>To cut off such outside support for those who stood in the way of
Fretilin
was also the job of the Western Left, which failed to do so. The (now
full-fledged) retreat of Fretilin is the obverse of the weakness of the
Left in imperialist countries.<
yes and no. it was the job not of the 'western' left but of the australian and indonesian (and perhaps also the portugese) working class movements in particular to have decided in 1974, and perhaps paradoxically, on a strategy which would have, on the one hand, gone against the very terms of 'west' versus 'east' that were the received options, and on the other hand, to have seen what perhaps in 1974 was still quite indistinct. east timor and west papau were handed to indonesia at a time when any smaller nationalism was seen as a wildcard in south east asia, open to the invitations of russia (but not china -- by then we were all friends with china), and where indonesia was seen as the asian anti-communist presence, much more willing to apply coercion to hold onto territories than australia was. it was a Labor Govt which did the deal with indonesia, and which was going through at the same time an ostensible decolonisation of the territory mandated to it after WWII, ie., PNG. so, in one sense, it was precisely the terminology of removing western imperialism from the region which made indonesian rule such an appealing option.
as for the second, which goes to historical processes, everyone assumed that the rule of law, democracy, etc, if not already in place in indonesia, would emerge out of a process of economic development, a diplomatic policy of 'critical engagement' and the concerted export of tertiary education to the region (or import of overseas students) who would provide a modernising, middle class population. all a very typical strategy for the times and one which assumed the linear model of capitalist development. but what has happened in indonesia? no ostensible rule of law, and certainly oscillating endlessly between a state of emergency and the facade of 'guided democracy', where the outlying territories were always subject to the most extreme violence and where the left continues to be subjected to violence and terror. and what has happened in the 'west'? there's no reason to beleive that even here we have held onto the apparent pinnacle of capitalist development, the rule of law, etc. around the world, terrorising the working class is the norm, not the exception. (all this relates not only to the end of the cold war, but to changes in capitalism itself -- the end of formal rule)
and i disagree: the changes to the CNRT are not a function of the weakness of the left in 'imperial countries', but of the above as well as
(i) a quite concrete realignment of the political parties within east timor after the asian financial crisis. ie., each of the would-be-elites clearly saw little advantage in a connection with an indonesia that was increasingly immiserated and within which the outlying territories were bein squeezed even more than before for meagre profits for indonesian capital/military;
(ii) that the CNRT simply follows the logic of a nationalism without the leftists inflection, wherein a redistribution of any wealth that national control over resources would not go beyond any of the east timorese 'traditional owners' (read: large landholding families during portugese colonisation), and it will certainly not go anywhere toward the poor given the reliance of the CNRT on the 'international community' at the exclusion of its own popular resistance (ie., it will no doubt be as good a subject of IMF rule as the ANC has shown itself to be);
(iii) this is a function of the circumstances of the indonesian working class (which in any event was always going to be more central to anything that could occur in east timor), which has only recently been able to form organisations independant of the indonesian state, and which is being marginalised as we speak by the resurgence of indonesian fascists parading their 'anti-western imperialism';
(iv) this is also a function of the circumstances of the australian working class, which is itself only just managing to find its independance from the state (and the ALP), for reasons which are too numerous to note here.
it seems to me that all yoshie and carrol do is repeat the litany of "the weakness of the left" and nothing else. i don't know who this left is supposed to be in the sense that yoshie and carrol use the term, but i do know that each of the strategies adopted by the key geo-political players were geared toward containing the working class and popular insurgency (the charade of concern by the australian govt as a counter to union bans; the threat of a coup as itself an attempt to frighten the indonesian working class without thereby enacting any overt military rule which would have both forced the CNRT to let the east timorese masses off the leash and given a signal to the indonesian masses that there were no 'formal channels', etc. all this i mentioned in a previous post.) yoshie and carrol might well have forgotten that capital is surplus value, but capitalists have not.
in order to assume that we are not actors is to assume that being actors is conditional upon taking a certain kind of action. we, the working class are already actors. this is already inscribed in what capital is and how capitalism operates from day to day. the question of working class autonomy or independance or 'socialist consciousness' (or however else one wishes to pose the issue) is something different, that's true, but nowhere have either yoshie or carrol remarked on this to my knowledge with anything more than abstract 'principles' about non-intervention and repeating the myth that we have no power.
**in all seriousness, where is the post from either that goes beyond these abstract assertions?**
what of any other demands that have been raised here, and twice already been ruled out by carrol and yoshie as "implausible" because "we do not have power": opening the borders to the refugees. i've still no clear reason why this is regarded as out of order as an important demand to raise, and can only guess, going by their other statements, that both do not think that the sentiments of international solidarity amongst the working class are worth fighting hard for. when the unions place bans on govt building works, as they did here, in order to pressure the immigration minister to allow those refugees who were at the UN mission in dili to be flown here to Darwin, is this not action and power, and one that hassome notable characteristics: internationalism and at least a non militaristic perspective? according to yoshie and carrols' sniping at this suggestion, such a demand should not be made because "we are not in power". well, it's been made and it seems to be more effective than even i envisaged it to be in such a short term, given the rather incessant campaigns against refugees and immigrants we have been subjected to here in the last decade or so.
if yoshie and carrol were indeed interested in more than abstract injunctions, they would be thinking of ways in which each moment of (even) defeat carries with it the potential opening up of a space in which an autonomous, internationalist working class can be constructed and is indeed constructing itself. (it's not surprising that neither seem to have noticed either the j18 actions or the anti-WTO actions as far as i know.)
Angela _________