|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 13, 2015 11:53:05 GMT
I would be inclined to think that it was, because Argentina never had any control of the islands, the Falklanders identified as British, many for generations, and would probably have been targeted by the junta for repression as "enemies of the Reorganisation Process". That's not to say that I agree with every action in that war (the Belgrano disaster for example), and the fears of St. John Paul II that a defeat for Argentina could lead to a left-wing government there cannot be dismissed easily. Ultimately, I am not sure what to think. Anybody have their own opinions?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 14, 2015 9:44:38 GMT
I assume you mean from the perspective of Britain... it just occurs to me now that I haven't thought about it from the Argentine point of view before now.
The criteria for a just war are listed in Paragraph 2309 of the Catechism, and are as follows:
1)The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain 2)All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective 3)There must be serious prospects of success 4)The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
There is also the matter of the principle of Jus in Bello, that is to say, even a war that is just in principle can be unjust if unjust means are used (which seems to tie in to incidents you mention such as the sinking of the Belgrano)
As for the principles above, I don't know enough specifics to say for certain, but from what I do know here's my take:
1) It would depend on the likelihood of whether or not the Falklanders would have been targeted for execution or oppression in the way you suggest, but this seems plausible and would be a justification if true 2) I don't know what diplomatic or economic attempts were used to try and coerce the Argentinians into stepping down, but if none were made whatsoever before the declaration of war, this would be problematic, unless of course there was proof that the lives of the Falklander civilians were in immediate danger 3) The British cetainly had the means for success so this is not a problem 4) Argentina's not a nuclear power, so there wasn't a risk of a nuclear exchange. I think that an invasion of the Argentinian mainland or something like that would have made this problematic, but as the war actually played out I don't think that this was a problem.
Again, details are the important thing, and I'm no expert on the situation myself, but I hope it helps to lay out the principles. I am of the opinion that most wars conducted by the West today are unjust.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Apr 14, 2015 17:12:25 GMT
I don't think the Falklanders need have feared execution. The Argentine junta was sensitive to PR and instructed Argentine officials on the island to treat the locals with respect (they did not always comply with these orders out of nationalist zealotry, but it was official policy). But clearly the Argentine invasion had no legitimate basis; the Falklands had been British territory before Argentina came into existence and the Falklanders are descendants of the islands' aboriginal settlers. I feel no reverence for Margaret Thatcher but it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens and territory against external aggression.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2015 18:01:03 GMT
I don't think the Falklanders need have feared execution. The Argentine junta was sensitive to PR and instructed Argentine officials on the island to treat the locals with respect (they did not always comply with these orders out of nationalist zealotry, but it was official policy). But clearly the Argentine invasion had no legitimate basis; the Falklands had been British territory before Argentina came into existence and the Falklanders are descendants of the islands' aboriginal settlers. I feel no reverence for Margaret Thatcher but it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens and territory against external aggression. I agree with your analysis, Shane. So you believe that the war was ultimately a just one? Ranger, I would agree that most Western wars are unjust. I do think that the Falklands were different though because this was a defensive war, which makes it more likely that the war was just. Re the Argentinians, I agree with Shane's view that they had no case whatsoever to invade the islands. I must say that I was surprised to see an avowed anti-imperialist republican Facebook page declare support of the annexation of the Falklands by Argentina. If that's not imperialism, I don't know what is. Or perhaps those behind that page only oppose British imperialism?
|
|
|
Post by shane on Apr 14, 2015 23:18:22 GMT
Yes; one can question the tactics used (and I think the jingoism in Britain after the war was repugnant), but the British certainly had a right to recuperate the islands.
As for that republican page, if the Irish are entitled to be independent from our larger neighbour (Britain), then surely the Falklanders are equally entitled to be independent from their larger neighbour (Argentina).
|
|