Re: M-TH: East Timor and the Western Left
While we are on this thread, by the way, talking about East Timor imperialism, the UN and all that stuff, let us cast our minds back to 1974 and 1975, when the Portugese coup led to the rapid decolonisation of East Timor, a brief civil war and thye emergence of Fretelin as the dominant power. The images of the time are full of faded photos and TV footage of Jose Ramos Horta and Xanana Gusmao, among others, bearded and tropical , wearing jungle fatigues and spouting off all sorts of left wing populist rhetoric about freedom, self determination, nationalisation, etc etc. Rightly or wrongly, there were many in the Indonesian govt, and the Australian govt for that matter, who viewed this as evidence of the emergence of some sort of left wing enclave, a Cuba of the southwest pacific that might spread revolution and that sort of thing amongst the region. (This is not my thinking, by the way, but there is pretty clear evidence from people like Dick Woolcott, the then Aust ambassodor to Indonesia, that this sort of thought loomed large). This sort of thinking helped the Indonesians reach the conclusion that the only viable way forward was to invade and the subsume East Timor as the 27th province, and it definitely helped Australia acquiese in the Indonesian take over. The US said and did almost nothing, it was only through the UN, which continued to recognise Portugal as the de jure holder of suzerainty over the territory, despite the de facto reality on the ground, that the East Timorese were able to keep pursuing their fight for freedom. Is there any out there who thinks that if the UN has recognised the Indonesian take over and annexation of East Timor that the events of the past year - the ballot etc would have taken place? The UN stands, then, as the institution most directly responsible for the fact that the Indonesian take over is not going to succeed. And, while we are at this discussion, casting blame and arguing for who is reponsible for what, what responsibility, if any, do Horta and Gusmao bear for their infammatory revolutionary rhetoric and appearance in the mid seventies, a stance which might have contributed to the tragic events of the past quarter century? - Take care of yourself Michael Booth --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor and the Western Left
> > >Excuse me? Where on earth does this bizarre statement come from? >Roosevelt > >WAS imperialist, born and bred. I can't believe you meant to write this >on > >our list. Just say it ain't so! > >What do you mean "our list". That is a - dare I say it, imperialist - >comment if ever I heard one. It's my fucking list too, even if I don't post >to it fourteen times a day. Back off a tad there, pardna. I meant all of us- "ours" included you, despite your calling Roosevelt someone who maintained something other than Imperialist ambitions. > >By the standards of the time, and indeed the standards of today, which are >not unreasonable to apply, Roosevelt was not an imperialist. He pursued a >political course that kept the US disengaged from most of the world at a >time when it appeared as though liberal democracies were losing the >intellectual and moral fight with both fascist and marxist dictatorships, >only weighing in when the fighting got serious. This ius hardly the mark of >a man who is hell bent on extending American influence and power to every >corner of the globe. I am not arguing that America has not been imperialist >at times, but for the purposes of this discussion, which revolves around >the post world war two world and the emergence of the UN, the rise of >modern American imperialism can be said to date from the Truman doctrine >which emerged in 1947, if my memory serves me. > This is simply confusing the attempt at figuring out the mental ambitions of Roosevelt with what Roosevelt actually was. Franklin was a continuation of what Teddy actually began, as much as anyone did. The seizure of Cuba and the Philipines, not to mention Puerto Rico, were the beginning of the Imperialist era for the United States. I would charge that Roosevelt spent the first two years of the "Great Patriotic War" (How's that for Stalinism?:)) trying desperately to get INTO said war, he, like all imperial minded men behind him, knew the greatest empire the world ever saw might just lay on the other side of this war. That is the main reason for American acceptance of the nuetrality pact, the main reason that companies who traded with Nazi German companies would never be punished- why it was of little surprise that the country itself was able to steer it's own way through the most devastating war in human history- while sustaining only 300 000 deaths. Simple- get the others to do your fighting (for imperialist empire) and be happy with claiming the leftovers. Roosevelts'legacy? Leading the United States to the greatest power any country has ever known. Although it is hardly worth a medal- you