Neoliberalism is dead, long live neoliberalism!

By Lisbeth Latham
Originally published by Irish Broad Left
July 10, 2019
Neoliberalism is a term which has entered the left lexicon over the past three decades, although in different countries it can have other analogous terms. While it is a term that the left has embraced, the right, and the advocates of what is commonly referred to as neoliberalism, deny it exists as a phenomenon, instead arguing that it reflects the conspiratorial nature of the left.

Contrary to these positions I argue that there is a usefulness in conceptualising neoliberalism as a distinct response to the capitalist crisis, and that it is not only the hegemonic response to capitalist crisis but that its proponents use crises to deepen and strengthen its hegemony. Moreover, because significant sections of the governmental left have embraced neoliberalism, challenging neoliberalism is central to not only rebuilding left alternatives but to challenging the rise of the far-right internationally.

Why does capitalism experience crises?

Capitalism is the only economic system in the history of humanity that is driven by a need to expand and take over pre-existing social relations. It is also the only economic system in which economic crises are characterised by the production of too much use values (at least in the early period of the a crisis). Marx postulated that the primary underlying driver of an economic crisis is the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. Adding to this general tendency is the anarchic character of the capitalist system, where individual capitalists seek to maximise their own profits by shifting investment to areas of higher rates of profits, which leads to a series of additional crises, specifically crises of overproduction and crises of over-accumulation.

The rate of profit is profit (or surplus value) over the sum of constant capital and variable capital. Political economists dating back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo argued that it was an undeniable fact that there was a tendency of the rate of profit to decline; however, they believed it remained unclear what the mechanism for this decline was. Marx, in Volume 3 of Capital, argued that this tendency was driven fundamentally by profit (i.e. surplus value) being derived from labour.

Therefore, increases in constant capital (an increase in the organic composition of capital – for example, factory machinery or the value of the goods and materials required to produce a commodity) would reduce the amount of labour power involved in production and thus overtime would result in a reduction in the amount of surplus value being extracted in comparison to the total constant and variable capital involved in its production.

Crises of overproduction

Overproduction simply means that too many goods – of either a single category or multiple categories of goods – are being produced to be sold and generate sufficient profits. Since the earlier period of laissez faire capitalism when markets were generally expanding, this is the normal state of affairs. In the US auto-industry, for instance, the industry operated at 75.9 per cent of capacity in the first quarter of 2019.

A crisis occurs, however, when the production and sale of goods is no longer able to produce a profit, or at the very least a sufficient profit which can lead to individual companies, or whole industries collapsing. Such collapses, while a disaster for individual capitalists or corporations and the thousands of workers who are employed by them, creates opportunities in the economy to remove excess capacity from circulation and reduce competition.

Crisis of over-accumulation

Over-accumulation crises occur when the level of capital accumulation in the system reaches such a point that there is too much capital in circulation for significant levels of capital to be profitably invested or reinvested in production, or at least increases the appeal of capital investment in financial speculation rather than in investment in new capital goods.

Overcoming a crisis of over-accumulation requires either the destruction of significant amounts of capital, such as through war, a major recession with widespread bankruptcy, the opening of new markets to create expanded demand, or via the development of new technology – opening new avenues for capital investment. In all of these circumstances, the relief provided cannot and will not be permanent.

Throughout the history of capitalism there have been a range of responses to capitalist crises, particularly large-scale crisis such as recessions and depressions. In the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and resulting Great Depression, then US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, along with a range of governments in advanced capitalist countries, embraced Keynesian responses, which focused on what Roosevelt referred to as “pump-priming” – i.e., public expenditure on infrastructure, much of which was subsidised by using the unemployed as a cheap labour source.

The Great Depression Such measures were essential in overcoming the impact of the Great Depression, and they undoubtedly ameliorated some of the worst levels of poverty unleashed by the depression. But there are two important points to remember: the first is that in many countries the Great Depression unleashed significant levels of class struggle, including both the unemployed and the employed – with this struggle resulting in the victory of fascism at the domestic level in Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain – and with the emergence of social democratic governments in a number of countries for the first time.

In response to an increasingly combative US working class, exemplified by the West Coast maritime strike, the Teamster strikes in Minneapolis, and the Toledo Auto-Lite strike – all of which occurred in 1934 and are seen as key drivers of industrial unionism in the US – Roosevelt’s second New Deal in 1935 had specific measures seeking to limit the level of violence in the class struggle with formal mechanism for union recognition (Preis, A. 1964. Labor’s giant step: Twenty years of the CIO. Monad Press, New York).

The second point to note is that many economies did not truly recover from the Great Depression until the second world was, where the massive investment in armaments, mass conscription, and the destruction pf capital goods fed economic growth, and massive profits, this was particularly the case in the united states where the majority of unions, particularly in Stalinist lead unions, made no strike pledges to help support the war effort (ibid).

Expansion of capitalist accumulation

In the wake of World War II, the environment was set for the rapid expansion of capitalist accumulation. These were the massive destruction of capital goods wrought by the war, and the opening up of new markets as more and more imperial colonial powers broke up under the pressure of anti-colonial national liberation struggles.

At the same time, the growth in confidence of the working class, along with the enhanced standing and expansion of the Soviet Bloc through its role in the defeat of fascism in World War II – placing whole swathes of Western Europe at risk of being ‘lost’ to capitalism – despite the efforts of the Soviet leadership to maintain the division of Europe as agreed between Britain, the US and the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference.

In this context the US government launched the Marshall Plan to massively boost the rebuilding of capital in Western Europe and Japan. In addition, there was pressure to expand social services and public welfare provisions. These steps lay the foundations for the long post-war boom in Western Europe and the US, which was also prolonged by imperialist spending on their militaries as part of Cold War and hot wars in Korea and Vietnam.

The 1973 oil crisis

However, the long boom held within it the roots its own demise, which were exacerbated by other dimensions. These were the absolute limits of expanding markets via the collapse of European colonial empires; the rebuilding of capital in the wake of the destruction of World War II leading to greater capitalist competition and reduced opportunities productive capitalist investments; and growing US deficits due to the cost of the Vietnam war.

In addition, more and more markets were either removed or became more restricted from access to imperialist capitalism as a consequence of national liberation struggles and attempts to build their own national economies. These developments led to a growing stagflation crisis, where both inflation and unemployment grew. This meant that the international capitalist system was vulnerable to further shocks to the economy as the long boom came to a close. Of particular importance were the 1973 OPEC strike and subsequent oil crisis and along with global decline in the demand for steel, exacerbating pressures of deindustrialisation, particularly in the US.

Insurgent neoliberalism

In response to these challenges, a wave of conservative economist and social theorists began to gain a greater hearing among governments for their alternative model for saving capitalism. These groupings, commonly referred to as neoliberals, have their origins in a serious of meetings that founded the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS) in 1947.

Although not having a clear economic doctrine, it represented a political project to reassert capitalist class power and defeat the growing strength of the working class and its organisations the trade unions and the social democratic and communist parties. During its early existence neoliberalism sought to construct a international thought collective represented by a range of national and international think tanks, and seeking to influence and take over university economics departments transforming their positions into increasingly common-sense and thus hegemonic responses to economic crisis.

The ‘Chicago Boys’ make their mark

The first experiments with the implementation of neoliberalism came in Indonesia and Chile following the respective coup d’etats in those countries in 1966 and 1973. In Indonesia, following the establishment of Suharto’s New Order regime, which had been supported in its smashing and mass slaughter of the country’s communist and nationalist left, orchestrated by US intelligence services (particularly the CIA), moves were made to remove barriers to investment by capital from the US and other imperialist nations.

In addition, the Indonesian economy was actively carved up between US corporations. Despite these changes that enabled the expanded imperialist exploitation of Indonesian natural resources and labour, investment processes were extremely corrupt, with investments requiring joint ventures – with domestic Indonesian capital generally with connections to Suharto’s family and the cronies around him.

The extensive level of poverty within the country, exacerbated by the opening up of the economy, also meant that the state was forced to provide a significant level of subsidisation of basic goods to enable much of the population to survive – essentially state subsidies for social reproduction in order to allow the imperialist extraction of super-profits.

In Chile, following the September 1973 coup against President Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity government – carried out by the Chilean armed forces with the backing of the US government (pictured) – there began a program of both mass repression and economic transformation.

During the coup and its aftermath tens of thousands of people were murdered and terrorised, and a further 200,000 people (six per cent of the population) were forced into exile. At the same time, the ‘Chicago Boys’ – academic and graduates from the University of Chicago’s School of Economics, including “Nobel Prize” winner Milton Friedman – were brought in to reshape the Chilean economy. The impact of this transformation saw significant reductions when comparing, wages and social spending when comparing 1970 to 1989:

• Wages decreased by eight per cent. 
• Family allowances in 1989 were 28 per cent of what they had been in 1970. 
•  Budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20 per cent on average.

