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

[Judi Lynn]

Pink Floyd's Roger Waters says Britain should return Falklands to Argentina
By Barney Henderson
Wednesday February 29 2012

Pink Floyd star Roger Waters has reportedly stated that Britain should return the Falkland Islands, saying "Las Malvinas belong to Argentina".

In an interview with Chilean television, Waters, who is on tour in South America, allegedly said he was "as ashamed as I possibly could be of our colonial past ... When we were out raping and plundering and stealing".

The reported comments came as Argentina's industry minister called for all British imports to be banned as tensions escalate between the two countries ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict.

A journalist for the Chilean TVN state channel claimed Waters had made the comments during an exclusive interview on Tuesday. Amaro Gómez-Pablos tweeted: "Roger Waters was categorical: Las Malvinas belong to Argentina."

More:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/pink-floyds-roger-waters-says-britain-should-return-falklands-to-argentina-3036480.html

[sharp_stick]

1. Well now that Roger Waters has

expounded on the topic I suppose we can consider the matter closed. No need to ask the people living on the Falklands what they think after all.

Then again maybe David Bowie has a comment to offer?

[ocpagu]

7. Should they be asked?

I'm not sure if self-determination can be applied to implanted populations...

[sharp_stick]

8. I guess that would depend on

how far back you would call implanted populations? The British have been in sole possession of the Falklands since 1833.

[Democrats_win]

2. Can't we all just be comfortably numb and get along?

It's becoming about the offshore oil around the Falklands rather than the (perhaps) legitimate concerns of the British residents of the Falklands. Britain and Argentina need to negotiate a fair deal over the oil.

[Moonwalk]

3. They should be returned to the Penguins.

[leveymg]

4. Gawd - next thing you know, he'll be saying America and India deserve independence.

Gawd save the Queen, and all that rot.

[MisterP]

5. also, Uruguay has to go back to either Brazil or Argentina

[naaman fletcher]

6. What does he mean by return?

Were there argentinians living there? (yes, i know a few whalers or something were living their - briefly).

[Vogon_Glory]

9. We Should Respect The Wishes Of The Falklanders

We should respect the wishes of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. If they wish to have the Falkland Islands become part of Argentina, the Brits and the Argentines should respect their wishes. If, on the other hand, the Falklanders wish to remain part of the UK, their wishes should be respected.

[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

[naaman fletcher]

11. I diasgree

A series of imperial pursuits had it changing hands between the US, Britain, Spain, and Argentina. No one entity had any better claim than another. It was open land. One entity has since settled it and put it to productive use since 1830. Britian. Now, I am no fan of Britain and it's imperial policy, but I don't see any reason why Argentina has a bigger claim than Britian.

[Vogon_Glory]

12. Agreed. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

13. I suggest you look at a map. nt

[naaman fletcher]

14. What does that have to do with anything?

Is your best claim really "well, they are kind of close to Argentina, so let's totally ignore their right to self determination and instead impose a government that they don't want"?

I thought you were a progressive. Why do you support imposing a government on people that they people don't want?

[Peace Patriot]

15. I think that the complete absence of voting/polling evidence on "the islanders' wishes"...

...is very suspicious. Not to mention how England acquired these islands and what their interest is now (oil, military outpost).

Does the lack of inhabitants, historically, on some of the Channel Islands off California's coast, mean that, Japan, say, or China, could have claimed them?

It's fundamental to a country's security to control its off-shore islands, inhabited or not inhabited. And the Falklands were, indeed, inhabited by Argentinians (though apparently not by pre-European indigenous). The British Navy drove them out.

England has a dubious claim and they have NEVER ASKED the people of the Falklands what their wishes are, as far as I know. All decisions have been made in London, by Crown or Parliament--and by gunboat.

We only hear one side of this from the Corporate Press. It may be that Falklanders have been so controlled and propagandized and are so dependent on England that they feel they don't have a choice. Some may have a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome." Some may be like the "Orangemen" in Northern Island (a heritage as colonizers). Some may genuinely not want to be part of Argentina and South America and look across the length of the Atlantic, to England, for sustenance and culture (as portrayed by the Corporate Press and the corporate-dominated BBC). I don't really know. And we have been so lied to, on so many things, by the Corporate Press, that I DON'T TRUST their portrayals.

That's where I'm at, about this. And I tried to make that clear.

After losing the United States, the British have become more subtle in their colonial designs. Is that what this is--just another form of colonialism? Are there dissenters? Are there arguments against being a British colony? Do Falklanders really have a choice, given England's military domination and on-going expansion of their military in the Falklands? And when and where has that choice been expressed?

You tell me--since you defend England's "right" to the Falklands.

