j
>It is painfully clear that the US (whose presidents have in the past
offered unstinting praise of the notorious, fascist Indonesian govt.,)
is pleased with the situation there. It offers cheap labor, no unions
and rigid control over workers in general--see tennis shoes etc. in this
connection.
wcm
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> [...]
> >There is probably a story behind why the situation was allowed to get
> >out of hand.  Why did the Indonesian military do nothing to stop the
> >militia (and even participate in the destruction, if that is true)?
>
> It seems that merely participating is the least of it, the evidence is that
> the Indonesian military planned it. The why of it seems to have to do with
> the internal jostling for power within the Indonesian state. There is a
> popular movement to get the Indonesian generals out of civil affairs,
> supported I imagine by sections of the capitalist class who are tired of
> the military's semi-feudal dominance of the economy, corruption and
> cronyism, which retards business.
>
> Some analysts have suggested that the military is anxious to demonstrate
> that they have the capacity to render the country ungovernable is they are
> pushed out of the picture politically (and by implication economically) ,
> Timor is their way of teaching people a lesson about what will happen if
> they don't get their way - they will go on a rampage.
>
> If so, and it seems to be a theory consistent with the apparant mentality
> of these thugs, then it could conceivably result in a break-up of the
> Indonesian state in the long term. The military element of the country seem
> to lack sufficient political support to continue to impose their will
> Attempts to compensate for this declining influence with even more brute
> force and acts of barbarity on civilians will merely serve to further and
> dramatically erode their political support. Remaining part of Indonesia got
> only about 20% of the Vote in East Timor, depite the clear threats. The
> people their voted to die on their feet, rather than live on their knees
> literally!
>
> The same tactics of brutal oppression in other parts of Indonesia could be
> expected to achieve the same results. Brute force alone doesn't work in the
> long run, if recent history is any guide.
>
> >Why was there no attempt to place well-armed UN troops there before
> >the election?
>
> The indonesians refused and at that stage there was not the political will
> to insist. The savage reprisals, following the clear and overwhelming vote
> for independence, were what created the political will to insist.
> Particularly in Australia, which has actually recognised Indonesian
> sovereignty of East Timor for many years, unlike the rest of the world.
>
> >  I am beginning to think that the destruction of ET was
> >desired, so that ET would be forced to accept large amounts of aid
> >from Australia and the US, thereby ensuring control of the oil
> >reserves for the foreseeable future.
>
> I've heard that theory, it's a bit far-fetched. The real point is that
> there was little that was possible before. There just was no other option
> given all the circumstances.
>
> In any case, although reprisals were expected, I suppose the savagery of
> those reprisals would have come as a shock to any civilised person.
> Besides, my understanding is that the East Timorese resistance leaders had
> already been pressured to make undertakings to ratify the Timor Gap Treaty
> in order to get Australia's support for the referendum ballot. So it seems
> the matter of the oil was under control long ago.
>
> No flies on our local capitalists, make no mistake about that! They
> wouldn't be careless enough to rely on the Indonesian military to secure
> their interests.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell tas.
>