(The following editorial by Daniel Bensaid appeared in the May 3 issue of Inprecor, a French-language fortnightly published in Paris. The translation is by Intercontinental Press.]
Taking a roundabout route, the British fleet is "making haste slowly" toward the Malvinas. and diplomatic solutions remain at an impasse.
On Sunday. April 25, the British landed on South Georgia Island, about 1,500 kilometers east of the Malvinas. This was a limited-risk operation to save face and relaunch negotiations. But a slide toward escalation cannot be excluded.
Without going into the various factors that pushed Argentina's General Galtieri into this operation, it remains true that in the conflict between Argentina and Britain, there is no place for neutrality. Those who would like to place equal blame on the Buenos Aires military murderers and on Margaret Thatcher — still stained with the blood of the Irish martyrs - would also like to view the people of the Malvinas as the embryo of a nationality and escape the dilemma by calling for autonomy or self-determination.
But it is very difficult to demonstrate the existence of a Malvinas nationality made up of a small number of old colonial settlers dropped off on an island group. The one certainty in this affair is that the British presence in the South Atlantic is the direct heritage of its imperialist presence. The real owner of the islands is a corporation, Coalite Ltd., which took control in 1978 when oil was discovered in the surrounding waters.
In short, the question of the Malvinas must be considered above all from the vantage point of its international significance: The islands are an outpost of British imperialism, tied to both economic interests (oil) and geostrategic interests (control of the passage around Cape Horn).
In addition, we cannot forget that Argentina remains a dependent country, which has a long history of conflicts with British imperialism. In all oppressed, subordinate, or dependent countries, two questions are combined: the national question against imperialism, and the class conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie.
Even partial success for the Argentine government against Britain will not consolidate that regime. It would be totally incorrect to get bogged down in misleading impressions of the initial scenes of "national unity" in Argentina. If General Galtieri wants to come out on top against Britain in an armed conflict, his only alternative is to exploit, in his own manner, the anti-imperialist sentiment of the Argentine masses.
It is perfectly correct for the working-class organizations that have always fought the dictatorship to oppose the British intervention, without however dropping their demands against the dictatorship or falling into "national unity." During the Mexican revolution, when the Americans occupied Veracruz in 1914, Venustiano Carranza and the revolutionaries condemned the invasion without reservation, but refused to grant the slightest truce to the counterrevolutionary Huerta.
Today, the European press hypocritically reproaches victims of the Argentine dictatorship like Miguel Angel Estrella or the Nobel Peace Prize winner Pérez Esquivel for having been "reconciled" with their torturers.'
But these figures have expressed in the clearest possible way that their opposition to British intervention does not involve any reconciliation or any truce with the junta. This is also the position of the Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez, when he points out that the demonstrations by the "Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo" will continue as before, "with or
"2 The "mothers" have without the Malvinas.
already declared their position by demonstrating as they have each week for five years, but this time with the slogan: "The Malvinas are Argentine, and so are the 'disappeared"'"
As the dangers of confrontation between Argentina and Britain have increased, the international positions taken on the question speak volumes.
Only a few weeks ago, the Argentine army was preparing to intervene openly in El Salvador. In the meanwhile, it landed in the Malvinas. Those who were behind the scenes encouraging Argentine intervention in El Salvador now indignantly condemn the landing in the Malvinas. Those who condemned the agression against El Salvador, today defend Argentina's rights against British imperialism — beginning with the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) of El Salvador and the government of Nicaragua. The latter im-
Thatcher and Haig - imperialist allies.
mediately issued a communiqué making known its "backing to the government of the Argentine Republic in this dispute." Clearly, the near-unanimous position of the Organization of American States (OAS) — with the sole exceptions of Colombia and the U.S. — in favor of Argentina, can only complicate any future attempts at intervention in El Salvador.
On the other hand, all the imperialist powers, starting with those of the European Community, have staunchly lined up with the interests of British imperialism. Taking hypocrisy to its extreme, they are quick to picture the Royal Navy's expedition as a crusade of democracy against dictatorship, as civilization against barbarism.
But their noses were less sensitive and their democratic sentiments less developed when Margaret Thatcher let ten Irish hunger strikers die. We should make a point of reminding those with short memories that several days before the Malvinas affair, Britain was still delivering arms to Argentina - as was the French Social Democratic government — without looking too closely to see if those arms would be used against the people of El Salvador.?
U.S. imperialism, deploring the dispute between two states it considers "friends," offered to act as a mediator. But as time passed and the underlying situation came to light, U.S. imperialism showed that some friends always count for more than others. The U.S. voted to condemn Argentina in the United Nations; it refused to support Argentina at the OAS assembly; and, in line with its agreements with Britain, it provided supplies for the British fleet.
Revolutionary militants in Argentina, while opposing the British aggression, have not stopped struggling to overthrow the dictatorship.
The task of revolutionaries and anti-imperialists in the rest of the world, on the other hand, is to oppose the British intervention and the economic sanctions imposed against Argentina.
3. "Ten days before the invasion of the Malvinas. the British minister of defense again agreed to the delivery of spare parts for the Argentine navy" (Le Monde, April 24).
Notes
1. Pianist Miguel Angel Estrella had to ask the newspaper Le Monde to publish a statement reestablishing his true remarks.
2. Colombian writer Gabriel García Marquez is best known as the author of One Hundred Years of Solitude. Autumn of the Patriarch, and Chronicle of an Announced Death. Facing death threats from farrightist squads in his country, he lives in exile and carries out important anti-imperialist activities. [The "Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo" carry out weekly demonstrations outside the presidential palace in Buenos Aires to demand that the government clarify the fate of their "disappeared" children. - IP]