At the same time, Chile was seen as an economic miracle in comparison to other parts Latin America, with consistent growth in the economy, and lower levels of unemployment than in other Latin American countries. This helped neoliberals to assert ‘common-sense’ truths that private companies are more efficient than governments in delivering services; that higher profits leads to more jobs; and thus lower wages lead to more jobs. 

Neoliberalism bites in the global south

With these ‘successes’ neoliberals were in a position to push for the application of neoliberal solutions to economic difficulties facing both economies of both the imperialist centre and the global south. These changes were pushed by both the victory of openly neoliberal politicians such as US President Ronald Reagan and British PM Margaret Thatcher, and in the case of Australia, France, and Germany social-democratic (or more accurately social-liberal) governments.

In these countries the attacks were pitched as necessary to maintain competitiveness, the rejection of social goods, and general social responsibility for the collective good – and the assertion, in Thatcher’s words, that “there is no alternative”. In many global south countries, resistance to change came from governments, who were unwilling to go as far as demanded, then the levers of international financial institutions as such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organisation (WTO), which sought to tie loans and bailouts to deregulation and privatisation of countries’ resources.

These institutions routinely operated on a gaslighting framework where the people whose economies had failed under the strain of neoliberal restructuring were told that the problem was not the changes that was enabling corporations to extract billions in profits from the countries for little return, but rather that that their economies had not been restructured enough and the recipe for their situation was more and more privatisation and deregulation.

Can neoliberalism be defined?

So what is neoliberalism? There is no definitive prescription of what neoliberalism consists of, which is why its advocates can so readily dismiss its existence.

Neoliberalism began as a small intellectual society founded at Mont Pèlerin in 1947, initially heavily influenced by the ideas of Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, but similar societies and think tanks were established globally. These organisations sought to take over and influence university, institutional, and governmental economics programs, forming what Philip Mirowski refers to as the “neoliberal thought collective”.

These interlinking bodies do not so much articulate a coherent policy doctrine as seek to build and inculcate policy discussions with neoliberal ideas, which may well be at odds with each other, but have the effect of co-opting and subsuming the language of other movements, but also creating a situation where people are presented with not a choice between neoliberalism or an alternative solution, but simply varying forms of neoliberal solutions – which both, in George Lukács’ view is an articulation of the power of neoliberalism as a hegemonic discourse, but also reinforcing Thatcher’s dictum that “there is no alternative”.

Neoliberalism as a response to capitalist crisis

Neoliberalism constitutes a political project aimed at weakening the political power of the working class, asserting the political power of the capitalist class and seeking to establish profitable avenues for capital investment (Harvey, D. 2007. “A brief history of neoliberalism”. Oxford University Press, Oxford.)

Key features of neoliberal projects include:

Increasing barriers to the movement of workers – which results in increasingly constrained rights and marginalisation for migrant workers (this includes open calls to movement being linked to migrants’ wealth); 

Prying open more aspects of social life for capital investment – privatisation and ownership of water, for example, exemplified by the 1999-2000 water wars in Cochabamba, Bolivia, between the community and the the Nestlé corporation; 

Opening of government services to capitalist competition, whether through direct privatisation; corporatisation; “public-private partnerships”; 

Access by government agencies or the introduction of “voucher systems” to enable government subsidisation of the entry of private capital into the provision of social services; and at the same time, deregulating costs. This is often articulated in terms of enhancing consumer “choice”;

Reduction in government spending, primarily premised on the justification of the need to reign in deficits, although this has rarely been achieved (throughout the neoliberal decades the US’s budget had regularly been in deficit). 

Instead reductions occur primarily as a consequence of declines in government income via the narrowing of the tax base to be more heavily reliant on working people, and a redirection of government spending away from social spending on the working class and the promotion of worker-funded retirement funds – which both reduce government responsibility and make massive levels of capital available for speculation on capital markets. For example, the Australian Superannuation Funds amounted to $AU2.8 trillion in funds at the end of the March Quarter of 2019 . 

Weakening the strength and power of organised labour 
The outsourcing of work occurs both within public services and in private companies, often posed as leading to cheaper costs, Outsourcing works to undermine the bargaining power both of the outsourced and non-sourced workers, but tends to have higher overall costs due to the labour hire companies’ own need to provide their own work materials.<

The tying of wage increases to productivity increases has resulted in a significant shift in the share of GDP to profits away from wages, as workers are forced to work increasingly hard to see their wages maintain pace with inflation.  

The shifting the cost of the reproduction of labour onto the working class has occurred through a range of mechanism including:

• Shifting the burden of paying for the state apparatus via increased taxes on workers and the reduction taxes on capital; 
• Reducing spending on social services – via either total elimination of services or means-testing services.

The 2008 crisis and beyond 

The 2008 global financial crisis and subsequent Eurozone crises, with the accompanying response by governments have been seen by some as signalling the death of neoliberalism. However, as Mirowski and others would argue, the responses to these crises instead reflect a deepening of neoliberalism – in that they have resulted in the efforts of saving capitalism being carried on the back of workers, while international capital has largely been free to continue to reap massive profits and pay out dividends and bonuses even as they were receiving public subsidies to survive. 

In response to the global financial crisis (GFC), the US government bailed out banks and financial institutions to the tune of $US4.6 trillion. This was bankrolled by US taxpayers. The US and other governments facilitated banking consolidation to “save the system” – handing billions in assets to surviving major banks. 

In response to the failure of the “big three” US auto manufacturers, the then Obama administration provided a bailout of $US80.7 billion. This bailout was premised on the tearing up of workers’ collective agreements with demands that workers make significant concessions on their working conditions in order to keep their jobs. 

In Europe, Ireland’s opening up of the purchase of non-performing loans to cheap purchase by vulture funds has driven up housing prices in Dublin at a time of acute economic decline. We also continue to see – in the face of the imminent destruction of our planet – continued refusal and obfuscation by governments and by capital to take serious action to slow and hopefully stop action to combat climate change. The US and Australian governments in particular continue to subsidise the fossil fuel industry . 

Factors behind the growth of the far right

The past three decades have seen a growth of the far right in a wide range of countries, which has coincided with a decline and weakening of the left. This shift has been partly premised on deindustrialisation of certain economies and the erosion of the welfare state, which left-wing parties have at times been responsible for, particularly when in government coalitions with right-wing forces.

This has resulted in understandable anger and frustration among sections of the working class and the petite bourgeoisie – anger which the right has demagogically sought to direct into anger at marginalised communities, which it blames while at the same time cynically supporting many of the attacks on working people. 

In France for example, Marine Le Pen’s National Front – now National Rally – has sought to court a range of marginalised communities, including Jewish, Islamic, and Queer communities by painting itself as the only force capable of protecting them from “marriage equality” and Islamic fundamentalism respectively. 

Part of the growth of the far right can be explained by the reality that the interests of capitalist class are not homogeneous – the capitalist class is made up of fractions that reflect different interests within its own class. The far right reflect interests of capitalist class fractions that would benefit from a more nationalist framework. Moreover, the far-right in a range of countries have a long history of supporting policies that are not in the interests of working people or the petite bourgeoisie. 

This includes support for:

• deregulation and privatisation; 
• cutting of legislation which limit pollution; 
•  cuts to social security; attacks on working people. 

Left demands opposing neoliberalism

Despite this record, the far-right has taken advantage of the complicity of social-democratic and other left parties in the implementation of neoliberalism to seek to present themselves as the only opponents of austerity and the dislocation of the working class. This includes seeking to cynically accuse social democracy and the left more broadly of abandoning workers for support for multiculturalism and the support of other marginalised communities – causes that the left are more likely to support, but which is totally unrelated to the implementation and support for neoliberalism. 

In response to this challenge, it is important that the left is seen as putting forward proposals that address the needs of working people without giving ground to attacks on marginalised communities. Such demands would include:

• In the event of mass foreclosures government should protect owner-occupiers; 
• Ensuring our demands are around the universal provision of services rather than accepting means-testing for access; 
• Ban redundancies in profitable companies; 
• Job creation through limiting overtime and reducing working hours with no loss in pay; 
• Support for a universal basic income – but it must be set at a level which is liveable, and there must be strict controls on rent/commodity prices to ensure that it is not simply consumed as increased profits; 
• Ending of speculation and separating retail banks from investment banks; 
• Caps on wage ratios between senior management and the lowest-paid workers; 
• Lifting company tax and personal income tax threshold for higher-income earners to fund an expansion of social services; 
• Reabsorption of outsourced social services back into the government – to facilitate collective bargaining and improved wages for workers in these vital and essential services; 
• Legislate to require companies operating in a country to at minimum comply with that country’s standards when operating in other countries; 
• Legislate to enable workers the option of creating co-operatives in companies facing closure or sale; Give workers veto rights on restructuring plans. 
While such demands seem unrealistic in the context of more than 30 years of retreat and defeat globally for progressive movements, it is important for us to consistently challenge neoliberal hegemony and to always, to quote Che, “be realistic and demand the impossible”.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisbeth Latham is a contributing editor to Irish Broad Left. You can follow her on Twitter @grumpenprol.

Read more...

Remembering My Detention In Indonesia

Lisbeth Latham

Eleven years ago today I was arrested in Jakarta, by members of the POLDA Metro Jaya intelligence unit. At the time I was arrested I had been with some members of the Front Nasional Perjuangan Buruh Indonesia (Indonesian National Front for Labour Struggle – FNPBI) who were conducting a sit-in at the national parliament building.

This was the third protest involving the group of workers which I had attended. The first was outside the International Labour Organisation’s office in Jakarta, to call on the ILO to place pressure on the Indonesian government to enact legislation, consistent with ILO conventions, which would allow unions organised primarily on a geographical basis to registered, rather requiring unions to be based on an industry basis. The second protest was outside the clothing factory which the workers were employed to demand reinstatement after the owner sacked the workers for attending the protest. Final protest sought the reinstatement of the workers and a change in the national parliament.


Following my arrest, I was taken to the Metro Jaya headquarters along with Doming who had insisted he be able to accompany me. I was interrogated over the next 24-hours before being taken to an immigration detention centre. On December 5, I had two visits, the first was by staff from the Australian Embassy. They informed me that they had noticed the article which I’ve included below regarding my arrest and decided they should investigate my situation, the Embassy had been informed of my arrest two days earlier by FNPBI chairperson Dita Sari. The Embassy people told me they didn’t know exactly what was happening, but that there was a possibility that I would be charged with violating my visa – a charge which carried a five year prison sentence. I was informed that if that occurred it could be up to six months before the trial would run its course – they told me that I would have to arrange and pay for my own defence, but they had forgotten to bring the list of lawyers. I was informed that they hoped I would simply be deported on my ticket in two days time, but if not they would come and see me on the Monday morning. with the list of lawyers.

Later that day Mugianto from the Partai Rakyat Demokratik’s (Peoples Democratic Party – PRD) International Department came to visit with a lawyer, they had managed to get access to me for a short period of time. Mugi said that they hoped that I would be deported using my ticket on Sunday December 7, as if I did not fly on that date, there were no more seats on flights and I could be waiting for a month for a flight. Mugi also told me about the protests against the WTO in Seattle which had happened earlier in the week (because of my detention I never saw any of the footage from Seattle and would see footage in 2000 in the lead up to the S11 protests in Melbourne).

The next day I was visited by Roma, the FNPBI’s international officer who had just returned from the Seattle protests. Prior to going to Seattle, Roma had made me promise not to do anything stupid ... Roma had managed to get into the detention centre by convincing one the guards to let her in, largely on the basis that were both from North Sumatra.

On the Sunday I was eventually taken to the airport, about an hour before my flight. Prior to be taken I was convinced I would not be getting on the flight. I was deported from Indonesia and banned from returning for one year, however one of the officials indicated that I could expect to be detained if I returned within five years. I got back the day the final Green Left Weekly was printed, which contained the article below – It was a rather surreal experience to sell a paper with an article about me in prison.

Overall while the experience in Indonesia was extremely frightening, I knew I was in far less danger than my Indonesian comrades, many of whom had been kidnapped and tortured during the struggle. I have always attempted to use the bravery of the Indonesian student and worker movement to inspire my continued participation in continuing struggle for democracy and socialism.


Australian held for violating visa.
3 December 1999
Jakarta Post

JAKARTA (JP): Police intelligence officers are questioning an Australian national over his participation in a number of street protests here, city police spokesman Lt. Col. Zainuri Lubis said on Tuesday.
By participating in the rallies on labor and political issues, the suspect, identified as Christopher, violated existing immigration regulations, he said.
"Christopher came here on a tourist visa, but he was here to take part in street protests. He'll be charged under Article 50 of Law No. 9/1992 on immigration regulations," Zainuri said.
If found guilty of violating the article, the suspect could be deported and banned from the country for a year.
The latest rally Christopher took part in was last Tuesday's labor protest at the House of Representatives in Central Jakarta, the officer said.
The protest was organized by the Federation of All-Indonesian Workers Union of Reform.
"This is his second trip to Indonesia. His first was on April 6 this year," Zainuri said.
The suspect also was seen playing an active role in a number of other protests, including one organized by the Democratic People's Party (PRD) outside Cipinang Penitentiary in East Jakarta, an International Labor Organization protest at the United Nations building on Jl. Thamrin in Central Jakarta and a protest in front of the Presidential Palace on Jl. Medan Merdeka in Central Jakarta.
"His passport also states that his status is that of a student and that he belongs to a non-governmental organization in Australia called ASIET.
"He is currently under the supervision of the police's Foreigner Control unit. He will soon be transferred to the immigration office in Kalideres, West Jakarta, to be held in quarantine," Zainuri said.
The officer also said that any Indonesians who gave shelter to the suspect should immediately report to the police.


Australian solidarity activist jailed in Jakarta
By Max Lane
Green Left Weekly #388 December 8, 1999

Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor member Chris Latham was arrested in Jakarta on November 29. Latham, who is a student in Sydney, was participating in a demonstration of workers and students organised by the Indonesian National Front for Labour Struggles.
Latham was held and interrogated at Jakarta Central Police Station until December 2, when he was moved to the Immigration Detention Centre on the outskirts of Jakarta. He is imprisoned in a three-by-three-metre cell with two other people, one from Nigeria and one from South Africa.
Latham has not yet been told whether he is to be deported or brought to court in Indonesia. He has been visited by Australian embassy representatives and the People's Democratic Party (PRD) international department spokesperson, Mugianto.
According to Mugianto, Jakarta police are accusing Latham of repeatedly attending demonstrations in Indonesia, an activity which the police say contravenes the conditions of tourist visas. It appears that Latham has been under close surveillance during his stay — the police had detailed knowledge of his attendance at demonstrations.
Latham's arrest follows a raid by Indonesian intelligence officials on the Lampung office of the PRD the previous week. The officials said they were looking for Australian Democratic Socialist Party activist Roberto Jorquera, who was visiting Indonesia and meeting with student activists. Jorquera was not in Lampung at the time, but was later detained briefly at Denpasar airport in Bali as he left Indonesia.
The PRD protested against the raid and pointed out that Jorquera's visit to Indonesia was conducted openly and that the PRD activities he had attended in Lampung had been public events.

Read more...

Indonesian military escalates repression

By Lisbeth Latham & Pip Hinman

On February 20 the "cease-fire" between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian military (TNI) was extended for the third time since the so-called humanitarian pause in 2000. These declarations mean nothing, Syadiah Marhaban from the Aceh Referendum Information Centre (SIRA) told Green Left Weekly. That very night the TNI swept through four villages terrorising and killing people.

Following every previous cease-fire extension, attacks on unarmed Acehnese take place almost immediately; more than 100 people have been killed since January. Since GAM declared unilateral independence from Indonesia in December 1976, some 30,000 people have been killed.

Under the current cease-fire, GAM and the Indonesian government have agreed to a four-point code of conduct. However, given the lack of an enforcement authority, the TNI continues to hunt down GAM members especially in the rural areas. Ed Aspinall, who lectures in Indonesian studies at University of New South Wales and has recently returned from Aceh, told an Amnesty International forum in Sydney that the TNI routinely strafes whole villages in revenge attacks if even one of its soldiers comes under fire.

On February 15, the TNI announced an additional 6000 troops would be sent to Aceh, bringing the total deployment of combat troops to more than 30,000.

Aspinall described the northern-most city of Banda Aceh as being like a "war zone" in which there is an unofficial curfew as night falls.

"People are just too scared to leave their homes after dark. Local commanders are calling on the central government to call an all-out civil emergency", he said.

Aspinall described President Abdurrahman Wahid as pursuing a dual policy of negotiations with GAM while the TNI is allowed a virtual free hand to wage war.

And while the political situation in Indonesia remains unstable, the military is playing up their role as harbingers of peace and security.

The TNI's attempts to hunt down GAM members and terrorise its rural support base reflect the Indonesian government's unwillingness to engage in genuine negotiations over Aceh's future. The military have significant commercial operations in the gold, oil, gas timber and marijuana-rich state of Aceh.

Autonomy versus independence

Syadiah Marhaban told Green Left Weekly that a poll conducted by SIRA just before the November 8 referendum rally last year -- during which 48 people were killed, hundreds were injured and thousands of public and private vehicles damaged by the security forces -- 92.6% said they favoured independence rather than autonomy.

Despite the overwhelming sentiment for independence, the Wahid government is only prepared to allow greater autonomy -- a position the Aceh People's Council has adopted. Wahid's government is pushing the Acehnese House of Representatives to prioritise deliberation of the autonomy law which ensures the central government maintains control over financial and security affairs.

While the new autonomy laws -- scheduled to take effect from May -- are supposed to decentralise decision-making and allow Aceh to retain a greater percentage of earnings from the exploitation of its natural resources, they say nothing about reducing the number of TNI troops in Aceh.

In an attempt to shift the balance of forces and provide some legitimacy to the autonomy demand, the Wahid government is seeking to include anti-independence groups in the negotiations. However this is unlikely to be successful given GAM's strong base of mass support, and the activities of pro-referendum groups like SIRA and the radical Student Solidarity with the People (SMUR).

On February 20 Indonesian defence minister Mahfud Mahmoddin declared he was tired of prolonged talks with the independence movements in Aceh and West Papua and threatened to become increasingly tough with "separatist groups".

SIRA has evidence that the TNI has started to train militia groups in the northern part of Aceh. "Jakarta is going to try to repeat what it did in East Timor", Marhaban warned. She said that the TNI is recruiting poor transmigrants from Java for six months of training. "This shows the Wahid government's desperation. It has been unable to contain or curtail the pro- referendum sentiment by military means, and is now resorting to inciting communal conflict to achieve its ends."

Attacks increase

Following the forced resignation of the despot Suharto in 1998 the democracy movement forced a number of concessions from President Habibie's government and the TNI including the abolition of wide-ranging anti- subversion laws.

However, many restrictive laws remain on the books, including those dealing with freedom of speech (including the law banning the propagation of Marxism).

Last November Muhammad Nazar, chairperson of SIRA, was detained and charged with treason. After growing pressure he was finally set to go to trial last week. He looks set to be the first activist to be so charged since the Suharto days. According to Marhaban, some 500 extra soldiers have been deployed for his trial in Banda Aceh.

The Western powers' opposition to Aceh's independence is primarily motivated by a desire to maintain a politically stable environment for corporate investment throughout the Indonesian archipelago. There is a general fear within the ruling circles of the imperialist powers, in particular in Washington and Canberra, that if Aceh was to win its independence, the West Papuan independence struggle would be given added momentum and other provinces dissatisfied with rule from Jakarta would become similarly inspired.

US support is important for the Wahid administration to maintain control in Aceh. It gives political cover to Jakarta and helps keep the independence forces relatively isolated and serves to strengthen a weakening military position within Indonesia.

TNI and Indonesian police forces are increasingly stretched. It is estimated that half of Indonesia's 200,000 soldiers and 300,000 police are now deployed in provinces waging struggles for independence such as Aceh and West Papua or where communal violence is breaking out, such as in Kalimantan and Malaku.

Marhaban is under no illusions about how the fight for the right to a referendum would eventually be won. "International pressure on Jakarta, particularly from countries such as the US and Australia, is vital", she said.

US military training, or the stepping up of such training by Australia, will provide further legitimacy to the Indonesian government's effort to smash the independence forces. For this reason, she argued, the Australian and US governments must be forced to end all military ties to Indonesia.

SIRA is demanding the TNI and police leave Aceh. After that there's a need to conduct a campaign to raise consciousness among Acehnese about what a referendum would mean. "We have to be ready to take the consequences", Marhaban said, alluding to the likely difficulties a democratic government might encounter from multinational companies, such as Exxon (Esso), currently profiting from the Acehnese people's misery.

From Green Left Weekly issue #440

Read more...

Indonesian students demand: No cuts to education subsidies!

By Lisbeth Latham

On April 1, Indonesian students involved in the National Student League for Democracy (LMND) participated in a national mobilisation in Jakarta demanding that the government abandon plans to cut education subsidies to state universities. The policy is expected to result in tuition fee increases of around 300%.

The cuts are part of the broader austerity measures introduced by the Indonesian government on April 1, under the guidance of the International Monetary Fund and its Coordinating Group on Indonesia (CGI), in order to repay Indonesia's debts to international banks and corporations.


The slashing of subsidies on other basic items such as food, cooking oil and electricity will force workers, peasants and students to shoulder a greater share of the burden of the 1997-99 economic crisis.

The LMND sent a solidarity statement to the March 22 national day of action against education privatisation in Australia. It was read out at many of the rallies and received a good response.

It explained that due to rising living and education costs there has been a large drop in the number of students going on to attend high schools and universities. Of the 4.5 million high school students enrolled in 1996-97 only 2 million entered university studies in 2000. At the same time only around 5 million of the 7.5 million junior high school students enrolled in high school.

The LMND is demanding: no cuts to education subsidies, free education for the people, and for the arms bill to be cut so that more funds can be allocated to education.

ASIET member Kerryn Williams told Resistance magazine, “The fact that the Indonesian and Australian governments are pursuing the same policy of shifting education costs onto students and their families makes building solidarity between the campaigns of students here and there very important.”

From Green Left Weekly issue #400

Read more...

East Timor's future: Solidarity is still needed

By Lisbeth Latham

The withdrawal of Indonesian troops from East Timor was a significant victory for the East Timorese resistance movement, and the international solidarity movement. But the struggle for independence came at a price.

Since the Indonesian invasion in 1975, more than 200,000 East Timorese have been killed. After the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence on August 30, the Indonesian army (TNI) and police, and their gangs of “militia”, killed and forcibly deported thousands of East Timorese and destroyed East Timor's infrastructure. More than 85,000 people remain unaccounted for.


There was a massive response from working people internationally. In Australia, thousands mobilised calling for an immediate armed intervention to stop the violence. In Australia, the federal Coalition government was forced to act, going against 24 years of support for the Indonesian occupation.

Australian support for genocide

Throughout 1999, Prime Minister John Howard's government denied that the terror gangs in East Timor had any links with the Indonesian military and claimed that any problems were due to “rogue elements” in the TNI. It argued against a United Nations security force overseeing the ballot, despite widespread violence having already twice forced the referendum to be postponed.

Canberra supported the Indonesian government and the TNI because it saw this as vital to maintaining the stability required for Australian business to make profits in East Timor and Indonesia. Despite being forced to act to help East Timor, political stability and profits continue to be the driving forces behind Australian foreign policy.

The government continues to protect the TNI. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has blocked the International Commission of Jurists from interviewing East Timorese refugees.

As well, the Australian Federal Police have initiated disciplinary action against an intelligence officer who was in East Timor because he reported to a parliamentary standing committee on the collaboration between the TNI and the militia.

The government has spent $1 billion on the military operation in East Timor, but has committed only $6 million to rebuilding East Timor. It continues to push for the deportation of East Timorese who are attempting to obtain asylum in Australia following the 1991 Dili massacre, despite the fact that much of East Timor remains in ruins.

Meanwhile, the Howard government is attempting to turn its foreign policy defeat into a victory -- making the Australian people pay for strengthening its capacity to intervene militarily in the region. The government's “Timor tax” -- an increase in the Medicare levy -- will help to cover the costs of having troops in East Timor and the establishment of two more combat-ready battalions.

People aid not militarism

The Australian government should pay massive war reparations to East Timor, funded by a levy on the businesses that have had made profits in East Timor and Indonesia.

Much of the aid that is going to East Timor is not finding its way to the people. Most well-paying jobs go to non-East Timorese and those locals who do have jobs are paid wages that are the same as during the occupation. Since the arrival of Western non-government organisations in East Timor, the cost of food and basic goods has risen dramatically.

On January 5, the Timorese Socialist Party led a workers' protest outside the United Nations building calling for the employment of East Timorese, increased wages, an increased minimum wage and a reduction in prices. The solidarity movement should support such actions, and the right of the East Timorese people to control the transition process.

Resistance demands that East Timorese refugees be able to enter Australia without visas, be allowed free access to Australian universities and be provided with support to return to East Timor if they choose.

There is still much to be done. Resistance will continue to build campaigns alongside the solidarity group Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor, and will keep young people informed through Resistance magazine.

From Green Left Weekly issue #390

Read more...

Organising women in Indonesia

By Marina Carman and Lidbeth Latham

JAKARTA — On November 9, we met with activists from Forkap (Women's Communication and Action Forum) at the University of Indonesia.

Forkap was formed after a student demonstration in early 1998, during which activists noticed the relatively passive and behind-the-scenes role that women had played compared to men. The new organisation, established by students who are now affiliated to the National Student League for Democracy, set out both to increase consciousness around women's rights on campuses and to assert that women must lead alongside men in the movement for full democracy.

Forkap activists stressed the importance of knowing the history of women's struggles in Indonesia in order to understand the situation of women today. They explained that women played a central role in the struggle against Dutch colonialism, and that the Indonesian Communist Party led a large women's organisation — Gerwani, or Indonesian Women's Movement — before former President Suharto took power in 1965.

The Suharto regime physically and ideologically attacked all progressive organisations, including those fighting for women's rights. It promoted women's traditional role in Indonesian society and declared that women's involvement in politics was immoral. The regime established its own women's organisation, called Kowani (Indonesian Women's Commission).

As more democratic space has opened up following Suharto's forced resignation and the election of a new government, many new non-government organisations have emerged.

Forkap activists said that the creation of new organisations which are independent of the state is a positive development, but they were critical of these NGOs for focusing on lobbying the new government and operating on the "elite" political level, rather than organising women at the grassroots. Many NGOs fail to challenge the restrictions of women's traditional role, they said.

They argue that it is impossible to win women's liberation in Indonesia if you limit your aim to equality within the current system. For Forkap, the struggle for women's liberation is tied to the struggles against the role of the military in Indonesian politics and for complete democracy.

We discussed with the activists many of the problems confronting Indonesian women. A member of the National Peasants Union said that women's role in village life is largely confined to that of mother.

Fees are charged for all levels of education and, since male children are given priority, women can attend school only if there are no sons or if the family can afford to pay for more than one child. Forkap has been part of a campaign against an increase in university fees.

Because women are seen as only a secondary source of income for the family, they are paid less than men (even when they are working in the same factories, doing the same work). The rape of women workers is widespread, and sexual favours are often demanded in exchange for promotions. Because the level of unemployment has been very high since the economic crisis of 1997, many women enter prostitution to earn their living.

So far, Forkap has concentrated on distributing basic propaganda such as newsletters and organising educational meetings around women's rights. November was a "month of actions" for Forkap, which held weekly discussion sessions on understanding women's oppression and strategies for liberation.

On November 25, Forkap will hold a demonstration against sexual and domestic violence against women. This action is in part a response to an NGO-organised rally around the same theme last year in which women were encouraged to wear white to emphasise their peacefulness and innocence, and which ended in a picnic.

Forkap is also attempting to organise prostitutes in a campaign against government plans to close down brothels and for better working conditions. Closing the brothels, says Forkap, is not a solution if the women have no other means to make a living; it will merely force many women into more dangerous work situations.

Forkap has found it difficult to develop a program and demands around women's liberation because the living experience of feminist activism in Indonesia is very limited. They were therefore keen to discuss the issues and experiences with Australian activists.

From Green Left Weekly #386

Read more...

Students commemorate victims of military violence

By Lisbeth Latham

JAKARTA — Despite torrential rain, thousands of students participated in protests here to commemorate the first anniversary on November 13 of the Semangi tragedy, named after the Semangi bridge where six students were shot dead by the military during the mass protests against the special session of the People's Consultative Assembly.

The demands of the protest included an end to military violence, an end to both the dual function of the military and its territorial structure, stations members of the armed forces at every level of society, from the village to the capital.

The students also called for an investigation and bringing to trial of those responsible for the death of students in protests, including the four students from Trisakti University shot dead in May 1998 and the students killed in the protests against the state security bill during September 1999.

The protest, which finished at Atmajaya University, site of last year's clashes, was the culmination of three days of activities in Jakarta around the theme of ending military violence and opposition to militarism.

Students from the action committees affiliated to the National Student League for Democracy conducted a 20 km march from the University of Indonesia that took them past a large number of urban poor neighbourhoods. Such long marches are a tactic used by the radical student movement to reach out and interact with the urban poor and other oppressed sectors.

The anniversary action was important because it was the first major attempt to mobilise students since the election of Abdurrahman Wahid as president on October 20.

Many Indonesians consider the new government as a democratic break from Suharto's New Order regime. The action provided an opportunity both to test the extent to which this sentiment would affect the ability of students to mobilise against the government and to highlight the fact that there are still many unresolved democratic issues, such as the prosecution of human rights violators within the military, that the new government is unwilling to address.

This article originally appeared in Green Left Weekly #386

Read more...

Indonesian students demand: military out of politics!

By Lisbeth Latham

Indonesia's People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is expected to elect a new president on October 20. Sections of the ruling Golkar party have raised the possibility of dropping their candidate, President B.J. Habibie, and supporting Megawati Sukarnoputri, who polled highest in Indonesia's general election in June.

Habibie has invited the head of the armed forces and defence minister General Wiranto to be his vice-president. Megawati, in an appeal for nationalist support, has called for a delay of the vote to ratify the result of the August 30 independence ballot in East Timor. Who the president will be remains uncertain.

On October 14, 1000 students clashed with the military on the streets of Jakarta. The protesters pointed out that Habibie is a continuation of the status quo. The troops involved in the clash were drawn from the 60,000 members of the Indonesian military (TNI) stationed in Jakarta to defend the MPR session.

Students are leading the battle to remove the major obstacle standing between the Indonesian people and their aspiration for a more democratic society  -  the TNI.

Military out of politics!
Since Suharto's resignation last year, the demand to end the military's dual role  -  in "defence" and politics  -  has gained widespread support. The TNI has unelected representatives in parliament at every level. The territorial structure of command in Indonesia places TNI personnel at every level of society, right down to the village, in order to block attempts to organise the mass sentiment against the regime.

The brutality of the TNI has been further exposed by its recent terror campaigns in East Timor and Aceh, which have deepened the Indonesian people's distrust of the TNI. In response, the regime has made a number of "reforms". There is now a formal division between the TNI and the Indonesian police (Polri), members of the military are no longer able to hold positions in the public service, and there is wide agreement among the elite about the need to phase out military seats in parliament (although this is not expected for another five years).

These reforms are superficial and the struggle remains to enforce and extend them. Last month, the TNI attempted to reassert itself through the introduction of a state security bill which would have given it greater powers to declare martial law, censor the press and detain people without trial. The bill was sneaked through the old military dominated parliament on September 23, in its last few hours of existence.

Three weeks of demonstrations by students, in which eight students were killed, and the impact of the TNI's defeat in East Timor, stopped Habibie from ratifying the bill, but it remains a threat. The bill could be ratified any time the military feels it can get away with it.

Students lead the way
Students were at the forefront of the movement which brought down Suharto. Whoever Indonesia's new president is, dwi fungsi remains. Students are intervening in the presidential battles with demonstrations to demand "Habibie out!" and an end to dwi fungsi.

Students from a range of different organisations have formed the National Student League for Democracy (LMND). The LMND has supported the development of workers', urban poor and farmers' groups, and participated in protests for workers' rights. In Jakarta, student groups that are now in LMND participated in May Day protests with members of the Workers Committee for Reform Action.

End military ties!
Political and financial support provided by the Australian government has helped the TNI maintain its powerful position in Indonesian society. This support has assisted the regime's violent repression of the movements for democracy in Indonesia and for self-determination in East Timor, West Papua and Aceh.

Even after the recent events in East Timor, the Australian government has cancelled only a few joint training exercises with the TNI. The defence treaty between Australia and Indonesia was cancelled by the Indonesian government. Australian businesses with investments in Indonesia, and their representatives in government, see the TNI as vital to protecting private profits.

The solidarity movement can play an important role in the struggle for democracy in Indonesia by maintaining the campaign to force the Australian government to end all military ties with the Indonesian regime. Resistance will continue to support this campaign.

-----------------


October 20, 1999

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #381

Read more...

Why socialists called for troops to Timor

By Lisbeth Latham

With the United Nations intervention in East Timor underway, the debate among left activists over what were the correct demands in response to the slaughter in East Timor continues.

There is general agreement on the need to force the Indonesian army (TNI) to withdraw from East Timor and disarm the militias, and that the Australian government must end military ties with the Indonesian regime, withdraw recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor and recognise East Timor as an independent country.

The disagreement revolves around whether it was correct to call on the Australian government and the UN to send troops into East Timor to stop the bloodshed.

Resistance supported UN troops being sent into East Timor for three reasons:

• It was a way in which to force the immediate withdrawal of Indonesian troops and allow East Timor to be independent;
• It would stop the genocide of the East Timorese;
• It would undermine the Australian government's alliance with the Indonesian regime, weaken the Indonesian military and strengthen the struggle for democracy in Indonesia.

Was the call for "troops in" correct? This needs to be judged by the results of the demand being met. Only a few days after the intervention was announced, the TNI said it would withdraw 80% of its personnel from East Timor. This was a victory for the East Timorese people and marked a stalling of TNI's campaign. It is vital that pressure is maintained to ensure that a complete withdrawal occurs as rapidly as possible.

The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) at first argued that the demand for "troops in" could not be met as the Australian government and the UN had no wish to act against the Indonesian regime. When the mass actions around Australia did force Howard to send troops, the ISO argued that the dispatch of UN troops would result in:

• UN troops participating in the slaughter of the East Timorese and acting to create a dependent client state;
• Australians developing illusions in the capacity of the United Nations and Australian imperialism to conduct humanitarian interventions; and
• A decline in the East Timor solidarity movement.

Role of international troops
The deployment of Australian troops into East Timor was an attempt to quell mass discontent at the Australian government's failure to act to stop TNI's terror campaign against the East Timorese. In these circumstances, it would not have helped Canberra to achieve its goal if the UN troops allowed the slaughter to continue.

Trying to turn its defeat into a victory, the Howard government is claiming that it always intended to intervene. By arguing that the government actually wanted to send troops to East Timor (and that it must therefore serve the interests of imperialism rather than the East Timorese) the ISO has swallowed Howard's lies. This illustrates the ISO's lack of confidence in the capacity of mass mobilisations to change the policies of governments.

The ISO's assertion that Western countries such as Australia will try to exploit an independent East Timor following the intervention is true. But Australia does not need troops there to do this; it is already happening. Australian businesses benefit most from profits resulting from the Timor Gap Treaty.

