Greetings from an imperial colony (or is that 'colonic empire'),
I'd like a better guide to what is, and is not, imperialism - or maybe
confirmation for my opinion that the kind of debate we're having won't get
us anywhere if we adhere to fixed pseudo-scientific definitions of specific
and fluctuating relationships.
If we're stuck with the nation-state as our unit of analysis, Kosovo was
part of Yugoslavia, and thus any interference from outside constitutes an
imperialist act if Belgrade does not approve of it. East Timor was not part
of the 17000 islands that is (or has been) Indonesia, and it was taken
forcibly against the will of the majority of its inhabitants, in the
interests of Djakarta's political and economic ends (which it never
satisfied because ET never really succumbed and because Djakarta was never
in a position to invest the substantial up-front costs required to get at
ET's goodies); directly by Indonesia, but with the corrupt and tacit
approval of Australia (who wanted some of that oil) and the USA (who did not
want the Fretelin socialists in charge where the Indonesian anti-leftist
militarist leadership might be).
'Self-determination' gets you to that conclusion if you go with the locus of
national borders. If you don't, Belgrade was being imperialist because most
of Kosovo no longer wanted to be part of Yugoslavia.
A third consideration is that both East Timor and Kosovo could aspire to
nought better than the status of protectorate. Neither will ever have the
political economic clout, nor the military presence, to be sovereign in any
substantial sense, and must rely on the 'good will' (perceived self
interest) of greater powers. In short, there really is no tenable sense in
which a few hundred thousand people (East Timor) or even a couple of million
in a relatively poor and extraction-based economy (Kosovo) can hope to be a
self-determining entity within our political economic system. They've a
choice between competing modes of imperialism (gun-boats or purchased
sponsorship), but that's about all.
Talk of self-determination is pretty meaningless unless we talk about the
systemic limits which apply in the specific circumstances. Same with
'imperialism', I reckon.
I know that wasn't much help, but then the problem is a difficult one, and
best addressed in the sense of 'each case on its merits'. Thus do I
substantiate the fact that each of these incidents finds me on a different
side, anyway (usually on ol' fashioned criteria like 'what do the majority
of the locals want?'; 'what futures are actually tenable?'; and 'which
option would kill, maim and impoverish the fewest in the short to medium -
ie. foreseeable - term?').
Cheers,
Rob.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