[naaman fletcher]

16. OK then,

let's send the UN or someone to poll the islanders and they can vote on weather they want to be a part of Britain or Argentina, or to be independant, does that solve it for you?

That being said, even if you do not believe that they want to be British (they do), why do you think that means they would want to be Argentinian?

Also, your article about the Japanese taking an island off of California is a joke... the falklands are 300 MILES FROM ARGENTINA.

[ikri]

17. The islanders won't even discuss the issue

The last polling had something like 90% of islanders refusing to even talk about a potential referendum. Britain is not the belligerent party here. Britain has offered twice to have the Falklands Islands sovereignty discussed at the International Court of Justice, both times Argentina refused. Argentina abandoned claims to the islands in the 1850 Treaty of Convention (minor historical footnote, it was the US ship the Lexington who removed Argentine settlers from the islands), Argentina then made no further claims on the islands for the next 130 years. Argentina's major claim to the islands is that they inherited the claim from Spain when they gained independence, but at the time of independence the Falkland Islands had been ceded to Britain by Spain for 40 years.

Argentina has a weak claim on the islands based on their geography, but if we base the sovereignty of a country on its distance from a larger, more powerful neighbour then by rights Ireland should still be British, though following that to its natural conclusion, Britain actually belongs to France which belongs to Germany which owns all its neighbours but is still smaller than Russia who should now be considered the only country to exist on the entire Eurasian plate. Oh and the USA? Canada is bigger so it's time to develop a taste for poutine. In short, defining the sovereignty of a country based on it's location is absurd.

It's their land, it's been their land for generations, it's up to them and them alone to determine sovereignty and they're not interested in discussing the issue. They have their own parliament on the islands, they make all their own decisions, raise their own taxes and control their own spending with the exception of the UK military forces on the islands that are only needed because the last time the islands were left undefended, Argentina invaded!

[ocpagu]

18. So...

Since "they have their own parliament on the islands, they make all their own decisions, raise their own taxes and control their own spending"

Why is it on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories?

[Judi Lynn]

19. Very interesting, to say the least. Thanks for the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories n/t

[Bacchus4.0]

20. I have an answer

Although the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization includes the Falkland Islands on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories,[52] it has been asserted that the Falkland Islands is one of 16 territories which have too small a population "to survive as viable, fully independent state."[53] Both the United Kingdom and the Argentine governments claim responsibility for the islands. The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (apart from the Argentine military occupation in 1982) and the Islanders’ "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish".[54] Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816 and that the United Kingdom exceeded their authority by expelling the Argentine settlers in 1833.[55] The islanders reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.[56]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

[naaman fletcher]

21. Laughably

Peace Patriot doubts that the Falklanders really want to be British. So, you will have to drop that line of argument. You know, despite being of British heritage and having that stability since 1833 they might actually want to be a part of a country whose language they don't speak and goes through one economic crises after another.

[Bacchus4.0]

22. yeah, ikri did a great job summarizing

they are certainly NOT culturally Argentine. recall though, it is actually Argentina's position that the islanders do NOT have the right to self-determination.

I surmise this is because they would reject being an Argentine colony. although, I am certain Argentina would say, its not a colony, rather its part of the Argentine nation like Hawaii is part of the US.

Arentina wants the resources, not the people.

[naaman fletcher]

23. Or more likely,

they want a foreign issue to rally the nation where there is trouble at home, like the 1982 war. Of course, the Kirchners are in the favored group here so like Chavez they can't do anything wrong, ever.

[ocpagu]

24. Argentina is not facing any trouble right now.

They are the country of fastest economic growth in the Western Hemisphere.

[naaman fletcher]

25. Yes

and the Kirchners were masterful in telling the IMF to piss off. Greece would be wise to do the same.

That being said, something isn't right. Argentina has criminalized saying that inflation is higher than what the government says it is. That suggests something is wrong. The warmongering over the Falklands suggests something is wrong. The new currency controls also suggest something is wrong.

[ikri]

26. Because they still have a state-appointed governor

It's a Legislative Assembly rather than a full parliament, but the majority of the assembly is elected by the inhabitants and the non-elected members have no voting rights although they do take part in debates.

[flamingdem]

27. Coincidentally I am listening to Pink Floyd

And remembering when I saw them at the Fillmore East in the third row in front of a bank of speaker.
For "Astronomy Domine" Roger Waters had a huge gong ... not healthy but very memorable.

I think it's his son that was arrested during the demonstrations over there.

[dipsydoodle]

28. That was David Gilmour's son

Charlie who was arrested. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/15/charlie-gilmour-released-from-prison

[flamingdem]

29. I think it was Gilmour

also ruining my hearing with that gong!