To argue that the Australian government, or any other Western government, requires troops on the ground to make East Timor economically dependent ignores the reality that underdeveloped countries are economically tied to, and exploited by, the imperialist countries. This dominance will continue until there are successful anti-capitalist revolutions, not just in the Third World, but also in the imperialist countries.

Building illusions in the UN?
The argument that to call on the Australian government and/or the UN to send troops into East Timor "sows illusions" in these institutions is wrong. Through building a movement around specific demands which will solve the problems, we can expose the oppressive nature of capitalist institutions.

While the ISO supports demanding that the government junk its repressive industrial relations legislation and university fees, it opposes calling on the government to send troops to halt the slaughter in East Timor. What is the difference between demanding government action domestically and internationally?

In both cases, Resistance calls on the government to act in the interests of working people. While forcing a government to grant reforms can generate illusions in the capacity of capitalism to meet society's needs, the socialist movement's role is to point out that such reforms are only concessions, which the government will attempt to take back when the movement is not so strong.

Active involvement in mobilising large numbers of people to win, defend and extend such reforms can break people's illusions in the benevolence of the capitalist state. To refuse to place demands on the government would mean that we abstain from the battle to change people's consciousness.

UN intervention or union bans
The argument that calling on the UN/Australia to intervene in East Timor is counterposed to trade union activity is totally false. Unions engaged in industrial action and supported the mass protests calling for armed intervention. Union bans alone would have taken months to affect the Indonesian regime. The East Timorese people did not have months to spare.

The ISO demand for a general strike to stop the slaughter in East Timor was absurd and it had no support. An ISO rally with this demand only attracted a handful of people. If a general strike did take place  -  something Resistance would welcome  -  what would be its central demand? According to the ISO, it would be "more union bans". Focusing exclusively on trade union bans let the Australian government off the hook because it placed no demands on the Howard government to stop the slaughter.

The ISO have said that troops going into East Timor risked further bloodshed. This concedes to the pacifist argument that all violence is bad. It ignores the fact that the East Timorese were facing genocide.

The only practical way to end the slaughter immediately was to send an armed force strong enough to counter the TNI and militia violence.

Resistance supports the right of liberation movements to defend themselves from their oppressors. Socialists in the United States argued in the 1950s, '60s and '70s that African-American communities, in the face of organised racist violence by organisations like the Ku Klux Klan and the police, should be able to arm themselves. Socialists demanded that US government troops defend black communities and protect black students who were exercising their right to attend predominantly white schools.

When the government refused, socialists were able to expose the government's racism. In instances where the civil rights movement forced the government to deploy troops, as in Little Rock to enforce the ending of segregation in education, it was a defeat for the racists and a confidence boost for the oppressed group struggling for equal rights.

Decline in the mobilisations
The public mobilisations for East Timor have declined since the announcement that troops would be sent because the movement's main demand has been won. Most of the people participating in the protests did so because they wanted to stop the genocide. For ISO members to argue that it would have been better for the movement if troops did not go suggests that they believe it would have been better for the killing to continue.

Continued mass killing of East Timorese might have meant that the protests would have continued to grow in the short term, but this would not have lasted long. It is likely that TNI would have completed its slaughter of the pro-independence activists in East Timor within a few weeks.

This would have been a massive defeat for the East Timorese nation and would have profoundly demoralised the international solidarity movement. Surely socialists should advocate policies which prevent genocide and slaughter.

The fact that the solidarity movement won its main demand provides a basis for building larger mobilisations in the future. It has shown many people that mass action can force the Australian government to do what the Australian people want it to.

To maintain the momentum, we must now raise demands which further challenge the government's foreign policy and which build public support for the independence struggle in East Timor and the struggle for democracy in Indonesia.

Resistance demands:

• No increases in military spending! The "defence" budget should be redirected to reconstructing East Timor. Australian business, such as BHP, Rio Tinto and Woodside Petroleum, which have profited from the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and the repression in Indonesia should pay reparations.
• Put those responsible for crimes against humanity in East Timor on trial! Not only Suharto, Wiranto, Prabowo, but also their Australian accomplices  -  from Whitlam to Howard.
• End all military ties with the Indonesian regime!
• Let all refugees stay in Australia and grant asylum with immediate residency to any East Timorese seeking refugee status!
• Indonesian troops out of East Timor!
• Recognise East Timor as a sovereign country! The East Timorese people alone should decide for how long UN troops remain on their soil and what they can do there.

[Latham Latham is a member of the Resistance national executive.]

-----------------

Read more...

East Timor: Will the ballot stop the bloodshed?

By Lisbeth Latham
Voter registration for the August 30 ballot on autonomy or independence for East Timor finished on August 6. Around 427,000 people registered. The large number of registrations is significant, reflecting the refusal of the East Timorese people to be intimidated by the Jakarta-backed pro-integration terror gangs and the Indonesian army (TNI).

It is clear, however, that the violence will continue up to the ballot and after. On August 5 and 6, the UN Assistance Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) was attacked by terror gangs. There are reports that the "militias" are stockpiling weapons and preparing terror attacks if the vote rejects autonomy.
On August 10, the East Timor Student Solidarity Council Information Centre in the district of Viqueque, about 200 kilometres east of Dili, was attacked. Two students were abducted. The following day the militias shot at the information centre, killing two students and injuring several others.

The police headquarters in Viqueque is located just 300 metres from where the attack occurred, yet no action was taken to protect the students or apprehend the gang members. This is not surprising, since it is the TNI and the police that have been repressing the East Timorese people for the last 25 years.

The Indonesian regime, especially General Wiranto, defence minister and head of the armed forces, has attempted to depict the violence as clashes between "rival factions". It claims that the task confronting TNI is to prevent the outbreak of another civil war such as occurred in 1975.

In reality, if civil war does break out, it will be the result of the Indonesian regime's arming and funding of the militias. In 1975, Indonesian military intelligence instigated civil unrest in order to provide the pretext to invade East Timor.

There are no warring "factions" in East Timor. In the response to the violence by the TNI and the terror gangs, the pro-independence Falintil (Armed Forces for the Liberation of East Timor) has implemented a cease-fire and begun to move its guerillas into four camps in the mountains for the duration of the ballot.

The leadership of the National Council of Timorese Resistance (CNRT) has offered to accept pro-integration supporters into a government of national unity if the people vote for independence.
Falintil commander Taur Matan Ruak said on August 7 that the result of the ballot will be accepted by his fighters if the vote is "democratic and free".

A vote against autonomy will not result in immediate independence. Before independence is formally won, legislation must be passed by a meeting of Indonesia's parliament, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR). The first MPR session is not due until late October. This will give TNI and the terror gangs two months to continue the violence in East Timor.

The violence has resulted in calls from human rights organisations for a larger UN police presence. The UN will have a limited impact as long as the Indonesian regime is responsible for security. Any genuine attempt to end violence in East Timor requires the immediate withdrawal of all Indonesian military personnel and the disarming of the militias.

We need to demand that the Australian government impose an arms embargo on Indonesia and sever all military ties. This would have a significant impact on the regime's capacity to continue to repress the people in East Timor, Aceh, West Papua and the rest of Indonesia.

The Australian trade union movement should impose bans on Indonesian companies, as the ACTU threatened to do in May.
August 18, 1999

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #372

Read more...

Resistance conference guest attacked

By Lisbeth Latham

Dhyta Caturani, who was scheduled as a guest speaker at the Resistance National Conference in Melbourne, July 8-11, was attacked by the Indonesian military in Jakarta on July 1. Dhyta was participating in a demonstration organised by the People's Democratic Party (PRD), which demanded an end to the dual role of the military in Indonesian politics and the disqualification of Golkar for electoral fraud (see articles on pages 3 and 4).

Dhyta was taken behind police lines and shot in the back of the head. Her face was badly beaten by the boot of a police officer.

Dhyta was rushed to hospital in a critical condition. Before losing consciousness, she told those around her, "I still want to go to the Resistance conference".

At the time Resistance magazine went to print, it was not clear whether or not Dhyta will be able to attend the conference. However, the PRD will try to send an alternative representative if Dhyta cannot attend.

Resistance has scheduled into the conference agenda a public action in solidarity with the victims of police repression in Indonesia. Supporters are asked to gather at 6pm on Friday, July 9, at Trades Hall for a march along Brunswick Street in the city.

Another guest speaker at the conference, Farooq Sulheria from the National Student Federation of Pakistan, has had his visa application rejected twice by the Australian government.

This article orginally appeared in Green Left Weekly #367

Read more...

Thousands march for independence and democracy

Thousands march for independence and democracy

By Lisbeth Latham

On May 21 student protests in Jakarta marking the first anniversary of Suharto's resignation were attacked by the Indonesian military (ABRI). The protests reflected growing anger among students that the "new" regime in Indonesia has not brought Suharto to justice for the crimes of his New Order dictatorship. ABRI attacked the students when they had attempted to march to the Indonesian parliament building.

