Pink Floyd's Roger Waters says Britain should return Falklands to Argentina

[Peace Patriot]

10. Even in this heavily pro-British account of the history of the Falklands...

...in wikipedia, it is evident that the Falklands were taken by force from Argentina (whose government was originally named "the United Provinces of the River Plate&quot in the 1830s.

---

"The Argentinian assertions of sovereignty provided the spur for Britain to send a naval task force in order to finally and permanently return to the islands."

---

And there is this tantalizing tidbit about a "Creole"/"Indian" rebellion:

"In August 1833, under the leadership of Antonio Rivero, a gang of Creole and Indian gauchos ran amok in the settlement."

---

The British Empire claimed the islands by force of its navy, threw out the Argentinians and denied Argentina's claim to the islands, and proceeded to introduce "settlers" just like they did everywhere else.

The issue of these settlers' and their descendants' desires is handled with much vagueness in this and other articles that I've read about the Falklands. For instance...

---

"The latter incident (Argentine rebel airplane landing in the Falklands) proved counter-productive to the Argentine sovereignty push, as Lord Chalfont had been talking to a public meeting at the time of the plane's arrival. The islanders made it plain to Lord Chalfont that they rejected a Memorandum of Agreement negotiated between Britain and Argentina that August which stated that Britain was prepared to discuss sovereignty provided the islanders' wishes were respected. This spurred the formation of the Falkland Islands Committee by London barrister Bill Hunter-Christie and others. The Emergency Committee, as it became known, proved to be an effective lobbying organisation, constantly undermining Foreign Office initiatives on sovereignty negotiations. In December 1968, the lobbying effort managed to force the British Government to state that the islanders' wishes would be paramount."

---

This is very squishy language ("made it plain to&quot . WHO "made it plain to" Lord Chalfont? A couple of loudmouths? Rabble-rousers paid by the rich landowning elite? WHO was representing "the islanders"?

This issue is further muddied by the activities of the "London barrister" lobbying against Argentina's sovereignty--on behalf OF WHOM?

As to "the islanders' wishes" being "paramount," again, WHO determined "the islanders' wishes" and HOW did they determine it?

This same phrase--"the islanders' wishes"--continues throughout the rest of the wikipedia narrative but is never defined and evidently has never been put to a vote.

I would also wonder about the fairness of any such vote--IF there ever will be a vote--run by a colonial power with an entrenched establishment on the islands, obvious interest in Argentina's coastal oil and obvious strategic naval/military interests as to the Atlantic. (The Falklands was an important military base during WW I and II, and remains so today. England has greatly expanded its military installations there, since the Falklands War.) England is aligned with the U.S. in the hunt for more oil to feed their great military and transglobal corporate machines. It was a KEY ALLY of George Bush in invading Iraq and has been a big anti-democratic influence in the Middle East since at least the 1950s (when England participated in destroying Iran's first democracy--and the issue was control of the oil, then as now). It has also very likely been a U.S. ally in trying to undermine and topple leftist governments in Latin America.

So, I don't trust them in speaking for "the islanders" and I don't trust any British policy that is based on this vaguery: "the islanders' wishes." I suspect that the "islanders' wishes" have been manipulated from the beginning to serve British economic and military interests and those of the richest islanders in cahoots with the British political establishment.

I am reminded of political opinion polls here, in the leadup to the Iraq War. While 56% of the American people opposed the invasion of Iraq, just prior to that invasion (Feb. '03, all polls), the 44% who supported it and/or were indifferent PREVAILED, because...guess why? ...the Bushwhacks didn't give a crap for the public's opinion. They had guaranteed 're-election' by means of the new 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines and Karl Rove's dirty deeds as to disenfranchising black voters. Despite that horrible, unjust war (a hundred thousand innocents slaughtered in the first weeks of bombing alone), revelations of widespread torture (63% of the American people opposed to torture "under any circumstances," May '04), and huge Bush unpopularity on issues such as looting Social Security (90% opposed), they had the power to make war anyway and to avoid any consequences.

The situation was even starker in England, where something like 80% of the people opposed the Iraq War--yet they couldn't stop it. How reliable is such a government in determining the public's "wishes" or on acting in the public interest?

Not. At. All.

I apply that lesson to the Falklands. I think that it's quite possible that we don't hear dissenters from British policy in the Falklands because of U.S./U.K. corporate control of the media. Are there dissenters? How big is that number? And what do they have to say? Unknown. If those who don't like British rule are in the minority, is that because dissenting views (from the poor, the landless, the workers) are bullied or bribed into silence?

Here is a telling description of "the islanders' wishes" toward the end of the wikipedia article...

---

"Margaret Thatcher's general political legacy remains controversial and divisive within the UK and within the context of the Falklands her government's withdrawal of HMS Endurance is a stated contributing factor to the causes of the conflict because it gave the wrong signals about the UK attitude towards maintaining its possession. However, within the Falklands, she is considered a heroine because of the determination of her response to the Argentine invasion. The islands celebrate Margaret Thatcher Day on every 10 January, and named a street Thatcher Drive after her, in Stanley."

---

What kind of entities generally name streets? Business interests--the Chamber of Commerce, etc. The same with holidays. It is the rare holiday that has not been created by those who profit from it.

This is the article's evidence of "the islanders' wishes." The local powers-that-be naming streets. I suspect propaganda because no solid facts are offered in this pro-British article--and they never have been in any article I've read on this subject (which have all been pro-British). No polls. No voting results.

It is certainly quite possible that most of "the islanders" think they have a better deal from England than they would get from Argentina--but I have seen no evidence that they have been asked, or that any fair debate of the pro's and con's has occurred. Everything of importance that has been done regarding the Falkland islanders has been done by Acts of Parliament and actions of the Prime Minister, in London. Some pro-democracy actions were taken post-war--i.e., the establishment of a local parliament but with no power over foreign policy.

One wonders what kind of institutions the U.S.A. would have had, under the British system, post-Revolutionary War, if the revolutionaries had lost. A puppet parliament of some kind with no power over foreign policy, no military power and little real economic power would have been likely--also a government run by Tories. Granted, the Falklanders have NOT rebelled against British rule, so the analogy goes no further. But still, the Falklands are A COLONY and sentiments in colonies are controlled by the business interests who are in cahoots with the colonizers.

---

(My citations are all from: ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

(Another useful but pro-British article: )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands