an update: the Indonesian govt "responded to international pressure" for "law and order" in east timor by declaring martial law yesterday. this means, as jose ramos horta insisted, that now killings will be sanctioned. perhaps this is nothing more than a legal response to calls for a war crimes tribunal to be established. who knows. what is known, is that east timor has been under effective martial law for the last 23 years. the underbelly of the law just got heaved over the belt buckle.
>> Carrol is saying that working out an exact moral 'position'
satisfying to his or her individual self shouldn't be confused with
working out a political principle, embedded in a political program that
is to be used in mobilizing all that can be united for this or that
political action. <<
well, he might be saying that, but that had nothing to do, once again and rather tediously, with my post. (if he doesn't want to take me seriously, why does he seem to rather constantly? frankly, it's like dealing with an adolescent boy who knows no other way of relating than to pull your hair, but won't stop pulling your hair because of an overriding compulsion to relate.)
but more specifically, arguing against 'western intervention' is as much an abstract position, with little appreciable reference to the situation in s. e. asia and the pacific, as is arguing for it, as the DSP have been doing. it might be an easy thing for those in the US to regard 'west' as code for the US, and indeed as code for the problem, but that too is not so simple. and indeed, it's simple-minded -- you can't even begin to comprehend what's been happening on this side of the equator with that kind of terminology.
the substance of my previous post below, in case people want to shift out of delusion any time soon.
in any case, the issue of australian intervention is a little more complex than people here (including the DSP) have granted, for many reasons, including
i) australia was the only 'western' country to have recognised indonesia's annexation of east timor, and it has always been (through both Liberal/National coalition governments and Labor Party govts) a staunch ally of indonesia over east timor, and one of the most constant advocates in the UN for a UN recognition of indonesian sovereignty over east timor. the UN ballot of West Papua/Irian Jaya the early 70s was a set-piece of what is happening now in east timor: a UN-sponsored ballot conducted largely in a context of extreme terror and the apparent rising up of a pro-indonesian section of the population. the only difference now is that more attention is on east timor than was on west papua, that any deal between indonesia and australia to allow the full force of terror to be brought on the voting has been made impossible, perhaps because of the failure of credibility of the UN given the recent war in yugoslavia, perhaps because of the extent of establishment support for an independant east timor -- the west papuans were not catholic, and never received the attention and support of the vatican. if people want to understand what has been happening in east timor, a study of west papua might well be the place to begin.
ii) it was australian govt agents who provided lists of suspected communist that allowed the massacres of indonesians to take place in the coup led by suharto, and which (under ALP administration) supported the indonesian annexation of east timor and west papua in what has been a carving up of the pacific between two ostensibly anti-communist powers;
iii) to position the australian govt as the saviours of the east timorese is both absurd (because of the first) and innaccurate, because the australian govt has always supported the autonomy proposal (and worked hard against independance), because the aust govt only conceded to the UN ballot on condition that Falantil agree to honour the agreement over oil exploration in the Timor Gap, and more importantly for how any such intervention by the aust govt will pan out,
iv) there is no doubt that the australian govt will work hard, despite UN claims that no partition is being sanctioned, to make sure that the indonesian capitalists who have interests in east timor (principally the coffee plantations in the south of the island) are protected. and this, together with the acquiescence of Falantil over oil, means that there is no economic basis for an independant east timor that could produce the kind of redistribution of wealth which the struggle for independance has envisaged and aimed for. any redistributive program will rely on aid money, with no doubt many conditions attached.
having said that, the question of whether australia is the only country capable of intervening to halt the starvation, displacement and murders is not a question of military capability (though the australian military, having trained the indonesian military for some years now probably knows them best), since there are other countries which do not have an investment in the place that the UN could cobble together to do so. what remains of course, is the lever of aid, not in any general sense, but in the precise sense of targetting the families of those generals who have economic interests in east timor. the US has been more than capable of this kind of economic sabotage and blackmail in the past, and there's no reason why it can't be applied again here by the IMF, World Bank and that 'international community'. in the meantime, the same approach i took on yugoslavia applies here: allow open passage of the east timorese at risk of being killed and the displaced to australia. here's where the aust military can play a role. but that, of course, goes against Falantil's insistence that they remain there, as continuing fodder for calls for UN intervention.
but even if an australian intervention is the only plausible possibility, that doesn't mean it is the best one. what it does mean, is that everyone, including the UN and australia, knew exactly where this was all heading (given the experience of west papua), and that what is now seen as the only possible option is what has been made fact through the collusion between indonesia and australia. to claim it is the honourable course is to disregard the extent to which it has been systematically organised as the _only_ course available. no one, least of all the DSP, stand on principle or analysis when they advocate aust intervention.
Angela _________