A victory for Thatcher but crisis continues
The British military victory in the Malvinas by no means brings to an end the conflict in the region. The Tory government must now decide on the future of the islands. It seems likely that they Fortress Falklands' policy. This, they hope, will give them the trump card in the inevitable negotiations that will fol-
The presence of a British garrison will signal a clear warning to the workers and peasants of Latin America that imperialism will not tolerate any encroachment of its right to exploit them. British imperialism is storing up future bloody conflicts in the South Atlantic that will make the Malvinas war look like
It is necessary to redouble our efforts against this imperialist aggression, and fight for the withdrawal of the British military presence from the South Atlantic. However, now is also a good time to assess the impact of this war on the
Undoubtedly the Tories' aggressive response to Argentina's just claim over the Malvinas has raised the stakes in the international class struggle. By going to war British imperialism its right to exploit vast areas of the underdeveloped world, and keep hold of not yet formally independent.
Yet the results of the war have been contradictory and, in some cases, laid bare incipient inter-imperialist rivalries. The US government was reluctant to back Britain because of the price it would pay in Latin America. Already Argentina, the principal actor in the US's counterrevolutionary project in Central America and the Caribbean, has withdrawn its military forces from the region, and even granted Nicaragua ten thousand tons of
The Rio Treaty, whose purpose was to block the spread of revolution in che American continent, is on the rocks, and there is no short term possibility of the US imperialists enticing other Latin American repressive regimes into intervention against El Salvador or Nicaragua.
The US government will try to make sure that it is part of any negotiations over the future of the Malvinas, with the aim of squeezing concessions from the Tory government. If Thatcher is completely intransigent then it will rebuilding of the counterrevolutionary alliances across the American continent immeasurably
This concern of US imperialism is not difficult to understand, and explains the friction between Secretary of State Haig, who saw the need to back Britain, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, their ambassador to the United Nations, who maintained the primacy of rolling back the Central American and Caribbean revolution. The for Argentina's involvement in these plans in the first place was the huge political price that Reagan would pay for any direct US military intervention in the
While Britain's war did serve to partially erode the effects of the Vietnam Syndrome, the US rulers are worried that the political price is still too high. But at the same time the class struggle in Central America shows no sign of ebbing back. Indeed every possibility exists of consolidation of the struggle in Guatemala and Honduras, posing the eruption of a regional revolutionary war.
While this consideration will eventually outweigh domestic considerations, US imperialism is still desperately trying to avoid having to send in something like the Rapid Deployment Force. Hence its desire to rebuild its alliances with the Latin American dictatorships.
The war also brought to the surface differences between the ruling classes in Western Europe. Market ministers initially voted for trade sanctions against Argentina, they did not backpedal on the continuing differences over Britain's Common Market contributions. As the conflict wore on the Italian parliament went on record in support of a ceasefire, the Irish government lifted sanctions against Argentina, and support from other governments became luke-
The military defeat for Argentina brought the inevitable fall of General Galtieri, quickly turned into a scapegoat for the defeat by his fellow officers. Following furious debates in the military hierarchy, his successor was named: General Reynaldo Bignone. seen as an interim administration, while a more permanent governmental solution is
Whatever the outcome, it is clear that the new government's main task will be to break up the self-organisation of the Argentine workers conceded by the junta in its attempt to 'unite' the nation behind the war effort. The workers' movement was quick to distinguish on the one hand its support for Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas and the war against British imperialism, and on the other its opposition to the military junta, which they explained had no legitimate status as rulers of the country. Opposition bourgeois circles also tried to increase their room for manoeuvre through the coalition formation called the 'Multipartidaria'.
The inherent contradictions in this situation were revealed in the rioting that broke out in Buenos Aires and the brutal response of the junta when the full scale of the military defeat became clear. Following six years of harsh military rule a new orientation is needed if the Argentine bourgeoisie is to break up the work-
It is also clear that many of the top-ranking military officers associated with the war and its defeat will find it very difficult to pose as serious alternatives to Galtieri in front of the Argentine people. This suggests a possible militarycivilian administration involving forces from the right wing of Christian Democ racy and the Peronist movements in alliance with a section of the military hier-
Now that the Malvinas have been recaptured by Britain, the imperialists will once again be able to turn their attention to helping any new Argentine government solve this problem, even finding the necessary ways of supplying military equipment to replace that lost during the
Ironically this may well involve using channels like Israel, who for its own reasons supplied military aid to the junta during the war itself.
While the Tories may have succeeded in sparking off widespread condemnation of the war from many other governments, they have scored a significant political victory in Britain itself.
The leaders of the Labour Party, Foot and Healy, gave what amounted to a blank cheque for the Tories in Parliament, despite their protestations to the
Michael Foot again displayed a remarkable talent for placing Labour in a position where it could only lose much electoral support. democratic pacifist, was totally belligerent during the war, and then turned around following the British victory to demand a full inquiry into the 'tragedy of the Falklands war'. Many potential Labour supporters saw no reason why they should not support the Tories, who were prosecuting the war quite efficient-
was headed by the left's leading figure ture, as many people pointed out that a
While attacks were made on some of the television coverage, Henry Kissinger, ex-US Secretary of State, remarked that if the US government had had the same support from its press during the Vietnam war, then the eventual result might have turned out altogether
It must be admitted that the Tories were able to win widespread support inside the working class for this reactionary war. History shows that, at least in the initial stages, this is to a degree inevitable, especially when the leaders of the working class give full support to the ruling class. But what is very dangerous is that the Tories will now seek to drive home this political advantage against the working class in Britain.
The working class has once again displayed its chief characteristic during
The support for the war, whipped up by Foot and Healey, shows the historic political weakness of the British labour movement. But at the same time the working class has also displayed its tremendous organisational strength. In the midst of this reactionary war, the health workers have achieved a remarkable degree of unity in a fight against a derisory pay offer from the government. They have won significant support from industrial unions, with miners, dockers, and many other workers striking in solidarity with them, and joining the health workers on picket lines outside the hospi-
The rail workers are also set for a over pay, the introduction of new work practices, and management plans for the running down of the whole industry. The Union of Railwaymen have set June 28 as the date for the start of a national rail strike, and the Tories have replied by saying that they will simply shut down the whole rail network if the strike goes
Militant workers have realised that these strikes are crucial if they are to be successful in resisting new legislation being brought in by the Tories aimed at smashing up their organised strength the trade unions.
To help in this project of launching of new attacks against the working class, the British ruling class has turned to its principal pillar of support: the labour bureaucracy. The latter is currently planning a witchhunt of the left inside the Labour Party, aimed precisely at breaking up working class unity and rolling back gains made in the last few years on policy unilateral nuclear disarmament, the Common Market, and inner-party democracy.
However, the Malvinas war has also seen a very positive development among a small section of the labour movement. Many Labour Party branches were gusted by the stand taken by Foot and Healey, and took positions in opposition to the war and demanded the recall of the
100)
VALE
STOP
WAR
Tony Benn. His position, taken up by many of the above-mentioned branches, was tied to the reactionary notion of support for a negotiated settlement through the United Nations and a failure to understand that the essence of the conflict was one of an oppressed nation fighting an imperialist oppressor nation.
However, despite this confusion, what was remarkable was the way in which people like Benn remained intransigently opposed to the war despite the tremendous pressure coming from the press, the ruling class, and the right wing of the
This opposition inside the Labour Party was strengthened by similar opposition inside some of the trade unions: the miners, tobacco workScargill, President of the National Union of Mineworkers, spoke out against the endorsed Argentina's claim to This opposition to the war has of the Labour left around Tony Benn that now is the time fight against the Foot/ They see this as a long teran struggle, possibly until the second general election from now, around
Thus they are declaring their intention not to concede on any of the advances of the last few years, either around policy or around party democracy. As a starting point they are considering new alliances with forces opto the war, understanding that this is a crucial line of divide inside the labour movement, and declaring firm opposition to the right wing's witchhunt.
A number of anti-war demonstrations were organised by a committee set up by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarma-
This bodes very well for the fudisarmament movement sincerely fighting for peace had to take a resolute stand against any war being waged by the Tory government. This response was highlighted by the Youth CND's decision to end its conference early so that it could participate in the first anti-war march and its National Committee's subsequent call for an end to Thatcher's war and the re-
The huge 250 thousand turnout on June 6 confounded those who said that CND would fail the test of this war. Despite the CND leadership's attempt to concentrate attention on the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in New York, speaker after speaker at the rally following the march condemned the Tories hypocritical war in
The British disarmament movement has reached a crucial cross roads in its development. In the recent past more and more national trade unions have voted to affiliate to CND and support unilateral nuclear disarmament. CND must now either root itself into the real world, committing itself to a campaign based on the labour movement, and take a resolute stand against US intervention in Central America and the Caribbean, or it will become dominated by pacifist notions, combined with an individualistic strategy of 'non-violent direct action' against the bases where Cruise missiles will be de-
The massive demonstration on June 6 is an important indicator for the possible success of the first strategy, but a serious fight in this direction is still re-
The British military victory solved none of the long-term problems for the ruling class, neither in the South Atlantic, nor its principal problem in Britain, the organised strength of the work-
The longer it takes to defeat the working class, the more difficult it will be to maintain the support they won
Thus, while the present leadership election for the Social Democratic Party has received less attention because of the war, the SDP retains its long-term use with which the ruling class can prevent an outright victory for the Labour Party in the next General Election.
The full impact of the Malvinas war has yet to unfold in Britain. The war has raised the stakes in the international class struggle, which due to the historic decline of British imperialism will begin to have an increasing impact on the British working class. The ruling class will find it more and more difficult to stave this off as it has been able to do previously with its Empire's profits. make the task of raising the consciousness of the British working class in an anti-imperialist direction immeasurably easier. The forces of the Fourth International in Britain-the International Marxist Group coming months and years throw themselves into this task with all the resources at their disposal.
----- photo credits and running heads -----
Che