could even say so of both Roosevelts. > > >Acquised? My god, you are serious! Maybe "Greece"might help you. If not, > >"Italy". I can go on, if I must, but this is simply a perversion of >history, > >as Buchanan wants it. He has been going on about the Americans aquiescing >to > >Stalin in the Hitler-Stalin pact. Give me a break. > > >Try reading a little of the history of World War Two, particularly what >discussions went on between the Americans and the British after the >invasion of Sicily and the surrender of Italy. The British wanted to send >troops into what is now Yugoslavia and Albania, partly to forstall the >Stalinist dictatorships that Churchill forsaw - accurately - emerging in >all those countries unlucky enough to be liberated by the Red army. Chester >Wilmont's work' The Struggle for Europe details some of the strategic and >tactical consquences of this conflict between the Americans and the British >as regards eastern Europe and the Balkans at the end of the last big war. > Correct, to a degree. Do you think it was "unlucky" for Yugoslavia and Albania that they were able to liberate themselves? Only three types would, in my estimation: 1: Die hard "Hoxha-ists", believing the liberators in Yugoslavia were social fascist or some such thing. 2: Dogmatic "Titoists" who wish nothing but the worst upon the regime of Hoxha in Albania, despite its overwhelmingly independant, anti-imperialist and socialist character. 3: Cold Warriors, who believe the downside of siege-socialism was as uncomfortable as the prospect of being liberated by the Roosevelt/Truman/Churchill doctrinaires. > > > >> > >>The UN has just as much power and authority as the nation states that >are > >>its constituent members allow it to have; rather than berating the UN >for > >>being imperialist or neo colonial, we should be berating the member >states > >>who are trying to use the UN as a vehicle for their (sometimes) >imperialist > >>and neo-colonial aims. > > > >That hair is so thin I simply cannot split it. > >Is this another way of saying the Stalinist legacy is an intellectual and >academic bludgeon which cannot cope with fine and delicate arguments? > > No- It means if you attack what Imperialists "have done" to the UN, you quickly realise that the UN itself was designed to prop up Imperialism, at least t
Re: M-TH: East Timor and the Western Left
>Excuse me? Where on earth does this bizarre statement come from? Roosevelt >WAS imperialist, born and bred. I can't believe you meant to write this on >our list. Just say it ain't so! What do you mean "our list". That is a - dare I say it, imperialist - comment if ever I heard one. It's my fucking list too, even if I don't post to it fourteen times a day. By the standards of the time, and indeed the standards of today, which are not unreasonable to apply, Roosevelt was not an imperialist. He pursued a political course that kept the US disengaged from most of the world at a time when it appeared as though liberal democracies were losing the intellectual and moral fight with both fascist and marxist dictatorships, only weighing in when the fighting got serious. This ius hardly the mark of a man who is hell bent on extending American influence and power to every corner of the globe. I am not arguing that America has not been imperialist at times, but for the purposes of this discussion, which revolves around the post world war two world and the emergence of the UN, the rise of modern American imperialism can be said to date from the Truman doctrine which emerged in 1947, if my memory serves me. >Acquised? My god, you are serious! Maybe "Greece"might help you. If not, >"Italy". I can go on, if I must, but this is simply a perversion of history, >as Buchanan wants it. He has been going on about the Americans aquiescing to >Stalin in the Hitler-Stalin pact. Give me a break. > Try reading a little of the history of World War Two, particularly what discussions went on between the Americans and the British after the invasion of Sicily and the surrender of Italy. The British wanted to send troops into what is now Yugoslavia and Albania, partly to forstall the Stalinist dictatorships that Churchill forsaw - accurately - emerging in all those countries unlucky enough to be liberated by the Red army. Chester Wilmont's work' The Struggle for Europe details some of the strategic and tactical consquences of this conflict between the Americans and the British as regards eastern Europe and the Balkans at the end of the last big war. > >> >>The UN has just as much power and authority as the nation states that are >>its constituent members allow it to have; rather than berating the UN for >>being imperialist or neo colonial, we should be berating the member states >>who are trying to use the UN as a vehicle for their (sometimes) imperialist >>and neo-colonial aims. > >That hair is so thin I simply cannot split it. Is this another way of saying the Stalinist legacy is an intellectual and academic bludgeon which cannot cope with fine and delicate arguments? > > >Let us not forget that one of the reasons that the >>US has refused to pay its dues to the UN was the way that the UN was able >>to successfully reflect an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial agenda, >>especially in the 1960s. Does anyone remember the new international >>communications order? Can I take from this that you don't? - Michael Booth Associate Lecturer Faculty of Communication University of Canberra Ph: 61 02 6201 2161 (w) 61 02 6249 1716 (h) Canberra, ACT, 2601 Fax: 61 02 6201 5119 AUSTRALIA Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == I Know It's Only Rock'n'Roll. But I like it, like it, like it, yes I do. == --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor and the Western Left
>All this talk about the UN being an imperialist organisation seems to >ignore much of the history of how the UN was set up - largely by the >winners of World War Two, who were determined, especially Roosevelt, to >make sure that imperialism, would vanish from the world. Excuse me? Where on earth does this bizarre statement come from? Roosevelt WAS imperialist, born and bred. I can't believe you meant to write this on our list. Just say it ain't so! To this end the US >interefered in Allied strategy, particularly in the Balkans, aquisced in >the Stalinist occupation of Eastern Europe, and accepted the creation of an >organisation that could be held hostage by any of the major powers who >cared to exercise a veto in the security council. Acquised? My god, you are serious! Maybe "Greece"might help you. If not, "Italy". I can go on, if I must, but this is simply a perversion of history, as Buchanan wants it. He has been going on about the Americans aquiescing to Stalin in the Hitler-Stalin pact. Give me a break. > >The UN has just as much power and authority as the nation states that are >its constituent members allow it to have; rather than berating the UN for >being imperialist or neo colonial, we should be berating the member states >who are trying to use the UN as a vehicle for their (sometimes) imperialist >and neo-colonial aims. That hair is so thin I simply cannot split it. Let us not forget that one of the reasons that the >US has refused to pay its dues to the UN was the way that the UN was able >to successfully reflect an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial agenda, >especially in the 1960s. Does anyone remember the new international >communications order? >> >Michael Booth >Associate Lecturer >Faculty of Communication >University of Canberra Ph: 61 02 6201 2161 (w) >61 02 6249 1716 (h) >Canberra, ACT, 2601Fax: 61 02 6201 5119 > AUSTRALIA Email: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor and the Western Left
All this talk about the UN being an imperialist organisation seems to ignore much of the history of how the UN was set up - largely by the winners of World War Two, who were determined, especially Roosevelt, to make sure that imperialism, would vanish from the world. To this end the US interefered in Allied strategy, particularly in the Balkans, aquisced in the Stalinist occupation of Eastern Europe, and accepted the creation of an organisation that could be held hostage by any of the major powers who cared to exercise a veto in the security council. The UN has just as much power and authority as the nation states that are its constituent members allow it to have; rather than berating the UN for being imperialist or neo colonial, we should be berating the member states who are trying to use the UN as a vehicle for their (sometimes) imperialist and neo-colonial aims. Let us not forget that one of the reasons that the US has refused to pay its dues to the UN was the way that the UN was able to successfully reflect an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial agenda, especially in the 1960s. Does anyone remember the new international communications order? - Michael Booth Associate Lecturer Faculty of Communication University of Canberra Ph: 61 02 6201 2161 (w) 61 02 6249 1716 (h) Canberra, ACT, 2601 Fax: 61 02 6201 5119 AUSTRALIA Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == I Know It's Only Rock'n'Roll. But I like it, like it, like it, yes I do. == --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor and the Western Left
