At 09:19 28/09/99 +0200, Martin William Smith wrote:
>alister air writes:
>
>Yes, but I didn't mean that.  I mean that most peoples' claims that
>they were against the NATO bombing on moral grounds are dishonest.

Which peoples' claims?  Was mine - because I didn't post to Chomsky?

>They should have been there even before the election, but Indonesia
>would not have allowed it.

Well, actually... the UN *could* have applied some (any!) pressure on
Indonesia to accept armed peacekeepers, rather than the unarmed advisers
who ended up going.

Australia's past role is a part of the reason why we pushed the "Indonesia
can take care of it" line.  We were sucking up.  We betrayed the East
Timorese pretty badly over a long period of time... even before the invasion.

>I don't know what else could have been done as quickly.  Who else
>could have sent so many well-equiped troops as quickly?

The force could have been more international.  Interestingly enough,
Australia is being denounced in parts of Asia as "neo-colonialist".  This
may well prove to be true, but is also a diversion from the issue that the
Indonesian military most definitely aided and abetted the militias.  I
don't think this can be in doubt, given the history of Indonesia's role in ET.

>the election?  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 think this was sorted out anyway.  East TImorese leaders have said that
the treaties will remain mostly unchanged.  The Timor Gap oil reserves,
which belong to East Timor, will still be exploited by multinational oil
production companies.

Alister