After the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the US Department of Defense is concerned that this Argentinian action will make it more difficult for USG to work with the Argentinians on Central American issues and to overcome Congressional opposition to IMET funding for Argentina. Also, there could be a spillover from the undoubtedly strong negative British reaction toward the Argentinians to the pervasive West European hostility toward US Central American policy. The left in Europe will be quick to make connections between Argentina and the governments that we happen to support in Central America. (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XIII, Conflict in the South Atlantic, 1981–1984 - Office of the Historian)
The British Labour Party would be a relevant example, relative to the Falklands issues of the early 80s. Though I’m not sure they did what the text suggests (I’m not really sure what the text is even implying–that it’s hypocritical to fight Argentina while supporting other Central American governments?).
Left-wing organisations of the time (at least in the mind of the author of the original quote) would be any political party identifying as socialist or communist or (some) social democratic parties, particularly if they were or were likely to be in government, also pacifist/anti-war campaign organisations. Any or all of these would be very likely to point the finger at the US’s support for military dictatorships throughout Latin America. The original author’s concern was that this could influence opinion in the US Congress, making the Department’s dealings with Congress more difficult.
In addition to communist, socialists and social democrats, the 1980s also saw the rise of the green movement in many European countries, which is usually also considered to be on the left side of the spectrum.
British left waffles are typically served with brown sauce and peas with a weak cup of tea, except in the Falklands, where they’re usually topped with runny eggs and chimichurri.
And in America it’s spelled the same but pronounced “lieuwaffles”.
Socialist or communist governments would point their fingers at the US’s support for military dictatorships throughout Latin America because the Argentine junta was anti-communism?
Because all the military governments were brutal dictatorships, and yes, anti-communist - “communist” in their eyes meaning anyone who opposed them, however non-violently.
The concern is that the reaction to Argentina’s invasion would add strength, from a wider range of viewpoints, to existing left-wing anti-Americanism, giving greater prominence not just to Argentina’s transgression but also to the brutality of the other Latin American regimes the US was supporting.
IIRC, this was in the era where the Argentines and Chile (and Brazil) had spend a highly repressive decade or two suppressing liberal dissent; the Argentines particularly, it came out, had “disappeared” thousands, including such tactics as dropping them from several hundred feet up into the sea by helicopter, kidnapping their children, and torture. Then the junta displayed its eptitude by unprovoked aggression and a territorial grab against a small neighbour using the weak historical claim, followed by a demonstration of the incompetence of their armed forces. (Something we would never see in today’s world).
“The Left” means any liberal political groups. While many “left” in Europe would be what the Americans laughingly describe as “socialist” (and equate with communist) it encompasses those who disagreed with the cold war tactic of propping up repressive dictators who were willing to use “aggressive” tactics to fight the “freedom fighters” typically propped up by the USSR and Cuba and seeking to overthrow those dictators.
I believe the complaint here was that the Argentine Junta and their right-wing dictator fellow travelers having attacked a European power had lost any sympathy from the Europeans that might have come from the desire to prevent the communist system from winning; which the US State Department would see as a bad thing in light of the ongoing wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador at that time.
Associating the left with socialist makes little sense. All European societies are/were socialist by the standards of the USA. Even Canada’s Conservative party refuses to say for example socialized medicine is a bad thing. (Mainly because it’s a good thing). The social safety net in civilized countries is far stronger than in the USA, and the voters wouldn’t have it any other way.
The Falklands provided an interesting dilemma for the far left in Britain. On the one hand, Britain was (in their eyes) a terrible colonial power with a sordid oppressive past, and the war was them having a last gasp at oppressing a smaller country; on the other hand, bad dictators don’t get much worse than Argentina. (Because, as the Left, they don’t want to talk about Pol Pot.) How to pick a side…??
The (mainland) European spectrum ran from social democrats in West Germany to Socialists in Spain to sizeable Communist Parties in France and Italy, as well as Trotskyist/Marxist/Maoist groups, usually with small membership, in most countries, who were anti-Soviet but still keen on the ideal of communism. Many had left the Party in disillusion after the suppression of the Hungarian Uprising - many more left after the suppression of Czechoslovakia in 1968.