>What has been the response of an appalling number of marxists here, and more
>so, on Louis' marxism list? Did they try to understand, and give some credit
>to, the materialist analysis of their comrades on the scene that timely help
>was absolutely critical. No. Such help, they claimed, would violate the
>"principle" (I refuse to add "marxist" in front of such bullshit, though that's
>what they claim the principle is, a marxist one) that you must never aid the
>imperialists, since, of course, any help of sufficient scope to matter would
>have to come from imperialist sources. Who can forget Carrol's statement in
>this regard. "Western intervention in East Timor would be criminal", he
>blustered. Intervention to save the lives of East Timorese radicals would have
>only one outcome, these marxists concluded: the subjugation of the movement
>to imperialist imperatives. In other words, we must allow the East Timorese to
>be killed to save the purity of their movement.
But it was the EU and UN intervention that accelerated the slaughter in E Timor. Outside agencies paraded the E Timorese as a stage army to embarrass their former Indonesian allies without regard to their safety. The conflict cannot be isolated from the influences of imperialism, which have, on the contrary been decisive at every turn. Roger says 'we' should not allow the E Timorese to be slaughtered to save the purity of the movement: but 'we' don't have a choice in this matter. It is Australia, the EU, Britain and finally America that decides what happens. Roger can imagine himself into the position of these great powers if he likes, but his influence is nil. What is at issue is whether we should rally support for the landing of an Australian led force on East Timor - especially given that these very troops were, just a year or so ago, giving tactical support to the Indonesian government forces in the suppression of the E Timorese. -- Jim heartfield