In Australia the next day, thousands of people participated in actions in solidarity with the students struggling for democracy in Indonesia and independence for East Timor. The international day of action, organised by Resistance and Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor (ASIET), demanded: End Australian military ties to the Habibie regime, Indonesian troops out of East Timor, Disarm the pro-integration terror gangs in East Timor, and Free the political prisoners in Indonesia


From Sydney, Bea Brear reports that 300 people participated in a vibrant march through the city streets. At Town Hall, Jenny Munro from the Metropolitan Lands Council launched the rally with greetings from the Aboriginal community.

Harold Moucho from Fretilin, Andrew Ferguson from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Jon Land from ASIET, Andrew McNaughtan from the Australia East Timor Association and Maung Maung Than, general secretary of the All Burma Student Democratic Organisation, addressed the crowd at different stages of the march.

At the Australian defence department building the protesters showed their condemnation of the military ties between Australia and Indonesia by burning the ABRI flag. Outside the United Nations' office, speakers criticised the UN-backed plan for East Timor's August 8 vote on autonomy which makes ABRI responsible for security.

The march ended at the office of Garuda airlines where a hunger strike from Resistance spoke about the political prisoners in Indonesia. The 24-hour hunger strike organised by Resistance in the city and Sydney's west raised more than $1000 for the campaign to free the political prisoners.

Stuart Munckton reports from Adelaide that 60 people gathered outside foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer's electorate office for an angry protest addressed by activists from Resistance, ASIET, the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) and Campaign for an Independent East Timor. A solidarity message from Indonesia's People's Democratic Party was received with loud applause.

Despite intermittent rain, about 150 people expressed their solidarity with the East Timorese independence movement in Brisbane, says Andy Gianniotis. Each speaker symbolically "cut military ties" with the Indonesian regime before going on to the podium.

Speakers included Mike Byrne from ASIET, former Queensland maritime union organiser Bob Carnegie, Alfonso Corte-Real from the East Timorese community, Damien Legoullon from the Brisbane East Timor Action Coalition, and Ursula Oertel and Stella Riethmuller from Resistance. Carnegie told the protesters: "It's our duty as working-class people to do everything humanly possible to make East Timor a free and independent country."

The protesters marched from King George Square to the Garuda travel centre and the Defence Forces Recruiting Centre chanting "Stop the killing, stop the lies end all military ties".

Two hundred people joined a lively march in Melbourne from the Indonesian consulate to the Victoria military barracks. Speakers included Grahame McCulloch from the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU), Jo Williams from ASIET, Resistance member Sharon Simmons, Joaquim Santos from Fretilin and Sharan Burrows from the Australian Education Union.

In Lismore, Nick Fredman reports, members and supporters of Resistance, the DSP and Lismore Friends of East Timor held a speak-out at which many passers-by stopped to collect information and sign petitions and a giant postcard addressed to the Australian government.

Sean Martin-Iverson reports that more than 150 people gathered at the Perth Cultural Centre where speakers included Sandra Rodriguez from UDT, Francisco Soares from Fretilin, secretary of the WA Trades and Labor Council Tony Cooke, Sarah Stephen from ASIET and Jane Black from Resistance. The protestors marched to the offices of Garuda airlines chanting "Free East Timor Indonesia Out!". Once there, an Indonesian flag was burned.

In Hobart, says Viv Miley, around 75 people gathered on the Parliament House lawns for the rally addressed by Nikki Ulaslowski and Huw Lockwood from Resistance, Edwina Foster from ASIET, Jenny Herrera from the East Timor Committee, Lynne Fitzgerald from the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council and Kamala Emmanuel from the DSP.

David Lam and Kylie Moon report that Resistance and other solidarity activists participated in a rally and march on the military barracks at Parramatta in Sydney's west. Crosses representing the atrocities of the Indonesian regime in East Timor, Indonesia, West Papua and Aceh were planted, and there was a symbolic burning of the Timor Gap Treaty.

Natalie Zirngast reports from Darwin that 130 people participated in the rally and march through the centre of the city led by East Timorese women drummers. The protest ended with an all-night candlelight vigil outside the Indonesian consulate.

In Newcastle, 25 people participated in a speak-out in the Hunter Street Mall. East Timorese activist John Dos Santos, Bob Burghat from Christians for Peace, an activist in the NTEU, Jane Beckmann from the DSP, Resistance's Graham Williams and Lisbeth Latham from ASIET spoke. Ben McKinnon read a statement of solidarity from the Newcastle University Students Association to the students of Indonesia.

Read more...

West Papua: resistance continues

By Lisbeth Latham

Since West Papua was transferred from Dutch to Indonesian control in 1963, the region has been subject to continuous human rights violations by the Indonesian regime and its armed forces.

In 1969, the Indonesian regime organised a phony "act of free choice" on West Papua's status. Only 1000 of the 1.8 million West Papuans were able to vote. Those who did were threatened and intimidated into voting for integration with Indonesia.

Since that time, any indication of support for an independent West Papua has been met with violence and repression. In 1977, villagers in the southern highlands, near the giant US-owned Freeport copper mine, were bombed because they were accused of collaborating with the Free West Papua Movement (OPM). OPM fighters cut the pipes taking the copper slurry down the coast.

In 1979, the Indonesian military killed 3000 members of the Dani tribe in the central highlands because they refused to swap their traditional clothing for trousers. In 1996, 22 West Papuans were massacred in the region near the Freeport mine.

In response to the political turmoil inside Indonesia, protests escalated in 1998. On July 2, 700 people in Biak raised the West Papuan flag and declared independence from Indonesia. The Indonesian government flew in troops on July 6 to remove the flag, killing five people and wounding 150 others in the operation. In the following week, the body count reached 70 as Indonesian troops hunted and killed independence supporters.

This crackdown sparked an angry response. Thousands of people raised the West Papuan flag in defiance of Indonesia. In February, Habibie was forced to hold a meeting with 100 West Papuan leaders, who demanded independence.

On May 14, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer confirmed that there had been a new crackdown in West Papua. There are now 48 West Papuan political prisoners in Indonesia's jails. The police have banned discussion of the February meeting with Habibie. Many of the 100 West Papuans who attended this meeting have been harassed and intimidated by Indonesian authorities.

This article originally appeared in Green Left Weekly #361

Read more...

Indonesia: Towards revolution or chaos?

The movement that developed last year in Indonesia, culminating in big upsurges in May and November, was based on concerns arising out of economic insecurity, and growing anger and rejection of the undemocratic and repressive regime.

The mass unrest was sparked by anger at Suharto's re-election to his seventh five-term as president. This occurred against a backdrop of increasing economic turmoil. Economic problems facing the people included massive price rises; the cost of essentials such as food, medicine and cooking fuel had exploded by 200-300%. Unemployment was on the rise as factory closures rapidly increased. These problems dissolved Suharto's last vestiges of legitimacy.


Suharto's resignation did not solve the problems. By October, 80 million people were below the poverty line, up from 20 million in 1997. The regime's inability to solve the economic problems combined with a growing recognition that the Habibie regime was no different from the Suharto regime.

Preparations began for protests against the November meeting of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), which would decide on the laws governing the general elections in 1999. These protests reflected recognition that the MPR was the same body that had elected Suharto in March, and would reflect the interests of Suharto and his cronies. The broad student movement also demanded the end of the “dual role” of the military (ABRI).

These mobilisations reached truly mass proportions in Jakarta, with more than 1 million students and urban poor on the streets. When ABRI attacked the mobilisations on November 13, killing 12 people, the response was even greater mobilisations the next day. By November 15, however, the movement dissipated, because of the illusions the movement had in parliamentary reform.

The movement hoped that the loyal opposition of Megawati Sukarnoputri, Amien Rais and Abdurrahman Wahid would take power on the back of the student and masses' mobilisations. These opposition figures had no intention of playing this role. This left a power vacuum that no section of the student movement was able or willing to fill.

Prospects for further upsurge

Since November, the economic crisis has worsened. Although the rupiah has now stabilised, prices have continued to increase. The International Monetary Fund now controls the bulk of the economy, and has embarked on a wave of closures to recoup and protect the investments of Australian, European, US and east Asian capitalists.

These closures have resulted in a new wave of sackings, throwing more people into poverty. In January it was estimated that the number of Indonesians living in poverty had reached 130 million.

There has been no shift in the role of the military in politics. Despite a new formal “separation” between the police and military, ABRI and the police continue to work together against student and other demonstrations.

For example, on April 13, when student groups organised demonstrations in Jakarta, the army was used to disperse them even though the students had gone through the legal processes prior to the demonstration.

The regime has confirmed that ABRI will have a reduced representation in the parliament, but it will still retain 38 appointed members. More importantly, there has been no move abolish the territorial command system, which places military bases and posts at every level of Indonesian society down to the village level.

Diverting public anger

Since May 1998, there has been growing ethnic violence. Then, violence against ethnic Chinese massively increased, including widespread incidents of rape of ethnic Chinese women.

This has spread to include violence between Christians and Muslims in Ambon and parts of Java. This violence is not spontaneous but the result of a systematic campaign by the regime to divert public anger to suitable scapegoats such as new settlers or ethnic minorities.

