Australia betrays East Timor refugees

By Lisbeth Latham

One hundred and fifty East Timorese refugees refused to leave the East Hills army barracks in Sydney on February 22. The government was determined to remove the refugees from the camp for a "voluntary" flight home on February 22.

Three hundred local Timorese and their supporters facing 100 police blocked the buses bound for the airport. They managed to delay the departures, but the refugees have now been returned to East Timor. These refugees were amongst the last to leave of those who entered Australia after the bloody events in East Timor last year to leave; such betrayals of East Timorese refugees are not new.

'Safe haven'

In response to the terror unleashed in East Timor after the independence ballot on August 30, the Australian government initially agreed to provide sanctuary only for staff from the United Nations Assistance Mission in East Timor, plus 350 East Timorese staff and their families. On September 8, immigration minister Philip Ruddock announced that an additional 1450 East Timorese would be allowed into Australia under the safe haven legislation.

This legislation, drafted in early 1999 to deal with Kosovar refugees, allows only three-month visas, the holders of which are not allowed to apply for any other form of visa while in Australia.

The "safe havens" are disused military barracks. Individuals are not allowed to leave; if they do they lose access to government services and the minimum government payments of $27 per week per adult and $10 per child.

In December, when the safe haven visas expired, more than 1000 Timorese refugees were returned. Ruddock said on December 6, "The East Timorese were evacuated in September to stay until conditions in East Timor improved ... The United Nations high commissioner for refugees has provided assurances that it is now safe."

This was described as a "voluntary" return. However, Timorese who opted to remain in Australia would receive no government assistance, had no right to work and constantly faced the threat of deportation.

The government ignored the conditions that refugees were returning to: most buildings, infrastructure and crops destroyed, and mass unemployment. A Fretilin representative in Australia, Naldo Rai, said on February 22, "We have contact with relatives in East Timor who say the conditions are very bad. There is no food, no clothing, no houses."

There are reports that refugees who returned to East Timor earlier were provided with only a blanket and a tarpaulin, without rope to tie the tarpaulin down.

Long-term refugees

Many refugees entered Australia after the Dili massacre in 1991. In 1994, the Australian government argued that because these Timorese had the right to request Portuguese citizenship, they did not require Australia's protection.

In 1998, the Federal Court decided that the Refugee Review Tribunal should reconsider Kon Tji Tay's application for asylum because there was no evidence that Portugal would provide protection. The immigration department conducted an appeal throughout 1999.

In addition to mounting numerous legal challenges to the granting of refugee status, the Australian government has conducted a war of attrition. Without refugee status, the Timorese are not eligible to work or to enter educational institutions. The government has ended asylum seeker assistance payments.

On November 9, the government announced that it would end its appeal, but informed the refugees that, since East Timor is now "safe" to return to, they must reapply for asylum under the new Border Protection Act.

The act states that Australia is no longer required to provide protection if alternative avenues for protection exist, such as dual citizenship or potential dual citizenship (that is, with Portugal). The applications will be dealt with individually, making it a lengthy process that will further exhaust the resources and resolve of refugees who have been in Australia for up to 10 years.

In addition, there are still more than 100,000 East Timorese being forced to stay in camps in West Timor, where they were driven in late 1999. The Australian government has done little to secure their release.

A report in the Bali Post newspaper on February 22 said that at least 700 people had died in the camps in the last six months. The refugees are frequently harassed by militias and the military.

Punishing the victims

In November, the government passed the Border Protection Act, among the harshest legislation dealing with refugees in the world. While whipping up nationalist and racist sentiments about "boat people" and "illegals" to justify these legislative attacks, the government tries to assure us that it is nevertheless humane.

However, the government's treatment of the East Timorese refugees is consistent with its general approach of blaming and punishing the victims of Third World poverty and imperialism.

For decades, Australian governments supported the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia because it gave Australian companies access to Indonesia's natural resources and markets and provided a "stable" environment in which to make profits. Australia gave diplomatic and military support to Indonesia's occupation of East Timor and Australian companies secured access to rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap.

But Australian governments weren't just complicit in the deaths of more than 200,000 Timorese since 1975. The Coalition government continued to support Indonesia last year while it displaced more than half of East Timor's population and destroyed most of its economy and infrastructure.

The Australian government rejected evidence of the links between the Indonesian military and the pro-integration militias and in the United Nations, Australian officials argued against the deployment of a non-Indonesian security force during the independence vote.

Now the government is punishing further the victims of its own policy.

For real justice

It should be left to each East Timorese refugee to decide if they want to stay, and much more aid should be made available to rebuild East Timor, thereby giving East Timorese refugees a real choice about returning home.

To assist refugees to return, and to allow visits by East Timorese to Australia, where many will still have relatives and friends, the government should establish a special category of visa, similar to that granted to New Zealand citizens, which allows them to travel freely between the two countries.

To aid development, the government should fund 1000 new scholarships per year for East Timorese to attend Australian higher education institutions.

