Once again, a media campaign in western countries is generating public support
for military intervention. East Timor is "the next Kosovo". But the comparison
with Kosovo indicates why an intervention is wrong.
A military intervention would establish a UN protectorate: Kosovo shows what
that means. At first all decisions would be taken by international
organisations. As in Kosovo, they would exercise absolute military power. They
would appoint the courts, the police, any local armed forces. The vast
majority of the population would be excluded from all political process. A
tiny pro-western, English-speaking, elite would be placed in positions of
power - first as translators and assistants, later as founders of the
UN-funded "democratic" political parties. The media would be controlled
entirely by the UN, which would have censorship powers. In Bosnia and Kosovo,
political and cultural life has become dependent on western foundations: in
the Timorese case, the Catholic church would assume that role as well. Those
who opposed the UN protectorate would have no resources to organise that
opposition: they will be politically marginalised.
---
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/koseth.html
Kosovo intervention ethics
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/osce-pristina.html
OSCE controls media in Kosovo
----
Timor intervention is not an ethical duty, as some media claim (the BBC spoke
of a "moral crusade"). There is no moral duty to help those in danger, beyond
the personal level. I can not go to Timor in person to protect anyone,
therefore I have no further obligations. I certainly have no moral obligation
to support the Australian army, or the Portuguese army, or the US army.
Remember that armies kill people: an intervention in Timor with no casualties
is impossible. As in Kosovo, there will almost certainly be revenge attacks -
on the Javanese iimmigrants to Timor. No "obligation to assist" extends so
far, that I have to give political support to a military intervention. There
are good reasons to oppose intervention: in reality it is a *re-colonisation*
of East Timor.
Timor will become a UN protectorate, on a poor Asian island, close to a rich
country with neoliberal economic policies. It will inevitably become a victim
of neoliberalism. The prevention of genocide can not justify neoliberalism.
The best comparison is with Haiti. Thanks to US intervention, the population
live in abject poverty, with no future except as ultra-cheap labour for US
firms. Typical of the conditions on Haiti is, that a main supply of protein is
slaughterhouse waste from the US. Even in Bosnia, the poor were reduced to
scavenging on the waste dumps of US bases. That is how the US treats a white
European population - no wonder the Haitians are treated as human garbage dumps.
That is the future, that the Timorese can expect from an Australian-Portugese
controlled protectorate. All thanks to a combination of media, "left-wing"
activists and intellectuals, military lobbies, and promoters of a neoliberal
Asian-Pacific economy. It would be morally wrong to blackmail Timor's
inhabitants into accepting that, by giving them the choice of "genocide or
neoliberalism", the choice "be colonised or be killed". Reducing a population
to a humiliating dependent status, under conditions of extreme poverty, can
not be described as "help". Colonisation is not "help". Colonialism was wrong,
and is wrong - even if the colonial force prevents violence. The Timor
intervention is unethical. It is morally wrong for any soldier to take part in
such an intervention: soldiers should refuse orders to participate in an
intervention force.
--------
Paul Treanor
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nuke-jakarta.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|