Yes we are approaching this differently. It will be interesting to read analysis by Benedict Anderson and Allen Nairn (can't get the web from here).
It seems to me that rumours of the independence of the Indonesian military (or some violent factions) from civilian control are being used a. to buffer Habibie from criticism and b. to suggest that these military factions are out of Habibie's control (and thus US pressure on him is not likely to help). This is the rumour that is allowing the US to justify its not imposing stringent economic sanctions and giving it an excuse to organize a deployment of troops in East Timor (the ground troops will certaintly be Asian as a consequence of the Vietnan syndrome but the backup will be red, white and blue).
The US is giving itself an excuse for a massive deployment in East Asia, and my suspicion remains that Japan will end up paying for it one way or another (more financial liberalisation, holding on to US securities, compliance to US conditions for bailouts, etc).
>in *july*, the australian
>govt, the US and the UN had documents which detailed the campaign of
>terror and displacement that would occur if east timorese voted for
>independance. everyone knew, a military force could have been put
>together then, or, alternatively, the UN could have refused to hold the
>ballot knowing what it did, and waited for the situation within east
>timor to shift ground a little.
But doesn't this support Chomsky's implicit point that the imperialist countries should have been prepared for the slaughter and already warned Habibie that there would be significant economic sanctions if East Timorese independence was met with murderous reprisals? The US in particular did not warn Habibie and even today is unwilling to use substantial economic sanctions to end the slaughter. This suggests to me that the US needed a humanitarian pretext for militarizing the region in the shadow of the Vietnan syndrome. What better and more cynical cover than protection of the East Timorese whom the US is allowing AGAIN to be slaughtered though this time in order to justify militarization in the name of humanitarian intervention?
Unlike Rwanda, the slaughter is being allowed not because nobody could care less but because of the opening it provides for military deployments. Minerals, raw materials and oil from Indonesia may seem insubstantial in a value sense (due to declining terms of trade), but they are crucial physical inputs (moreover, much world trade goes through Indonesia). The world economy cannot run without stability in South East Asia (see writings of Gabriel Kolko). There are many threats of instability due to recent horrendous leaps into poverty in the region. This is what the US will provide for a price (though the ground troops will indeed be Asian).
That's my paranoid read of which I would love to be disabused.
Yours, Rakesh