Re: AUT: WSW article on East Timor/Indonesia

["rc-am" <rcollins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

bill wrote:

> What trite codswallop. For East Timorese people bourgeoise nationalism
is
obviously a big improvement on what they have now.<

elizabeth wrote:

> dear angela, it's a fair enough critique but by the time we finish
with our frowning, fretting and posturing, there won't be anyone left in
east timor. so what do we do? <


here's part of what i'd posted to lbo a few days ago that might go to
the questions above.  (i'll only add that trade boycotts and the
severing of military aid has been an ongoing call in the australian
left, over and above any differences over military intervention.  that
seems more likely to occur now than ever before, and through the
concerted efforts of the left of the trade unions, but that is too late
for the east timorese even though it's crucial to what after all can be
the only way in which this can be solved: for the indonesian working
class to uncouple the links between the military and the state.  no
small task, since the military in indonesia are also the indonesian
capitalists.  but then, even the relative autonomy of the state in
so-called 'western' countries like australia has been made impossible by
processes which have been going on now for over fifty years.  what makes
anyone think that here in east timor we can rediscover a bourgeois
nationalism or a bourgeois democracy that hardly existed anywhere else
and had definite political-economic conditions, and certainly does not
exist now?)

... the issue of australian intervention is a little more
complex than people here (including the DSP) have granted, for many
reasons, including

i) australia was the only 'western' country to have recognised
indonesia's annexation of east timor, and it has always been (through
both Liberal/National coalition governments and Labor Party govts) a
staunch ally of indonesia over east timor, and one of the most constant
advocates in the UN for a UN recognition of indonesian sovereignty over
east timor.  the UN ballot of West Papua/Irian Jaya the early 70s was a
set-piece of what is happening now in east timor: a UN-sponsored ballot
conducted largely in a context of extreme terror and the apparent rising
up of a pro-indonesian section of the population.  the only difference
now is that more attention is on east timor than was on west papua, that
any deal between indonesia and australia to allow the full force of
terror to be brought on the voting has been made impossible, perhaps
because of the failure of credibility of the UN given the recent war in
yugoslavia, perhaps because of the extent of establishment support for
an independant east timor -- the west papuans were not catholic, and
never received the attention and support of the vatican.  if people want
to understand what has been happening in east timor, a study of west
papua might well be the place to begin.

ii) it was australian govt agents who provided lists of suspected
communist that allowed the massacres of indonesians to take place in the
coup led by suharto, and which (under ALP administration) supported the
indonesian annexation of east timor and west papua in what has been a
carving up of the pacific between two ostensibly anti-communist powers;

iii) to position the australian govt as the saviours of the east
timorese is both absurd (because of the first) and innaccurate, because
the australian govt has always supported the autonomy proposal (and
worked hard against independance), because the aust govt only conceded
to the UN ballot on condition that Falantil agree to honour the
agreement over oil exploration in the Timor Gap, and more importantly
for how any such intervention by the aust govt will pan out,

iv) there is no doubt that the australian govt will work hard, despite
UN claims that no partition is being sanctioned, to make sure that the
indonesian capitalists who have interests in east timor (principally the
coffee plantations in the south of the island) are protected.  and this,
together with the acquiescence of Falantil over oil, means that there is
no economic basis for an independant east timor that could produce the
kind of redistribution of wealth which the struggle for independance has
envisaged and aimed for.  any redistributive program will rely on aid
money, with no doubt many conditions attached.

having said that, the question of whether australia is the only country
capable of intervening to halt the starvation, displacement and murders
is not a question of military capability (though the australian
military, having trained the indonesian military for some years now
probably knows them best), since there are other countries which do not
have an investment in the place that the UN could cobble together to do
so.  what remains of course, is the lever of aid, not in any general
sense, but in the precise sense of targetting the families of those
generals who have economic interests in east timor.  the US has been
more than capable of this kind of economic sabotage and blackmail in the
past, and there's no reason why it can't be applied again here by the
IMF, World Bank and that 'international community'.  in the meantime,
the same approach i took on yugoslavia applies here: allow open passage
of the east timorese at risk of being killed and the displaced to
australia.  here's where the aust military can play a role.   but that,
of course, goes against Falantil's insistence that they remain there, as
continuing fodder for calls for UN intervention.

but even if an australian intervention is the only plausible
possibility, that doesn't mean it is the best one.  what it does mean,
is that everyone, including the UN and australia, knew exactly where
this was all heading (given the experience of west papua), and that what
is now seen as the only possible option is what has been made fact
through the collusion between indonesia and australia.  to claim it is
the honourable course is to disregard the extent to which it has been
systematically organised as the _only_ course available.  no one, least
of all the DSP, stand on principle or analysis when they advocate aust
intervention.

Angela
_________







     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---