She needed something of a spectacular to kneejerk her political future and this was to be provided by the equally troubled Argentinian President, Leopoldo Galtieri, who was also in the realms of perdition himself. Both these far-right leaders shared much political ideologies, hatred of trade unions or any working-class resistance to the bosses, hatred of democracy and an entrenched detestation of socialism. They were both also fond of getting their own way. Galtieri could get away with much Thatcher wished she could do simply because Argentina did not have the checks and balances afforded the parliamentary politics in Britain.
Thatcher’s real position, had she been able to get away with it, was highlighted when in 1990 she was booted out of office! What she would have given for the Argentine dictator’s powers at that time can only be guessed. In 1982 Galtieri ordered Argentine troops to land on the “Malvinas” with a view to taking them back for Argentina. He needed something big to draw attention away from himself and his abysmal political record in Buenos Aires and the torture of trade unionists and other opposition parties and individuals. Wives and mothers wanted to know where their husbands and sons had disappeared to? The blood-letting brought about by both these neo-fascist leaders could and should have been avoided. On 2nd April 1982 Operation Rosario, the Argentine landings on the islands, began.
For several weeks a Royal Naval presence was in the South Atlantic in the form of HMS Endurance, an ice breaking vessel which had been sending urgent messages back to London regarding Argentinian troop activity on and around the island of South Georgia. This, the vessel advised, was in all probability the prelude to something much bigger, which it was. Argentina’s army landed on the “Malvinas” proper on 2nd April 1982. Had the warnings from the Icebreaker been heeded Thatcher could, if she so wished, have garrisoned the islands which would no doubt have been sufficient to deter the Argentine conscripts. She did not do this, even though the presence of natural resources (chiefly oil) was known to be lying in the surrounding coastal waters, because she needed blood and guts to be spilled on the beaches and streets of Port Stanley.
For several weeks a Royal Naval presence was in the South Atlantic in the form of HMS Endurance, an ice breaking vessel which had been sending urgent messages back to London regarding Argentinian troop activity on and around the island of South Georgia. This, the vessel advised, was in all probability the prelude to something much bigger, which it was. Argentina’s army landed on the “Malvinas” proper on 2nd April 1982. Had the warnings from the Icebreaker been heeded Thatcher could, if she so wished, have garrisoned the islands which would no doubt have been sufficient to deter the Argentine conscripts. She did not do this, even though the presence of natural resources (chiefly oil) was known to be lying in the surrounding coastal waters, because she needed blood and guts to be spilled on the beaches and streets of Port Stanley.
At the time in Britain Thatcher was having problems with the train driver’s union, ASLEF, who were out on strike. Anti-Thatcher demonstrations were common and what better way to deflect attention from herself than by giving people the old ‘national pride’ to get drunk on. Wrap the union flag around yourselves was the message from the Conservative and Unionist prime Minister. In Buenos Aires anti-government feelings were high and demonstrations, those the government could not shoot off the streets, took place. Both these leaders were in shit street and what better way out, at least for one of them, than the oldest con-trick in the book, nationalism and national pride!
Britain has claimed sovereignty over the islands since in 1833 basing this claim on the landing in 1690 of Captain John Strong. Throughout the 18th century Britain garrisoned the islands for the British Monarch and since 1833 have claimed sovereignty. Previously in 1765 they established their first settlement and claimed the archipelago. When in 1774 due to economic pressure Britain withdrew its garrison the departing troops left behind a plaque informing would be ‘usurpers’ the islands “remained the property of King George III”. Both countries have equally dubious claims on the islands and, more appropriately, the mineral wealth in the surrounding waters which is what it is really all about.
Britain has claimed sovereignty over the islands since in 1833 basing this claim on the landing in 1690 of Captain John Strong. Throughout the 18th century Britain garrisoned the islands for the British Monarch and since 1833 have claimed sovereignty. Previously in 1765 they established their first settlement and claimed the archipelago. When in 1774 due to economic pressure Britain withdrew its garrison the departing troops left behind a plaque informing would be ‘usurpers’ the islands “remained the property of King George III”. Both countries have equally dubious claims on the islands and, more appropriately, the mineral wealth in the surrounding waters which is what it is really all about.
Britain hides behind the fact the islanders wish to remain British, islanders nobody knew existed prior to 1982, and islanders who do not even get a vote in British elections. They are equal British citizens who, unlike other equal British citizens, do not get a vote in what little democracy exists. Argentina’s claim relies heavily on geographical location, 200 miles from Buenos Aires, 8,000 miles from London. They have a point: imagine if the Argentines claimed sovereignty over the Isle of Man? Both counties have equally dubious claims on these pieces of rock in the South Atlantic and both claims are smokescreens which their respective ruling-classes hide their real intentions behind. Prior to the first British settlement in 1765 the French had a small colony present so maybe they might yet kick a claim in once the level of natural resources, chiefly oil, have been fully discovered.
