east timor - australian imperialism?

[whore]

in 1975, with the tacit approval of australia, the usa, and various other "western" nations, indonesia invaded east timor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor).

in 1999, east timor gained independence from indonesia. violence broke out.

australian, and other forces, came to east timor on a un mandated "peace keeping" mission. the "international force for east timor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERFET)".

my question to you, was this "imperialism" on the part of australia, new zealand etc.? was the "United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Transitional_Administration_in_East _Timor)" imperialism? was the next mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_of_Support_to_East_Timor) imperialism?

is any of that imperialism?

[JacobVardy]

Just from memory (i'll try and check this) the major parties and the capitalist concerns were opposed to the invasion of Timor Leste. Australian capitalist have a strong relationship with Indonesia and did not want it disturbed. I beleive that the invasion was driven by the Australian public, who were seeing the brutality of the Indonesian occupation for the first time.

Whether the invasion furthered the intrests of Australian capital i can not say.

[whore]

so does anyone else have an opinion on this? i think that there was a lot of public support in australia for the "peace keeping" mission. australia is now, as well the main investor (i think) in east timor, so certainly something has worked out there.

[JacobVardy]

Yes, Australian capital is a major investor in Timor Leste. However, prior to the CoA invasion, that capital was invested under Indonesian jurisdiction - hence the opposition of the bourgeois parties to the invasion.

[Kléber]

Yes. Australia is definitely imperialist

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/ntsi-j28.shtml

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think it's important before we start to apply labels to things to actually understand what those labels mean. Imperialism is not an economic policy or military intervention. Imperialism is a world system, the highest stage of capitalism. Yes, Australia's military operations in East Timor are an expression of imperialism. To give support to Australia's military operation in East Timor on the basis of 'humanitarianism' is to side with Australian imperialism as the Socialist Alliance did in 1999.

[whore]

Yes. Australia is definitely imperialist

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/ntsi-j28.shtml
sure, australia is imperialist. but where australia's actions in east timor imperialist? (that article doesn't mention it.)


I think it's important before we start to apply labels to things to actually understand what those labels mean. Imperialism is not an economic policy or military intervention. Imperialism is a world system, the highest stage of capitalism. Yes, Australia's military operations in East Timor are an expression of imperialism. To give support to Australia's military operation in East Timor on the basis of 'humanitarianism' is to side with Australian imperialism as the Socialist Alliance did in 1999.
is australian imperialism better than indonesian imperialism?
in 1999, what did australia have to gain from this action? (it is a little bit more obvious in hindsight, but at the time, was it obvious?)

was it wrong then, for australia (new zealand etc.) to send troops to east timor to prevent violence between the indonesian backed militia and independence fighters?

[JacobVardy]

Perhaps i should rephrase myself. Australia's occupation of Timor Leste is imperialistic, just as Indonesia's was, because it involves the imposition and maintenance of capitalism through military violence. (I think that's what imperialism is, any Leninist want to correct me?)

The next question is if the CoA's relationship with Timor Leste is colonial, If it is colonial, is it as bad as the colonial relationship Republik Indonesia? I believe that colonialism is the direct exploitation of one place by capitalists from another place through military means. Neo-colonialism is the same thing except the capitalists hire local guards.

The Army of RI was and still is partially funded by businesses that it owns. This system lead to many abuses, whereby companies directly owned by the military and officers were profiting from the occupation. This is one of the main causes of the violence. Officers were using army funds to pay mercenaries to protect officer-and-army owned businesses. This violence was escalated prior to the independence vote in an attempt to scare people into voting no.

The CoA's occupation of Timor Leste is far less brutal because the soldiers involved are not directly profiting from the occupation. While some Australian capital is invested in Timor Leste, far more is invested in Indonesia. I think this explains the bourgeois opposition to the CoA's invasion of Timor. They feared they would loose their investments in RI.

So why did the CoA invade? I think a case can be made for organic working class solidarity. For years there had been an international TL support network but new digital media made it easier to get images and reports out of Timor. The capitalist media published these images and reports to further their business interests. Thus the Australian working class saw and heard what was happening in Timor for the first time. And were horrified.

As the CoA is formally a democracy the working class can force their way on certain issues. When a large majority have strong feelings on a certain issue, and the bourgeois have no countervailing interests, the working class can force a government to act. As the Australian working class is not organised, its demands were inchoate, merely that something must be done.

So i do not think that the CoA invaded TL with the intent of establishing a colonial regime but to prevent further radicalisation of the Australian working class. Suggestive of this is the renegotiation of the Timor Gap Treaty (TGT) to the Timor Sea Treaty (TST). The TGT provided 50-50% split of the petroleum royalties from the Sunrise Gas field between the Australia and Indonesia. This was altered in the TST whereby Timor would get 90% and Australia 10%.

[JacobVardy]

Oh, um, i forgot to add that Australia's relationship has clearly become more colonialistic in the intervening years. But hey, that is what states do. And i think that is another debate.