Recently I was at a conference on Women and Education in Melbourne, which was addressed by a woman representative from Fretlin. The speaker told us how grateful the East Timorese people were for the support of the Australian public, that someone actually cared about what was happening to them. She also acknowledged the that while Fretlin and Falintil were aware of the imperialist nature of the UN, they had little choice but to rely on them because they had little resources and their people were being murdered. It is fine to call for call for to disarm the militia's, for Indonesia troops to withdraw etc, and for a workers revolution in East Timor. However, in the current situtation the following has to be asked ... who will disarm the militia's (certainly not the Indonesia forces), who will get the Indonesian's to withdraw (certainly not the Indonesian regime) and how can their be a worker's revolution in the current context when the majority of workers have or are being murdered by the militia's and TNI. As the Fretlin speaker pointed out, they had no choice but to call for the UN to intervene. Their choice was either hold say no and watch the slaughter continue or say yes and hope that it will stem the follow of the genocide. The UN will not bring independence for East Timor, but at the moment it will stop the murder by the Militia and the TNI. What is the point of left fighting for independence for East Timor, if in the end there are no East Timorese people left because we sat by and said we can't offer any immediate solutions to stop the genocide because the UN is an imperialist organisation. Instead we can only offer you slogans and watch you be murdered. A pretty hollow victory for socialism, I would argue... regards, Kim B PS - if anyone is interested in finding out the reason for why the DSP has supported UN troops in, the last two-three editions of Green Left Weekly has a number of indepth articles. They are available on the net. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [PEN-L:11711] Re: Re: M-TH: East Timor
At 20:14 28/09/99 +1000, you wrote: >G'day all, > >I hear Ambon has been isolated by the Indonesian authorities. No transport >or public communications in or out. Just a bunch of well-armed troops, >some very poorly armed Christian seccessionists, and lots of people whose >views on the matter just aren't going to matter. The drawn-out >angst-ridden denouement of the great Indonesian saga is at hand, I reckon. >And we're gonna hear very little about it while East Timor is kept bubbling >along. Which takes but a couple of killings here, a bit of burning there The western media has played down the extent to which to young nationalist Indonesians of muslim culture, the independence of East Timor must look like Christian communalism leading to the disintegration of Indonesian national identity. The more fully democratic answer is the recognition of the right of nations and national minorities to self-determination with a large measure of self-government. It is a good sign that the student movement in Jakarta has outfaced the military. There is a three corner battle going on here between imperialism with a policy of neo-liberalism and bourgeois democratic rights, the military with a policy of comprador subservience to imperialism or bourgeois nationalism in alliance with peasantry, thirdly democratic forces opposed to internal repression and corruption. These last see the western solution at the moment as a lesser evil than a reimposition of a right wing military backed dictatorship. But they need to make their democracy more truly radical by embracing the right of nations to self-determination politically, and opposition to neo-liberalism economically. They need a sort of New Democratic programme. To judge whether a relatively stable coalition can be built of this nature we need to consider in the light of evidence from within Indonesia. Chris Burford London. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [PEN-L:11711] Re: Re: M-TH: East Timor
G'day all, I hear Ambon has been isolated by the Indonesian authorities. No transport or public communications in or out. Just a bunch of well-armed troops, some very poorly armed Christian seccessionists, and lots of people whose views on the matter just aren't going to matter. The drawn-out angst-ridden denouement of the great Indonesian saga is at hand, I reckon. And we're gonna hear very little about it while East Timor is kept bubbling along. Which takes but a couple of killings here, a bit of burning there ... Neat. Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [PEN-L:10992] Re: M-TH: East Timor
G'day all, Just thought you'd like an impression of how Oz could've sold the East Timorese intervention so most in the region would buy it, and didn't. Big boys like the US have some sort of excuse for insensitive arrogant stupidity, but what's ours? 'Globalisation' is a long road with lots of off-ramps - and we're not all that far up it, I reckon. Anyway, the full story is at: http://news.com.au/frame_loader.htm?/news_content/national_content/4263591.htm PM's doctrine under seige By GREG SHERIDAN 25sep99 JOHN Howard's Doctrine, which would see Australia becoming the US's "deputy" in Asia, was under attack last night by South-East Asian leaders who branded it racist and a threat to regional ties. South-East Asian politicians said the doctrine was arrogant and had done more damage to Australia's relations with Asia than anything since the White Australia immigration policy. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor
