> As Carrol and Yoshie have repeatedly pointed out, we are in no sense
> actors at this stage. When we consent to support imperialist armed forces
> (necessarily Australian in this context), we in no sense develop the
> working class as a (collective) actor. We should consider these questions
> not as abstract theoretical questions (and I would argue that it is pretty
> clear that C and Y, despite opponents' claims to the contrary, have not
> considered these questions in an abstract theoretical fashion), but as a
> guide to action.
But a guide to action based on what, Peter? An abstract theoretical claim, a "principle" that insists that no intervention must involve imperialists, period. Certainly nothing that either Carrol or Yoshie has said so far is based on any real materialist analysis of the conditions in East Timor, for example. I keep asking for that. And I get more pronouncement about the principle, or lectures about the nature of imperialism. Now, when you say you "would argue" that they have not considered things abstractly, does that mean I can expect more to follow to substantiate that claim. Or is this it?
> We should identify the actors involved in the current
> situation, and assess what our interventions may be, and what the results
> of these interventions might be.
I appreciate your attempt to make the nonintervention arguments more concrete.
> The actors involved at present are clearly the Indonesia armed forces and
> government (in its various factions), the US-allied block (in its
> factions) and the indigenous East Timorese factions (mainly the CNRT). It
> seems clear to me that a withdrawal of Indonesian armed forces from East
> Timor, and a cessation of aid to the pro-Indonesian militias would result
> in a situation clearly in favour of the CNRT. The result of an East
> Timorese victory would be a clear victory against the rhetoric of the
> 'necessity' of US-allied intervention. The result of a settlement on the
> basis of Australian intervention is almost certainly going to be a victory
> for the imperialist 'humanitarian intervenion' excuse, and is going to
> have very serious negative effects in the future.
Could you please provide some detail as to these negative effects? Is it merely that capital might look more humanitarian?
By all accounts the massacre is over, Peter. My guess is that most of the Indonesian forces will be gone by the time the "peacekeepers" get there (not discounting some potshots at some Oz soldiers, that is). The main job of the new forces will be getting food and medical supplies to the survivors. UN airlifts are supposed to be on the way tomorrow, I think.
Then imperialist capital will decide how East Timor will be reconstituted to meet its needs (not discounting some squabbling there between branches of capital). That job has little to do with the presence of a few thousand troops, that embody the particular face of imperialism you, Carrol, and Yoshie wanted so much to avoid. All of your handwringing about the removal of Indonesian troops is likely to amount to little in the short run, in fact. Ironically, those troops will come to matter down the road only to the extent the destruction of East Timor has been imperfectly accomplished. That is, the destruction of East Timor your principle of nonintervention so clearly invites is not sufficiently accomplished, and the movement rises again. The hope for the future clearly rests on these people, doesn't it?
But it's the timorese people you have left out of your analysis. You included them above on your list of actors, but they disappeared by the time you got to your conclusion. Against these negative effects you lament, please place the destruction of East Timor. Then let's see what the balance is.
> (note, btw, that the tendency of independence movements to 'beg'
> imperialism to intervene - as we have seen both in the case of Kosovo, and
> in the case of East Timor - is clearly related to the organisation of
> power worldwide, and furthur 'humanitarian' interventions will merely
> strengthen those tendencies in independence movements everywhere which
> look the the US and allies for aid).
>
Certainly. When faced with anniliation, one should never ask for help. Nice of you to characterize it as begging, btw (to me, putting it in quotes does not lessen the impact of the choice of that word, if that is what you intended by the quotes). Don't you see the difference between the 25 years the movement did *not* ask for outside help, and the point of crisis when it was necessary to ask because such help was crucial for their survival? Is this kind request in these kinds of circumstances really something you want to discourage, Peter? Even more important, is the Timorese request for help, their condition, and their fate something you want to ignore? These considerations don't fit into your nonintervention principle very well, do they?
Roger