Xxxx, the Malvinas and self-determination

[Philip Ferguson <plf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carroll Cox wrote:

> The Falklands can be "indepencent" _only_ as part of
>Argentina. Lou's example of the Panama Canal Zone is a perfect
>comparison.


Yes, it's an excellent example.

This kind of stuff also has great relevance in the South Pacific, most
notably the French possessions in Polynesia (based on Tahiti) and in New
Caledonia.

In both places, the French government have moved in sufficient civil
servants, landowners and settlers to outnumber the Polynesian population
(Tahiti) and the Kanaks (New Caledonia).

Do the white settlers have the right to self-determination, Xxxx?

Should the people in the Panama Canal Zone have the right to be part of,
say, the United States rather than Panama?

And what about the white South Africans?  If they want a chunk of South
Africa in which to self-determine, should they be allowed this?

Like Lou Paulsen noted, the problem is the apparent inability of the
Militant Tendency and its successors to grasp the fundamental distinction
made by Lenin between oppressed and oppressor nations.  In Lenin, the
division of the world between the two was one of the key characteristics of
the whole imperialist epoch.

Philip Ferguson

PS: Along with Donal, I might repeat what I have said before on this list
about the Militant Tendency's Irish group.  They managed to sit out 25
years of armed resistance to British imperialism, without ever having a
single member arrested for anti-imperialist activity.  Who can possibly
take these people seriously?





=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message