Jeg har sagt det så mange ganger at det begynner å bli slitsomt å gjenta det:
Jeg *er* kjent med sånne ting som KVJ "avslører" her. Men fakta om
USA/Vesten/NATOS dobbeltspill, fordekte opplæring av torturister,
våpeneksport til undertrykkende regimer, etc. etc. --som har vært kjent
i 30 år nå for de som følge litt med-- er *på siden* i
forhold til min analyse. Den rokkes nemlig ikke av at disse regjeringer og
deres allierte i de transnasjonale selskapene og de militær-industrielle
kompleksene utbytter, ljuger og oppmuntrer/samarbeider med de
verste overgripere for å opprettholde sin makt/utbytting.
Mitt poeng er i stedet at det parallellellt er utviklet, og utvikles, en
sterkere internasjonal opinion mot blodig undertrykking enn noensinne, av
grunnleggende strukturelle årsaker som jeg har beskrevet i nylige innlegg.
Dette innebærer ei stadig sterkere motkraft som begrenser handlefriheten
til USA/Vesten/NATO/de transnasjonale selskapene/de militær-industrielle
kompleksene.
På denne bakgrunn er jeg forholdsvis trygg på at den australsk-ledede
militære inngripen på Øst-Timor vil forbli en akseptabel "humanitær
intervensjon", på tross av at det finnes nok av maktpersoner både
i australsk politikk, forretningsverden og militærapparat, som egentlig gir
blanke faen i folkemordet på Øst-Timor og vil ha "business as usual" med
Indonesia. Og i forhold til alternativet (ingen inngripen), kan denne
intervensjonsstyrken gjøre ganske mange feilgrep, før jeg ville si at det
var feil å gripe inn.
Når KVJ hånlig snakker om min "svakhet for human intervensjonskrig", så er
det naturlig å komme med motspørsmålet: Mener du da at den australsk-ledede
militæraksjonen ikke skulle funnet sted? Hvis du mener det, innebærer det at
du toer dine hender og aksepterer at myrderiene bare kan fortsette!
Hvis du som meg i stedet mener at den var nødvendig, støtter du sjøl en slik
"humanitær intervensjonskrig" som du bare har hatt hån til overs for i
din polemikk mot meg.
Les også klippet nedenfor om hvordan det dogmatiske
"venstre" vrir seg desperat for å slippe å si rett ut at "det er bedre at
folkemordet fortsetter enn at et imperialistisk land skal intervenere"
- det sier det meste.
Trond Andresen
***********************************
Innsendt av Jon Ivar Skullerud <jonivar@bigfoot.com>, arkivert her på
http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/fra110699/0369.html
Subject: Ultravenstre og Øst-Timor, Fra Green Left Weekly,
http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/376p14.htm
>.......................
> .......Some others on the left, however, have implicitly or
> explicitly argued against this demand. ....
(de går mot australsk intervensjon, min anm. - TA)
>.....For example, an
> editorial in the September 10 issue of Socialist Worker,
> fortnightly paper of the International Socialist Organisation,
> acknowledges: "The people of East Timor are facing the most
> desperate circumstances and there are mounting calls for Australia
> or the UN to intervene.
>
> "But the Australian government had been complicit in the
> oppression of East Timor since Indonesia invaded in 1975."
>
> The Socialist Worker editorial correctly observes that Prime
> Minister John "Howard insists that the Indonesian military and the
> Indonesian police `must do the job' when he knows that it is
> precisely these forces that are behind the killing".
>
> It goes on to point out: "The hypocrisy of Howard and the West has
> outraged thousands upon thousands and fuelled the protests.
>
> "The West bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990
> `because big countries can't invade small countries and get away
> with it.' A massive bombing campaign was unleashed on Serbia in
> the name of democracy.
>
> "But just as with the Kurds, the West has turned it back on East
> Timor."
>
> Why, then, is the ISO opposed to demanding that Howard
> and the West cease their hypocrisy and militarily
> intervene to stop the Indonesian army drowning in blood the
> aspirations of the East Timorese?
>
> Socialist Worker offers no explanation as to why it does not agree
> with the demand for Australian troops to be sent to East Timor,
> other than to remind its readers of the indisputable fact that all
> Australian governments, including the Howard government, "have
> been complicit in the oppression of East Timor since Indonesia
> invaded in 1975".
>
> Put demands on Howard
>
> But at the present time, Howard claims to be against the present
> terror campaign in East Timor and to support the agreement made by
> Jakarta with the UN to grant East Timor independence if the
> majority of East Timorese rejected autonomy in the August 30
> referendum. Why, then, can't supporters of the East Timorese
> nation's democratic right to self-determination demand that Howard
> "put his money where his mouth is" and use Australian troops to
> halt the terror campaign and help realise East Timor's freedom
> from Indonesian rule?
>
> The only explanation offered by the editorial is: "In any case,
> Howard says there won't be a peace-keeping force without
> Indonesia's permission and that has been ruled out at least until
> the new Indonesian parliament meets which could be as late as
> November".
>
> In other words, Howard has stated he doesn't want to send
> Australian troops without Jakarta's agreement, and since Jakarta
> won't agree, opponents of Indonesia's genocide shouldn't bother
> demanding that Howard break his alliance with the Indonesian
> generals and act immediately to save the East Timorese from the
> campaign being organised by these generals.
>
> The Socialist Worker editorial, however, is not very consistent in
> this capitulationist line of argument. Later it tells us:
>
> "Without military support from Indonesia, the militias would
> dissolve or be quickly disarmed.
>
> "But the Australian government refuses to call on the Indonesian
> government to withdraw or to deny them military aid."
>
> The editorial does not use this fact to argue that there is no
> point in demanding that the Australian government call on the
> Indonesian government to withdraw its troops.
>
> Instead, it correctly calls on the "movement here" to demand that
> the government call for the immediate withdrawal of Indonesian
> troops and end military ties with Indonesia. Why, then, can't the
> East Timor solidarity movement demand that the Howard government
> immediately send Australian troops to act directly to stop the
> bloodbath?
>
> The reason is that the ISO is opposed on principle to Australian
> troops being sent to East Timor. But they know that openly saying
> this and giving their reasons would completely isolate them in the
> East Timor solidarity movement. Therefore, they hide behind an
> expression of abject resignation to Howard's desire not to take
> any action that would seriously threaten Australian imperialism's
> alliance with the Indonesian generals.
>
> The real argument
>
> The ISO's real argument for its refusal to support the immediate
> sending of Australian troops to East Timor was articulated in an
> internet posting by David Camfield, a co-thinker of the ISO in
> Canada. Camfield wrote:
>
> "Socialists should not call on imperialist armed forces to
> intervene (whether under the UN flag or not) in East Timor any
> more than we did in Kosova. There was overwhelming support for
> NATO intervention among the Kosovar Albanians.
>
> "Although we supported them against the violence of the Serbian
> army and paramilitaries, we argued against NATO or UN involvement
> as imperialist intervention in the Balkans that wouldn't advance
> peace, democracy and social justice in the region.
>
> "The same should apply in the case of Australian and/or other UN
> troops and East Timor."
>
> The assumption behind this argument appears to be that, because
> the Australian armed forces are imperialist armed forces, any
> military intervention by them -- regardless of the concrete
> circumstances and regardless of what policy objectives they are
> asked to achieve -- would be "imperialist interference" that
> "wouldn't advance peace, democracy and social justice".
>
> Such an outlook is nothing more than "left-wing" dogmatism, which
> refuses to take into account actual circumstances, instead simply
> repeating old formulas laid down for different conditions.
>....