?
As to the first part, I was talking about trade union rights won as a result of the *end* of dictatorship, obviously.
As to “economic benefit of the Falklands to Argentina”. First, even assuming these were considerable, and therefore the loss considerable, ‘Argentina’ is not a classless category which accrues economic benefits.
And anyway, whatever the economic advantages to ‘Argentina’ they do not override the rights of peoples. (ie the Falklanders, who don’t wish to be part of Argentina).
And the Falklands weren’t ‘lost’ to Argentina anway – unless you mean two hundred years ago.
Clive,
Let us take a look at your original comment,
“For instance, you certainly could make the case that Thatcher’s war on Argentina had a progressive outcome, measured by, say, the existence of a legal left and trade unions, elections, the fall of a wicked dictatorship, and what have you. Opposition to Thatcher’s war would not preclude you from assessing these things to be possible outcomes of it. And if you had – in that case correctly – postulated these as possible outcomes, you might get a bit irritated by others on the left declaring you a pro-imperialist.”
Here you portray your position as being in opposition to Thatcher and all you were doing was being a good academic by pointing out all the possible outcomes. Therefore any hints at imperialist apology were ‘irritating’.
Now your latest comment says the following,
“And anyway, whatever the economic advantages to ‘Argentina’ they do not override the rights of peoples.”
“And the Falklands weren’t ‘lost’ to Argentina anway – unless you mean two hundred years ago.”
So now you appear as the fully fledged imperialist apologist!
“Scratch a retrospective positive outcomes analyser and underneath invariably lies an imperialist apologist.” has never been truer it seems in your case.
“‘Argentina’ is not a classless category which accrues economic benefits”
And neither is Great Britain.
“And anyway, whatever the economic advantages to ‘Argentina’ they do not override the rights of peoples.”
You claimed the Falkland war had ‘progressive’ outcomes, you said nothing about ‘rights’ of the Islanders.
So on your original basis what is your view of the Falklands situation today in the light of the progressive forces at work in Argentina compared with the leap to reaction taking place in the UK? (I only ask this question to highlight the fallacy of your original logic.)
Do the ‘rights’ of the Islanders allow the British capitalists to exploit every last drop of economic benefit from it. Are ‘rights of peoples’ the new basis on which bourgeois society rests?
My second post is responding to your specific points. I didn’t say anything about the rights of the islanders because it wasn’t what I was talking about it in a brief post.
The rights of nations are not about economic advantages but democratic freedom. No economic advantage to Argentina would justify the suppression of the rights of the Falklanders (by a military dictatorship, moreover). The Falklanders have the right not to be ruled by Argentina.
That doesn’t/didn’t justify Thatcher’s war. I am not ‘apologising’ for Thatcher’s war. But it should certainly have been part of the argument of socialists and democrats in Argentina that nothing was to be gained by invading and conquering the Falklands. And it was, with the best of them. (See, for instance, ‘The Malvinas and the end of military rule’ by Dabat and Lorenzno. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Argentina-Malvinas-End-Military-Rule/dp/0860910857/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265123224&sr=8-11)
The assessments I was referring to about ‘progressive’ outcomes weren’t about the islanders. It is certainly true that the effects of military defeat on Argentina included many progressive results. Again, to say this doesn’t require you retrospectively to support Thatcher’s war.
But ‘scratch’ an ‘anti-imperialist’ and you find just some kind of nationalist – in your case, evidently, someone who thinks it’s perfectly reasonable for military dictatorships to subject foreign people to their rule, justifying it, apparently, in the name of ‘economic advantage’. Go and read some Lenin.
Clive,
“The Falklanders have the right not to be ruled by Argentina…….That doesn’t/didn’t justify Thatcher’s war”
Please explain why this is and then explain what the UK should have done to ‘protect’ the peoples of the Falklands from military dictatorship.
“someone who thinks it’s perfectly reasonable for military dictatorships to subject foreign people to their rule”
Every Argentinean government, reactionary or otherwise has sought to claim the Falklands. This isn’t in order to subjugate ‘free peoples’ but because the Falklands are an Island off Argentina’s coast. This is a popular policy in Argentina because the ownership of the Falkland’s by the UK is an affront to their national dignity. And of course they want to appropriate the economic benefits.
My opinion is that we should be in negotiations with Argentina to hand it over, with certain guarantees to the people living there.
So you are just a vicarious Argentinian nationalist, then. I’m not interested in what ‘every Argentine government reactionary or otherwise’ (who wasn’t reactionary? Peronists?) thinks about it, and the fact that the islands are ‘off Argentna’s coast’ has absolutely no bearing on anything from a socialist point of view.
That you ask me what ‘the UK’ should have done only shows the whole framework of your approach. I’m not in the business of advising Conservative governments how to negotiate with mlitary dictatorships.
What *internationalist socialists* should have done was try to find ways to make links with internationalists in Argentina. The answer to the problem was for the working class movements of Britain and Argentina to join up and oppose both their governments.
“What *internationalist socialists* should have done was try to find ways to make links with internationalists in Argentina.”
Impossible to create these conditions while ever the Falklands remains British. You are pissing in the wind. The right of national self determination was a cornerstone of the ‘International’ as Marx believed it was necessary to undermine both Great Britain and Russia.
Your approach explains your imperialist apology and is therefore at least to my mind excusable. I just think you are wrong.
I promise to leave this here, and let you have the last word if you want. But firstly, there were, actually, internationalists in Argentina who opposed ‘their own’ side, and who thought/think that the demand for ‘repossession’ of the ‘Malvinas’ is just nationalist demagogy; I think they’re right.
Second, I also think self-determination is a crucial policy – but it needs to be rescued from the mish-mash confusion about it, which could, for instance, equate a desperate gamble by a military dictatorship with somehow exercising that right – which is how much of the left saw it at the time – rather than denying it to somebody else.
We should leave it as we will never agree. If you are advocating a policy of ‘self determination’ then the Falklands would seem like a pretty cut and dried case, considering the geography. The demand should at least be the peoples of the UK and Argentina share in the economic benefits of the Falklands.
My problem with your “find ways to make links with Argentinean internationalists” is that it is such a futile vague gesture. On the point of war would seem like the worst time to try and build internationalism to me. A broad policy of builiding international working class solidarity is of course a duty of socialists but doing it as a reaction to a war over territory is wrong in my opinion.