> I remember at the 1968 MLA convention some idiot getting up from
> the audience to interrupt a Chomsky speech screaming that Chomsky
> was a sell-out. ..
You don't say. Sounds remarkably like a certain fool who interrupts discussion on this list to scream that anyone who doesn't oppose Western intervention is not a leftist. Maybe it was the same person?
If CG or anyone else wants to defend the Australian intervention in East Timor, fine. As I said, I part company there. This is not news. I have argued the details countless time before on this and not once accused those like Roger or Chris of being 'sellouts' in those debates.
I'll chalk up Carrol's post as an act of self-criticism. Good for him.
But, ok, let's begin with the trivialities of this discussion: Chomsky's position.
C.G writes, "Chomsky's position on "humanitarian intervention" -- especially in regard to the US -- is well-known."
I'm prepared to be persuaded, but it's not at all apparent in anything you've posted here. So, here's a very precise question, then: did Chomsky state that he opposed US, Australian, or similar military interventions in East TImor? In this article, in others on ET? I'll add Australian, since I'll assume that there too Chomsky and others note "culpability".
C.G cites Chomsky:
> Indonesia historian John Roosa, an official observer of the vote,
> described the situation starkly: "Given that the pogrom was so
> predictable, it was easily preventable... But in the weeks before
> the ballot, the Clinton Administration refused to discuss with
> Australia and other countries the formation of [an international
> force].
Is this "refused to discuss with Australia and other countries (the formation of an international force)" just a slip attributable to Roosa?
Chomsly also writes:
> At last report, the US has provided no funds for the Australian-led UN
> intervention force (in contrast, Japan, long a fervent supporter of
> Indonesia, offered $100 million).
> The same power relations ensure that the UN can do nothing without
> Washington consent and initiative. While Clinton "dithers," almost
> half the population has been expelled from their homes according to
> UN estimates, and thousands murdered...
This is a statement about armed UN intervention, right? -- since there was already an unarmed UN presence in ET, then Clinton's dithering would have to be in respect of an armed UN force.
Where, in short, in the entire article has Chomsky ruled out or criticised the (prospect of) military intervention of those who he already knows are culpable in the establishment and support of the Indonesian regime? I can't find it.
If not this article, then where else has Chomsky made his position on intervention clearly apparent? As I said, I'm happy to be convinced; and it's no big deal at the end of the day. But if you want to insist that Chomsky's position is "well-known", then on what basis?
Angela