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

[Lajany Otum <lajany_otum@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

(Previous quote got garbled. Here it is again.)

     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 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" imperialist intervention.
 > But the essential question is worth discussing as
 >posed 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 in this context 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 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



                
---------------------------------
 The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from 
your Internet provider.
________________________________________________
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