At 14:02 16/09/99 +1000, Rob wrote: >And, anyway, if East Timor is still a viable entity, it was NEVER going to >be meaningfully independent. Neoliberal hegemony was ALWAYS its fate for >the foreseeable future. Agreed. Ironically autonomy rather than independence is the only outcome that is relatively stable, since East Timor cannot be economically independent. Now that imperialism has got agreement on intervention by a peace keeping force, I think what tiny fragments of influence the left has, should be to draw attention to the fact that just waving the IMF stick is likely to play into the hands of local fascists. There needs to be at least some efforts to discuss a development plan that is not a clean sweep for neo-liberalism - that makes a material difference to the lives of working people and the smaller bourgeoisie in the whole of the Indonesian archipelago. Without this these class forces must back a nationalist solution that is undemocratic and fascist. From your description Wiranto might represent that option. I am away for a few days, but I am glad to see thaxis arguing about these really important and difficult questions. Do not let that inhibit anyone from tearing my post apart. I will pick up the pieces with interest later. Chris --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor
G'day Thaxists, >But Rob, do you really imagine that there can be any political situation, >let alone a crisis , that does not team with numerous contradictions and >different class interests? Oh, I don't doubt that for a minute, Chris. It's just that the particular contradictions in play at the moment either do or don't wipe out East Timor, Ambon, Aachi, West Irian, a host of places of which we've never heard, and the whole of the PRD - perhaps even a sizable chunk of Megawati's support base - with, er, extreme prejudice. That depends on the here and now, and it's why I favour going in mob-handed NOW - rather lend some gravitas and credibility to the sorely tried idea of a civilian president within a quasi-liberal democratic setting, than aid and abet in the whole idea's destruction by a remilitarised Golkar and a Wiranto 'presidency'. Of course, which ever of those two scenarios transpires (and I have Wiranto installed at 3/1-on), has a lot to do with contributing to a new dynamic of transformed contradictions. But we are talking megadeath here (sorry to bleat again, Bob), and I share with you the suspicion this might just be a significant criterion in this debate. I just don't see how a civilised person can say 'either a workers' vanguard or nobody' when it comes to crises like this. And, anyway, if East Timor is still a viable entity, it was NEVER going to be meaningfully independent. Neoliberal hegemony was ALWAYS its fate for the foreseeable future. To pretend different is to do your bit to help the powers-that-be to destroy these people completely. And whatever neoliberal hegemony is capable of, its capacity to destroy people completely is at least moot (neoliberalism breeds contradictions; death just breeds maggots). >Instead of being fatalistic we have to struggle The left does more to nourish my fatalism than anything else ... >a) to think globally, and then > >b) not to think like the transnational bourgeoisie. Well, while I await the contradictory unity of a global bourgeoisie and a concomitant global proletariat (unforeseeable whilst the left is constituted by the entropic assortment of jagged shards it is at present), I think I'd do well to remember that the institutional setting today does seem to offer a little more relevance at the level of the state. Not much, but at least some. >But the more blunders the latter makes the more it will arouse the >opposition of millions. One outcome of this could be Indonesia joining >Malaysia is a strongly anti-IMF world stance. I think that's gonna have to take a massive default on Indonesia's part - and unless I have the sociology of the ideal-type Wiranto way wrong, he's not about to do that, Chris. He knows who butters his bread now, and he knows Indonesia will not have the butter for that job for a long time - if ever. Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor
At 15:11 15/09/99 +1000, you wrote: >The plot sickens ... But Rob, do you really imagine that there can be any political situation, let alone a crisis , that does not team with numerous contradictions and different class interests? >Wiranto has apparently given notice that he may resign after army day >(October 5) and join the presidential race (to be concluded in November). >He will, of course, keep his job as Minister for Defence. A lot of >Indonesians are for it if the west doesn't shore up the Habibie/Megawati >'transition' options here and now by accepting their invitations to go in, >save some lives, make the idea of a truly civilian presidency look >credible, and take the initiative from the uniforms. Of course, now that >Wiranto has gone for it, he may feel moved to shore himself up by >presenting a foreign (especially decisively white) intervention as an >assault on Indonesian sovereignty - which would split the population, >'necessitate' nationwide martial control, and kick up some useful >belligerent fear and loathing. > >But that's all so much wind, I think. Things are turning out just as our >betters had it in mind for them to turn out ... > >Cheers, >Rob. What is this about our betters? It is most unlikely that events in Timor and Indonesia could at one go, reverse the overall balance of forces in the world. However nor should we be fatalistic. US imperialism is operating at the limits of its ability and has problems to deal with, as do other reactionary and oppressive elements. The interesting scenario you paint is where Wiranto may step forward as a representative of the military/national bourgeoisie. He too is an amiguous character with dialectically opposed aspects. If he were to win there would still be much to play for. The bigger scenario in the archipelago as a whole is that while it may be right to press for some sort of intervention, that should be as little as possible intervention in the interests of US hegemonism. The more it is of that character the more it is likely to stir up the national bourgeoisie of Indonesia and to risk the democratic gains of the revolutionary upheavals against Suharto with the reimposition of a regime which suppresses democratic rights. That is why the economic pressure from the World Bank and IMF should have been combined with a development plan which the progressive national and democratic forces of both Timor and Indonesia could have had an interest in shaping. Instead of being fatalistic we have to struggle a) to think globally, and then b) not to think like the transnational bourgeoisie. But the more blunders the latter makes the more it will arouse the opposition of millions. One outcome of this could be Indonesia joining Malaysia is a strongly anti-IMF world stance. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor
The plot sickens ... Wiranto has apparently given notice that he may resign after army day (October 5) and join the presidential race (to be concluded in November). He will, of course, keep his job as Minister for Defence. A lot of Indonesians are for it if the west doesn't shore up the Habibie/Megawati 'transition' options here and now by accepting their invitations to go in, save some lives, make the idea of a truly civilian presidency look credible, and take the initiative from the uniforms. Of course, now that Wiranto has gone for it, he may feel moved to shore himself up by presenting a foreign (especially decisively white) intervention as an assault on Indonesian sovereignty - which would split the population, 'necessitate' nationwide martial control, and kick up some useful belligerent fear and loathing. But that's all so much wind, I think. Things are turning out just as our betters had it in mind for them to turn out ... Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: East Timor
Bob: No, you are wrong on this George. One should not confuse the reactionary leaderships of these movements with the just desires of the peoples who inhabit this region and it ain't just the East Timorese. In fact there are a myriad of peoples who are living in this part of the world with both different languages culture and history and to ignore this for communists would be utra left infantilism. I would suggest the practices of the early Bolsheviks in the East on dealing with this questuion. But also Lenin on the national question and not in the least the contributions of the ICL on interpenetrating peoples. George: You are gone all blue again Bob.I dont confuse the reactionary form with the revolutionary substance. Nothing I said suggess that Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site athttp://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared/
Re: M-TH: East Timor
At 23:24 13/09/99 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Folks, neither of the main positions are tenable --support for >intervention or support for the East Timorese independence movement. >Interventionism merely constitutes another form of imperialist action. So does non-intervention. >As I write the imperialist powers and their satellites hover like vultures over the East Timorese masses while deciding how to divide and consume their prey. This sounds very radical, but it is purist nonsense. Sorry, but clever analyses that everything is the fault of imperialism will not help link theory with practice, and will paralyse people from making the compromises that are essential in political practice. If George is advancing the bogus marxist strategy of "no compromises" he should reflect that to do nothing, in a situation in which imperialism is always intervening as much as it can, usually quietly and secretly, is itself a compromise. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
