Re: East Timor/United Nations

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

Michael Keaney wrote:

> The UN has
> taken the rap for countless failed peace missions, which failed because they
> were not properly supported by the countries, led by the US, that supposedly
> sponsored them in the first place.

Failed in what sense, though?  That UN missions haven't definitively
solved conflicts & brought peace?  That's not the point of the UN
missions, however.  The point is to construct Empire as discussed by
Hardt & Negri & others (however partial their discussion may be): the
end of old sovereignty (however compromised by imperialism), & the
beginning of Empire legitimated now as an enforcer of human rights &
guarantor against genocide, with its police, judges, social workers,
etc.

> Sure thing -- the UN is handy for the US as a means of socialising the costs
> of its global security policies. The powers concerned can look forward to
> mild sops in return. But the issue here is not one of either/or. More like
> both/and. Let me explain. The US itself is torn between wanting to control
> everything and the costs that would involve. The UN is a useful mechanism of
> spreading costs (i.e. financial, bodybags), and is delegated lower priority
> tasks like Africa, East Timor, cleaning up NATO's mess in Kosovo, and
> Southern Lebanon (though, pointedly, not Palestine). This was apparent in
> the US's efforts to screw wads of cash out of Japan during the Gulf War. But
> where the US really wants to ensure an outcome commensurate with its wishes,
> it's NATO that is now assuming the privileged role of preferred instrument.
> Even within NATO, there are tensions about control and costs, as the
> controversy over the proposed European Rapid Reaction Force reveals. But we
> should not confuse the contradictions of US foreign policy with a regard for
> the UN as retaining a status commensurate with that which supposedly
> legitimated the Korean war. And NATO, as a separate vested interest, with
> its own quasi-autonomous organisational capability, is eager in this
> post-Cold War world to find a new role for itself. NATO would be a good case
> study for the public choice people in this respect.

It's indeed both/and.  NATO to punish the truly recalcitrant, the UN
for the rest, under Empire.

You said earlier:

At 12:19 PM +0300 6/28/01, Keaney Michael wrote:
> Putting my cards on the table, I stand with Rob in his assessment that
> Gareth Evans is a major improvement on General Wiranto

At 12:19 PM +0300 6/28/01, Keaney Michael wrote:
> Louis continues:
>
> > The only answer really is to overthrow the US government and send all the
> > criminals like Clinton, Bush Sr. and Jr. to prison. That's how world peace
> > will be achieved, not by providing left apologetics for their criminal
> > behavior.
>
> Absolutely true, but, let's face it, a distant dream, however noble. At
> least many East Timorese can now live to fight another day.

In this regard, Hardt & Negri capture an aspect of how Empire comes
into being (though they neglect others).  H & N do not think of
Empire-building as a project unilaterally imposed from above by the
ruling class & the imperial elite.  In a typical Autonomist &
post-modern fashion, they see the Empire rising from below: "In our
time this desire [for the internationalization and globalization of
relationships, beyond national boundaries] that was set in motion by
the multitude has been addressed (in a strange and perverted but
nonetheless real way) by the construction of Empire.  One might even
say that the construction of Empire and its global networks is a
_response_ to the various struggles against the modern machines of
power, and specifically to class struggle driven by the multitude's
desire for liberation" (43).

The multitude's desire for liberation, in this particular instance of
Empire-building, includes the East Timorese' righteous aspiration for
independence from Indonesia supported by sympathy & solidarity of
good people like you, Chomsky, activists for ETAN, trade unionists in
Australia, and so on.  The same goes for the Balkans, Rwanda, etc.
In the process, however, new precedents for future interventions get
set, new frameworks for managing the fallouts of old & new conflicts
(many of them fallouts of the SAPs) formed, new structures of
feelings ("international bureaucrats & peacekeepers are better than
local despots") come into being.  National sovereignty is coming to
an end (except for the USA) because the multitude want human rights
under capitalism (an impossibility), & rights cannot be enforced
without military powers -- hence the birth of Empire.

Yoshie