>Those who have called for stopping all aids, I think, have been doing so
>betting that such threats are enough to make the Indonesian military and
>government change its policy, not wishing to actually 'smash the economy of
>Indonesia.' I don't know if it's a wise bet, but it sure beats a call for
>Western military intervention! In any case, what's the point of 'smashing
>the economy of Indonesia'? What will it do for the East Timorese, popular
>democratic movements in Indonesia that support the East Timorese
>independence, etc.?
>
>First smashing the Indonesian communists in the 60s, supporting the corrupt
>regime for decades, and then sending in 'peace-keeping forces,' 'smashing
>the economy of Indonesia,' and/or flattering themselves as 'anguished
>humanitarians'..... Such is the work of Western imperialism, which doesn't
>require your on-line moral support.
Nor yours. I am not sure what is being suggested here, by my point is that a metaphysical position of blanket opposition to anything imperialist is not an effective challenge to imperialism. It was not in the recent war in Yugoslavia. I prefer Magellan's stance which is located as if the United Nations really were the authoritative body of the people of the world. It thereby gives some sort of an answer to the immediate crisis in East Timor, but in such a way that is a challenge to the hegemonic powers who will in fact steer the result.
On the likely effect of threats to pull the plug on the Indonesian economy, I agree with Yoshie's first sentence. As with Yugoslavia there is an assumption that the national bourgeoisie and fascist elements will see reason, and listen to the coded threats.
This crisis is opening up major contradicitions between the Indonesian bourgeoisie who are basically comprador and willing to compromise with international capital, and the Indonesian bourgeoisie, not surprisingly concentrated in the army, who may be prepared to make a fight of it. Habibie cannot afford to confront them for fear of a military/national bourgeois nationalist coup in Indonesia as a whole.
BBC commentators this morning speculate that if "the west" has to face the choice of abandoning the east Timorese and precipitating chaos throughout Indonesia by economic warfare against the country as a whole, they will abandon the east Timorese.
Of course there will be some sort of intervention and public wringing of hands and imperialism will maintain it position and its moral stature. In due course it cannot afford to have its endorsement of the east Timorese independence referendum ignored. But it may play the crisis long.
That is why the only principled answer is that if substantial economic pressure is applied to Indonesia it should be in the context of substantial reforms of the nature of IMF involvement with Indonesia. The whole area should be compensated for the recent massive destruction of capital (which has left the heartlands of the global capitalist system perfectly comfortable). There should be a democratic economic development plan for all the islands of the archipelago which would respond to what is progressive in the demands of the national bourgeoisie and be in the interests of the mass of the working people. In this wider framework the sectional conflict around the right of the east Timorese to self-government could in principal be resolved less antagonistically.
And if this is met by a chorus of cynicism about why the west should do anything like this - well it does not have to, but it has gone public in support of the referendum and it is embarrassing for its status as guardian of progress and justice in the world! It is vulnerable to authoritative criticism. But only if more progressive policies are put forward.
Meanwhile salutes to the students in Jakarkata who rioted in favour of a democratic solution in east Timor. The fundamental marxist analysis remains: respect for the *right* to self determination is important to lay the basis for the maximum possible unity of working people against a common enemy. It is in the interests of all the people of Indonesia that this right should be respected, and once respected, cooperation can resume on a basis of greater equality.
The irony is that this is a case where imperialism is progressive by comparison with pre-monopoly capital. It is precisely why a more comprehensive democratic challenge to the UN and the governments of the world is necessary to expose the fact that imperialism is unlikely to be a solid defender of democracy and the right of nations to self-determination. Such contradictions should not be beyond the comprehension of self-declared marxists.
Chris Burford
London