East Timor vs Somalia

Chris Burford cburford at gn.apc.org
Tue Sep 28 15:56:41 PDT 1999


Yoshie has argued that all western military interventions have been disastrous, and in the interest of the invaders. Certainly I agree with the latter point, although that does not necessarily mean an invasion is not in someone else's interests too.

About the disastrousness of western military interventions, I am not sure if I am quoting Yoshie quite correctly but I do recall her highlighting the negative lessons of the US intervention in Somalia.

Recent a British military analyst was arguing that the relevant comparison militarily with East Timor was Somalia. In the latter, he said the US went in with massive power and very aggressively. By contrast he applauded the military wisdom of the Australian led force that has not over-reached itself and had established its position step by step.

Another advantage of East Timor is that the military intervention was constrained by getting the agreement of the UN even though this was circumvented by the international financial authorities putting overwhelming pressure on the Indonesian government to accept intervention.

Another advantage is that no US combat troops are being used.

Undoubtedly the intervention is primarily in the interests of the interveners. But as inteventions go, I would argue that this one was somewhat more progressive.

The main defect is the absence of a postive programme of democratic regional economic development.

It *is* possible to make comparisons between different types of intervention and argue that certain types are preferable over others. We need more emphasis on regional conflict resolution methods.

This is all part of the process of shaping world governance that is unfolding in front of our eyes.

Chris Burford

London



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list