Re: [Marxism] re: East Timor replies (neo-colonial occupation, not "colonial occupation")

[Lajany Otum <lajany_otum@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

dwalters  wrote:
>One thing I noticed is that Rohan states: "colonial occupation is never ok"
 >as if this is the question. Perhaps unintentionally, it's slight of hand since
 >he differentiates this from "imperialist intervention". Hmmm. I have to admit
 > Hmmm. I have to admit there is a difference, at least in goals. But actual
 >"colonial occupation" is relatively rare, is it not? The US hasn't launched a 
 >true
 >conquest of colonial colonization since it became imperialist in the 1890s. 
 >Mostly
 >it's "just" But the imperialist intervention. But the essential question is 
 >worth
 >discussing as essential question is worth discussing as poised by Rohan :  
 >When is
 >imperialist intervention a lesser evil than something else I think this is a 
 >valid
 >question.


 Clearly, the fault here is my own for misphrasing the question in terms of 
"colonial occupation" rather than the more correct term "neo-colonial 
occupation," which is what the Australian state and military is carrying out in 
Timor, with the tacit support of the ostensible Australian left. My sloppy use 
of language allowed Rohan to wilfully or otherwise evade this issue.

 Being neither theologically inclined nor qualified, I will pass the 
opportunity to join David Walters in arcane questions about assigning weights 
to greater and lesser evils in Timor, Rwanda, Kosovo, or elsewhere.

However, the questions of lesser evils (codespeak in the liberal left for 
humanitarian intervention by the strongest power of the day) versus greater 
evil (codespeak in the same quarters for natives being unable to manage their 
affairs without a strong paternal guiding hand), in many cases misses or evades 
the most important questions

 Let us consider the Rwandan "genocide", which is frequently raised as an 
example of a greater evil, and was mentioned by David Walters in his comment. 
The Rwandese events of 1994 did not take place because of the lack of 
imperialist intervention as  the hand-wringing liberals imply, but because of 
the precisely because of the presence of imperialist intervention.

 Historically, the Belgian colonial administration consciously planted the 
seeds of racial (sic) and ethnic conflict in the region in the region in the 
first half of the 20th century.  It is also well documented, if not widely 
known, that later in the 1990's he so called "Hutu faction" of the Rwandese 
elite was backed and armed by France, while the so called "Tutsi faction" was 
backed and armed by a US proxy and client in neighbouring Uganda. Thus, besides 
the regional social collapse due to Washington consensus economic policies 
carried out by faithful domestic elites, the contest between France and the US 
for dominance in the great lakes region cannot be overlooked if we want  to 
understand the causes of the Rwandan genocide in other than than theological 
terms .

 Anyhow, in true Orwellian fashion, the actual fact of imperialist intervention 
in  Rwanda has been successfully hidden behind a mythical "failure" to 
intervene to prevent a "genocide," which the local elites could and would not 
have orchestrated without the support of the leading imperialist powers.  Later 
the official whitewash gains a life of its own, so much so that it is peddled 
by Trotskyists, no less, on this list.

 L. Otum


                
---------------------------------
 All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease 
of use." - PC Magazine
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism