>But Nathan's pointless call for non-polemical discussion between
>those who support and those who oppose imperialism does suggest
>a more fruitful direction for the latter to pursue.
While dogmatic positions appear at first sight very imposing, their achilles heel is that the authors are actually lazy. Nathan is quite right that the concrete analysis of concrete conditions does pan out differently with the three striking examples of intervention. Carrol's attempt to collapse this down to suggesting that Nathan and others are supporting imperialism while others such as himself are on the side of the angels, is simplistic. The point is that in a world of ever increasing global interdependency it is not possible to take any decision, even to do nothing, without it having implications for imperialism, as well as for the working people of the world, and other classes and strata.
Indeed to stay in pure isolation on the sidelines is one of the best ways to leave imperialism to have a free run. It is much better to challenge it as to whether it means its fine words. That in practical terms is much more effective anti-imperialism.
>In the last year there have been sharp polemics and/or flamewars
>among those who, within the framework I am suggesting here,
>would have seen the contradictions dividing them as (in Mao's
>phrase) contradictions among the people, no matter how sharp.
>The contradiction between those who support u.s. (or "western")
>interventions on the one hand and those who oppose them is
>an antagonistic contradiction between supporters and opponents
>of imperialism. It cannot lead to fruitful discussion. (One may
>*negotiate* but not enter into discussion with the enemy.)
This highly sectarian formula suggests that having been labelled as supporters of imperialism, those with whom Carrol disagrees should be further labelled as the enemy. It is an attempt to control debate by having people expelled. Not a very convincing sign of his confidence in his own position.
He is too lacking in rigour to accept that some of those with whom he thinks he is allied, have been against a western military attack, but have associated themselves with a call by Chomsky, demanding the US president imposes stringent economic pressures to force Jakarta to accept peacefully, an intervention force.
Some purists marxists have objected to Australian leftists campaigning for Australian troops to be sent into East Timor, but if Carrol condemns such a stance as opportunist, then he should also condemn those who supported Chomsky calling for US imperialism to go in with all economic guns blazing.
If that does not enhance US imperialism's credentials what does? Does Carrol have an idea that it will not speed a neo-liberal solution in South East Asia? Of course it will.
Below is evidence of the hard pounding with which US imperialism softened up Indonesia to accept the peace keeping force.
I challenge Carrol to denounce as enemies all those self-declared marxists who opposed military intervention and called on Clinton to intervene economically. By keeping very quiet about the true nature of such an economic intervention, presumably Carrol hopes to brush over the fact that it is an intervention, and it has major imperialist features. And it was supported by his pure anti-imperialists, tacitly if not actively. How impure!
[Carrol by the way will not read this, because he has sworn a dozen times over not to read my posts, only to slip up a dozen times. However he is clearly taking a stance for a sectarian position on debate, which includes the boycott by Louis Proyect of LBO-talk, as well as the censorship of the Marxism list at panix despite the misleading messge on its web page: 'Open to all views within Marxism'. ]
Chris Burford
London
___________________
Business Times [Singapore] 17 Sep 1999 Jakarta, IMF not talking, so aid may be stopped Economy could come to standstill by November if foreign aid dries up By Shoeb Kagda in Jakarta INDONESIA and the International Monetary Fund have practically stopped talking to each other. Sources told BT that an IMF team which had been expected to arrive in Jakarta on Monday has instead been holed up in Bangkok -- having been denied an official welcome here -- and was expected to fly back to Washington tomorrow. "President Habibie and Mr Ginandjar are really upset with the IMF because of the pressure the Fund is putting on the government," said a high-level source. Mr Ginandjar Kartasasmita, the chief economics minister, has been at the centre of Jakarta's negotiations with the IMF concerning the economic recovery programme. The sources add that if the IMF's aid disbursements are suspended indefinitely, Indonesia might have to resort to printing money to meet its financing needs, raising the spectre of hyper-inflation yet again. The IMF team was scheduled to review Jakarta's progress on economic reforms this week before signing its next letter of intent. This would have allowed the IMF's board to release US$450 million (S$761.6 million) in new disbursements. If foreign aid dries up, market analysts noted, Indonesia's economy would come to a standstill by November, causing the rupiah to dive again and forcing the central bank to crank up the printing presses. Such a scenario would be similar to the situation the country faced last May when its economy was on its knees.