Massive non-repayable grants and reparations for Australia's support for the war on East Timor should be funded out of a levy on all Australian businesses that have profited from investment in Indonesia and East Timor.

It is vital that the Australian people act now to safeguard the human rights of East Timorese in Australia and East Timor. Resistance is supporting a national day of action on May 13, organised by Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor, to demand "Justice for East Timor! Justice for all refugees!".

From Green Left Weekly #395
Resistance magazine and Green Left Weekly will keep you informed about the struggle for justice in East Timor and the solidarity campaigns.

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...

Why socialists call for troops in East Timor

Why socialists call for troops in East Timor
By Lisbeth Latham and Zanny Begg

A debate amongst the left has developed over the way to stop the violence in East Timor. Resistance demands an immediate armed intervention by the United Nations or Australian troops to force the withdrawal of the Indonesian military and disarm the militias. This demand is summarised by the chant at the demonstrations: "UN in, Indonesia out now!". Some on the left have argued against calling for UN/Australian troops to go into East Timor because they claim it would strengthen the hand of imperialism, not stop the bloodshed and sow illusions in the UN or the Australian government.

None of these arguments are true.

Strengthen imperialism?
Both the Australian government and the UN have said that they won't send troops to stop the slaughter until the Indonesian government accepts an international intervention.

The hesitancy to intervene reflects the Australian government's continuing support for the Indonesian regime. Rather than strengthening the hand of imperialism, sending troops in runs directly counter to the interests and wishes of imperialist countries like Australia, which do not want to undermine the power or authority of the Indonesian military.

Instead of an immediate armed intervention, Western governments have hinted that economic sanctions might be imposed on Indonesia. This would be ineffectual in stopping the bloodshed, and could even strengthen the Indonesian regime politically.

Sanctions would create the conditions for right-wing forces to whip up nationalist fervour. Forces in Indonesia which support independence for East Timor, such as the People's Democratic Party (PRD), would be targeted for further attack. The PRD has argued that sanctions would weaken the movement supporting East Timor, because the Islamic forces within the movement oppose sanctions.

Economic sanctions would punish the Indonesian people for the actions of their government, a government that the majority rejected in this year's election.

Stopping the bloodshed
An armed intervention by the UN or Australia to stop the bloodshed, force the withdrawal of the military and disarm the militias would place the resistance in a better position to continue its struggle for independence. If the Indonesian army is able to get away with its campaign of terror, it will be a massive setback for the East Timorese and could allow the Indonesian military to impose its version of a "final solution".

An armed intervention could halt the Indonesian policy of genocide by providing physical protection to the East Timorese. It is the only policy which can halt the massacre in the short term.

The massive solidarity movement with East Timor which has swelled onto the streets puts extra moral pressure on the Australian government. If it did send in troops, people would expect them to halt the slaughter. Anything less would expose the collaboration with the Indonesian regime and provoke a major crisis of confidence in the Australian government.

But stopping the slaughter in East Timor brings the Australian government into conflict with the Indonesian regime, a scenario Howard and Downer are keen to avoid.

While immediate intervention is against the intentions of the Australian government, it is possible for it to be forced to intervene by mass pressure from the Australian people. This would require the mobilisation of thousands in street protests. Such pressure would demonstrate to the government that the domestic costs of not intervening are higher than the gains.

It is only by placing these demands on the Australian government that socialists are able to highlight the contradiction between the governments claim to support democracy and the reality of its support for repression throughout Indonesia and East Timor.

If the movement is strong enough to force an intervention, it would be a massive victory  -  not just for struggle for East Timorese independence, but for all solidarity movements in Australia.

Failure to raise a demand that pressures the Australian government to take concrete action immediately to stop the killing would be a major mistake. If the killing continues at the present rate, there will be no time for diplomacy, trade union bans or other avenues to force the withdrawal of Indonesian troops.

Sowing illusions?
The demand "Troops in!" highlights the role of the Australian government and the UN in blocking action to end the bloodshed. Rather then sowing illusions, it will expose the unwillingness of capitalist governments to stop thousands of people being slaughtered.

The heroic 24-year struggle of the East Timorese people has already forced major concessions from Indonesia and imperialist governments. Even holding the UN-sponsored ballot was a concession won by years of struggle, and driven forward by the strength of the democracy movement in Indonesia.

At each step, the hypocrisy of the UN has been revealed to people all over the world. In 1991 people demanded to know why the UN was prepared to go to war in Iraq, when it was unwilling to lift a finger to save East Timor. During the war in Kosova people wondered why NATO countries like the US and Britain waged war to "save" the Albanians when they were not prepared to save East Timor and in fact assisted the Indonesian military.

If the solidarity movements and the liberation struggle in East Timor are powerful enough to force the UN or the Australian government to intervene, they will gain confidence that they have the power to force them to act elsewhere. A victory for the East Timorese would encourage the struggle against imperialism world over.

-----------------
September 15, 1999
Originally published in Green Left Weekly #376

Read more...