Clinton on independence movements?

[Chris Burford]

At 00:23 12/10/99 +0300, Elena wrote:
>Thought this sounds puzzling...   (complete article at the URL below)
>www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Federalism-Conference.html
>                October 8, 1999
>
>Clinton questions independence movements
>
>                MONT-TREMBLANT, Que. (CP) -- U.S. President Bill Clinton
>delivered a stinging criticism of independence movements around the
>world Friday, saying that even in the worst situations -- like East
>Timor -- remaining part of a federation is preferable.........
>
>
>                 "It seems to me that the suggestion that a people of a
>given ethnic group or tribal group or religious group can only have a
meaningful
>political existence if they are an independent nation ... is a questionable
>assertion in a global economy where co-operation pays greater benefits in
every
>area of life than destructive competition," Clinton told a rapt audience of
>about 700.
>
> His 45-minute speech held up federalism as the system best
>equipped to advance humanity and self-government. East Timor has been
>beset by violence since residents of the Indonesian territory voted
>for independence.
>                 "If every racial and ethnic and religious group that
>occupies a specific piece of land became a separate nation, we might have 800
>countries in world, we may have a difficult time having a functioning
>economy or functioning global polity," Clinton said.
>
>"Maybe we'd have 8,000 (countries). How low can you go?"
>.......
>Clinton, who earlier Friday opened a new U.S. embassy in the
>heart of Ottawa, acknowledged in his speech that federations -- even
>his own -- are faced with constant challenges and need to constantly
>evolve.  "I believe we will be looking for ways to integrate
>our operations, for mutual interest, without giving up our sovereignty. And
>where there are dissatisfied groups in sections of countries, we should be
>looking for ways to  satisfy anxieties and legitimate complaints without
>disintegration."

Looks like he actually believes it. That would fit with his treachery
towards the Kurds, toward the KLA, and towards the East Timorese
independence fighters. 

It would fit with the economic argument given here: 

"we may have a difficult time having a functioning economy or functioning
global polity"

Here he is speaking as the servant of multinational finance capital.
Although it will sometimes appear to uphold the rights of nations to self
determination, it will do so for its own interests and not for the sake of
minimising conflict between and building unity among working people. 

This is therefore not to be confused with the marxist policy. What really
matters to finance capital is the right to intensify exploitation in
conditions in which it needs markets much larger than those of the confines
of the 19th century nation state.

Chris Burford

London