There is considerable evidence that the military have actively supported and defended these attacks, including film footage in May showing soldiers helping looters in Chinese areas in Jakarta. The expansion of this violence provides an excuse for ABRI to crack down in order restore “order”.

An important part of this is the campaign by the far right to label the People's Democratic Party (PRD) and the radical student organisations such as the Student and People's Committee for Democracy (KOMRAD) and City Forum (FORKOT) as “communist”. They have been accused of being involved in an anti-Islamic conspiracy and responsible for the rape, mutilation and murder of Muslim women.

This campaign taps into the popular hatred of “communism” in Indonesia, where the regime has been able to falsely portray “communists” as murderers and rapists. This sentiment was demonstrated in November, when the students taunted the military by calling them “PKI” (Communist Party Indonesia).

The regime has recently included laws banning Marxist-Leninism in the criminal code. These laws replace the anti-subversion law.

Under the new laws, campaigning for the replacement of the state ideology, Pancasila, with communism is punishable by 20 years' imprisonment. Publishing Marxist writings is punishable by 12 years' imprisonment. Publishing communist writings that spark mass unrest, following the teachings of Marx and Lenin and organising people under communist teachings are all punishable by 15 years' imprisonment.

The attempt to intimidate the PRD has also been stepped up. Mugianto and Aan, PRD members who were kidnapped and tortured by ABRI in March, have recently received phone calls from their kidnappers asking, “Do you remember me?”.

Ending the dual function

The dual function of ABRI -- that is, the military's involvement in politics -- remains the biggest barrier to democracy. The masses see establishing democratic elections and curtailing the power of the military as the burning priority.

Only when the movement has won greater democratic space and people have learned through their own experiences the illusory nature of capitalist “democracy” will revolutionaries be able to win a hearing for socialist solutions to society's problems. The vast majority of Indonesian people see the June 7 elections as both democratic and a solution to their current problems.

The depth of these illusions can be seen in reports of rallies organised by political parties through urban poor areas, as opposed to those organised by students. During 1998, when students marched through urban poor areas, the urban poor would come to join them. In the past month, this has no longer been the case. At the same time, they are prepared to join political party rallies, showing that the urban poor have large illusions in the elections.

One important factor in breaking these illusions will be the experience of the elections themselves. The June 7 poll will be first real multi-party election in more than 30 years. After the election, no change in government policy will occur.

The major opposition figures Megawati Sukarnoputri (Democratic Party of Indonesia -- Struggle), Amien Rais (National Mandate Party) and Abdurrahman Wahid (National Awakening Party), who are likely to play a role in the next government, have stated a willingness to support both the IMF austerity measures and the military's dual function.

The PRD has launched a campaign tying the struggle for democratic demands to the ending of the dual role of the military and meeting the immediate economic needs of workers, farmers and the urban poor. These demands include a 200% increase in wages with cuts to prices; providing land to the tillers; and the nationalising of Suharto and his family's assets.

In order to win these demands, it is necessary to build organisations that can mobilise and unite the people in struggle. This process also provides the possibility to generate increased confidence and a sense of empowerment.

It is important to win all oppressed and exploited sectors of Indonesian society to this struggle; failure to convince and win these sectors would mean that they could be used against the democratic forces.

Revolution or chaos? The answer to this questions lies in the strength of the democracy movement and its ability to lead the anger and frustration of the masses in a coherent struggle against the regime and the capitalist system it supports.

[Lisbeth Latham organised the Resistance exposure tour to Indonesia and is an activist in ASIET].

From Green Left Weekly issue #359

Read more...

Student power: The Indonesian example

By Lisbeth Latham

Last year featured the largest protest movement in the history of Indonesia. These protests, which mobilised millions of people, ended the dictator Suharto's 32-year reign. They were primarily built by students.

How did students, a section of society which we are told has no economic or political power, bring about the downfall of the region's longest surviving dictator?

The protests developed around two key issues: the economic crisis and the lack of democracy in Indonesia. The collapse of Indonesia's currency, the rupiah, in early 1998 led to massive inflation and unemployment. The International Monetary Fund's (IMF) economic restructuring package required a reduction in government subsidies on rice, cooking oil and kerosene, causing shortages and hardship for millions.

Widespread dissatisfaction with Suharto was expressed in the lead-up to the March 10 meeting of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), Indonesia's parliament. This reflected a growing recognition that the MPR was simply a “rubber stamp” for decisions already taken by Suharto and the ruling elite.

On March 10 in Yogyakarta, the day of Suharto's reappointment as president for a seventh five-year term, 10,000 students marched chanting, “Bring down prices, bring down Suharto!”.

Throughout 1998, the Suharto and B.J. Habibie regimes had attempted to intimidate and smash the student movement. At first attacking protests that attempted to leave campus, the regime became increasing desperate as the rallies began to grow and become more radical. They resorted to abducting, murdering and torturing student activists, and firing on protests.

These attacks only served to highlight the need for change and strengthened public awareness that students were suffering at the hands of the military because they were fighting for the people. The shooting of four students at Trisakti University on May 12 provoked outrage throughout Indonesia.

Between May 14 and 20, students took over the state-owned radio stations in Surabaya, Malang and Semarang, and the TV stations in Padang, West Sumatra. Occupations of regional parliament buildings occurred in a number of cities.

In Jakarta, students met after the shootings to discuss tactics. The more radical students proposed the mobilisation of workers, who were ready to join the students for the May 20 rallies. In a debate within the Jakarta-wide Forum Korta (Forkot), conservative students from the Tertiary Students' Student Senates argued that the involvement of non-students would lead to rioting.

The radical People's Democratic Party (PRD) argued that the urban poor would come out on the streets anyway and that students should build alliances with these forces and provide clear political direction. The more conservative students won the vote.

On May 20, approximately 500,000 people mobilised in Yogyakarta. In Jakarta, 150,000 occupied the grounds around the parliament. Forkot students established check points to physically prevent people without a student card from joining the protest.

Suharto's Resignation

In the face of mounting opposition, Suharto resigned from the presidency on the morning of May 21. Suharto's resignation and his replacement by Habibie had a demobilising effect on the movement. How could a movement which had succeeded in removing a dictator be mollified with such small concessions?

Suharto resigned not because of the immediate impact of the movement but because the regime feared the protests could escalate and the radicalisation deepen. Such a development could have resulted in the student movement in Jakarta following the lead of students in regional cities by forging links with peasants, the urban poor and workers. Suharto's resignation removed the focus of mass anger without requiring any real reforms or redistribution of the vast assets controlled by Suharto and his family.

The more radical students did attempt to restart the student mobilisations in late June to call for Habibie's resignation. These protests were met by counter-mobilisations by conservative students who argued it was necessary to give Habibie time to prove himself.

On November 9 to 13, a special session of the MPR, composed of the same individuals who had re-elected Suharto president in March, met to set the date for national elections and determine the composition of the parliament. On November 11 to 14, mass protests occurred in Jakarta against the session. Four demands united the protesters: reject the special session of the MPR; abolish the dual role of the armed forces (called dwifungsi); put Suharto on trial; and establish a provisional government.

There was some disagreement about what was meant by a “provisional government”. The Jakarta Student Senate Communication Forum demanded a presidium made up of figures in the political elite who have real mass support and a reputation of being free of corruption. Forkot demanded a people's committee comprising a broad range of figures and organisations active in the democracy movement.

The PRD, the Student and People's Committee for Democracy, Workers' Committee for Reformation Action (KOBAR) and Megawati Supporters' Committee campaigned for a democratic coalition government made up of progressive forces that have struggled consistently for democracy. They argued that it should be controlled by people's councils established from the district level.

The early protests mainly consisted of university students, although some urban poor were involved. The number of urban poor, however, grew to massive proportions in the later protests. The first day mobilised 5000 people, and the second day drew 10,000. On the third day, November 13, the numbers reached almost a million and virtually surrounded the parliament.

The protests were attacked by 30,000 troops and brigades of thugs (pan swakarsa) armed with sharpened bamboo. Eleven protesters were killed by the military. During the fighting, the urban poor defended the students, killing four members of the pan swakarsa. They placed 20,000 rupiah notes on the bodies to indicate they were paid vigilantes.

Organising Workers

Students involved in the PRD and its student organisation, Students in Solidarity for Democracy in Indonesia, have played an important role in organising workers in Indonesia. Through establishing the Indonesian Centre for Labour Struggle and involvement in KOBAR, the PRD has fought for workers' right to organise in trade unions.

The movement has undermined the government's propaganda that workers were being “used” by “communists”. It has become easier to involve workers in actions around political, as well as economic demands.

The national elections scheduled for June 7 will dominate Indonesian politics in 1999. Many students will act as election monitors. The PRD's participation will allow it to reach many people and will highlight that it is the only party to oppose the IMF's austerity package and to consistently call for an end to the military's involvement in politics.

The dramatic events in Indonesia show the power of student political protest. Students were able to detonate a mass movement for democracy and continue to lead the movement for fundamental change.

From Green Left Weekly #352

Read more...