In 1982 Thatcher must have been rubbing her hands with glee when she ordered a ‘Task Force’ to be assembled to retake the islands from the ‘Argentine invaders’. The British forces were successful in their quest, the elite Para-troop regiment (who also murdered Irish civilians) and the SAS were pitted against Argentinian sixteen-year-old conscripts barely out of school. The total cost in Thatcher and Galtieri’s war was 904 - 255 British and 649 Argentinian - with 3 civilians losing their lives. Thatcher’s bloodbath did not persuade ASLEF to drop their claim and return to work but outside the sensible Ray Buckton, the union's General Secretary at the time, the gullible people of Britain wrapped the ‘Butchers Apron’ (Union Jack) around themselves and celebrated the deaths of so many young people needlessly apart from saving Thatcher. Longer term, of course, the oil was the target but in the short run Thatcher’s premiership was saved.
Today 44 years after the conflict Argentine President Javier Milei is making nationalistic noises again about sovereignty over the “Malvinas”. Oddly enough this so-called ‘Libertarian Conservative’ right-wing President is in a bit of trouble economically and politically. Typically he has resurrected the ghost of the “Malvinas” in an attempt to save his fortunes. British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has, it would appear, no such problems. President Milei has stated again “Falkland Islands are Argentinian” and at the recent World Cup semi-final Argentina, after defeating England 2-1, flew a provocative banner declaring “Las Malvinas sol Argentina”.
Today 44 years after the conflict Argentine President Javier Milei is making nationalistic noises again about sovereignty over the “Malvinas”. Oddly enough this so-called ‘Libertarian Conservative’ right-wing President is in a bit of trouble economically and politically. Typically he has resurrected the ghost of the “Malvinas” in an attempt to save his fortunes. British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has, it would appear, no such problems. President Milei has stated again “Falkland Islands are Argentinian” and at the recent World Cup semi-final Argentina, after defeating England 2-1, flew a provocative banner declaring “Las Malvinas sol Argentina”.
These claims come at a time when US president, Donald Trump, has shifted the USA position regarding their neutrality over the “Falkland Islands”. This changed position by Trump is seen by many as his vindictive revenge for Britain’s at best tepid support for his illegal war against Iran. Could Trump be privately encouraging Argentina to land troops on the islands in another effort to reclaim sovereignty so he can tell Britain to fuck off should they ask for US support? In the infantile mind of the US President this would massage his ego after former British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, refusing to support him against Iran. Should the Argentines land once again on the islands with tacit US agreement what would British PM, Andy Burnham’s, response be? The Argentine leader has not yet indicated such a landing but he has threatened “sanctions” against any companies exploiting the coastal waters off the archipelago for oil. These, he reportedly claims, are Argentine waters and any exploration by Britain would be an incursion into Argentine territory. As ‘international law’ no longer exists, courtesy of Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, and Zelensky, who’s is right and wrong is difficult to dictate even under the warped conditions of capitalism. Irrespective of any complications regarding sovereignty a joint British/Israeli operation to exploit the mineral wealth is planned to begin in 2028. President Milei has stated; “any further advances on the Malvinas Islands will be considered a violation of our national security”. Roughly translated what he is claiming is such an operation would be considered an act of war.
The resurrection of the Falklands/Malvinas question by Argentina on such a grand scale on the back of the changing position adopted by the USA is probably no coincidence. For decades the US have remained neutral on the competing claims of Argentina and Britain while de-facto recognising Britain’s administration of the islands. Trump has suggested he “would not back the UK in a fight over the Falklands” and pointed to the lack of support afforded him for his war on Iran. President Milei would be an easy ally for the US to control in the area and put bluntly the US bourgeoisie would go some distance in securing the as yet untapped oil wealth in the seas without firing a shot! Milei is by some distance Trump's closest ally in South America and encouraging him over the islands could well serve the US president's flagging ratings while giving him a puppet in the region.
The resurrection of the Falklands/Malvinas question by Argentina on such a grand scale on the back of the changing position adopted by the USA is probably no coincidence. For decades the US have remained neutral on the competing claims of Argentina and Britain while de-facto recognising Britain’s administration of the islands. Trump has suggested he “would not back the UK in a fight over the Falklands” and pointed to the lack of support afforded him for his war on Iran. President Milei would be an easy ally for the US to control in the area and put bluntly the US bourgeoisie would go some distance in securing the as yet untapped oil wealth in the seas without firing a shot! Milei is by some distance Trump's closest ally in South America and encouraging him over the islands could well serve the US president's flagging ratings while giving him a puppet in the region.
Various British administrations, with the exception of Harold Wilson in the 1960s, have licked the arse of the US since the Second World War and their response to that country’s change in policy towards the “Falkland Islands” will be interesting. Will Burnham, should an Argentine landing happen, follow in Thatcher’s footsteps? Will another bloodbath over a couple of pieces of rock whose inhabitants are mocked in many British pubs about having sexual relationships with ‘sheep’ take place? Will Argentine and British young lives be sacrificed for the oil wealth the riches of which will be benefited by a few greedy capitalists, irrespective of which country?
The situation in the South Atlantic will be worth monitoring but given the other global conflicts and bloodbaths occurring, Palestinian/Israeli, Russia/Ukraine, and US/Iran may at the moment not be considered paramount. This being the case it must be remembered the situation between Argentina and Britain is, and has been for centuries, volatile and could blow up any moment over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
No comments