Stupid Gott on the Falklands

January 2, 2012 at 11:52 pm (apologists and collaborators, democracy, Guardian, Human rights, Jim D, national liberation)

Every few years the preposterous “anti-imperialist” Richard Gott comes out with an article in the Guardian proposing that rights of the Falkland Islanders should be overridden in the name of Argentina’s geographically-based mini-imperialist “claim” to the islands.

The last time he came out with his anti-democratic proposal was on the 25th anniversary of the outbreak of the Falklands war, and he was in no doubt about the justice of  Argentina’s claim:

The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina’s claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away,” he wrote in the Guardian of 2 April 2007. And in case anyone was in any doubt about Mr Gott’s attitude towards the Falklanders themselves: “At some stage, sovereignty and lease-back will have to be on the agenda again, regardless of the wishes of the islanders.”

I’m still rather proud of Shiraz‘s response at the time.

Gott’s most recent Falklands foray is rather less forthright, suggesting merely that “Argentina and Britain both have a good claim to the Islands,” and proposing that “the two countries should meet to negotiate a solution.” But the essential disregard for the rights of the inhabitants remains the same. As in 2007, though, at least one Guardian letter-writer nails Gott good and proper:

Richard Gott (Asleep over the Falklands, 23 December) criticises the Foreign Office for failing to address the vexed question of sovereignty. He adds, somewhat contentiously, that Argentina and Britain “both have a good claim to the Islands”. Given the United Nations-sanctioned principle of the self-determination of peoples, the strength of any sovereignty claim must surely rest with the populace of a territory. The British government should thus propose, via the UN, that referendums should be held at specific intervals to determine the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

These referendums would offer the alternatives of accepting Argentine sovereignty, independence for the islands, remaining under British sovereignty or taking on any other sovereignty (Chilean?) that the islanders might choose. The British government would agree to be bound by whatever result ensued, and would put into effect any change of sovereignty indicated by a referendum as a matter of urgency.

L Warwick-Haller
Durley, Hampshire


  1. Mick O said,

    Surely a compromise must be reached. Nobody wants another war about which flag flies above Port Stanley. Can’t a deal be done where we exploit the resources in the area and Argentina has refining and shipping facilities? It’s all about economic advantages. This way everyones a winner.

  2. Roger said,

    Amazing how besotted these so called revolutionaries (and Gott started out his career as a fully fledged groupie of Che himself) now are with the arcane rules of pre-bourgeois international law.

    I well remember how back in 1982 Trots suddenly started quoting eighteenth century treaties and learnedly discussing the borders of the Spanish imperial Viceroyalty of La Rio de la Plata.

    And then over Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq they became the most ardent defenders of of the concept of national sovereignty as established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.

    Pass the sick bag.

  3. SteveH said,


    Legality is important , why do you think Lawyers are such as asset to the trade union movement. You cannot fight the enemy with theory alone, sometimes the real world must rear its ugly head.

    As for the rest of your comment, I wonder how far apology can be taken. You at Shiraz certainly break a few boundaries.

    • Roger said,

      Averse as I am to feeding the troll….

      It is precisely how we deal with those intrusions of the real world which divides us.

      Real socialists confronted with vile fascist dictatorships instinctively oppose them – pseudo-leftist scum like you side with them.

  4. Jim Denham said,

    “The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won, and maintained, by the use of violence, by the proletariat, against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws” – VI Lenin, ‘The Proletarian Revolution and the Renagade Kautsky’ (Nov 1918).

    Btw, Mick O: in principle, I agree with you; but the point is that the Falklanders don’t. And that’s what self-determination is all about (something Gott doesn’t seem to understand – or chooses not to).

  5. Jimmy said,

    The Falklands is British. Argentina will only attack with verbal diahorea.
    The UK will never be as weak again as the Thatcher government was.

  6. JohnW said,

    There is no need for a referendum. The Falkland Islanders have universal suffrage, so if sovereignty becomes an issue it can be dealt with by democratic means.

  7. SteveH said,

    “Real socialists confronted with vile fascist dictatorships instinctively oppose them – pseudo-leftist scum like you side with them.”

    Trotsky wouldn’t agree with that. Yours is a liberal position, not a Marxist one. Can you have liberal scum?

  8. A few pints « Poumista said,

    […] Star’s “fellow feeling” with Cameron on EU. Richard Gott on the Falklands. Socialism and democracy. Michael Foot the extremist. Anarchism and syndicalism. Advertisement […]

  9. Bobby Sands said,

    Give back the Malvinas pirate assholes! Ireland & Argentina one heart!

  10. Jim Denham said,

    Sad isn’t it? Unless it’s a joke, of course. The choice of name is particularly tragic.

  11. Jim Denham said,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: