Future answer to Jose and Jim.

Jose G. Perez jgperez at SPAMfreepcmail.com
Fri Sep 24 19:02:17 MDT 1999



>a) It is _not_ smallness that makes Eastern Timorese claims
>for independence suspicious to my eye now, nor has it been
>before. Did I ever deny Puerto Ricans any right to fight
>for independence? I would say mine is rather the opposite
>position. But Puerto Ricans do not rely on imperialists in
>order to achieve their goals.


They do not? Check again.

It has been the long-standing position of one wing of the
independence movement to reject and to boycott U.S. sponsored referenda.
These forces have insistently argued that referenda under auspices of the
colonial administration and the colonial power are illegitimate; that only a
referendum under UN auspices and preceded by the withdrawal of the occupying
force and its replacement by a United Nations force could have any
legitimacy.

It is an OUTRAGE to characterize the heroic struggle of the Timorese people
as reliance on imperialism to achieve their goals. They have waged an
unrelenting struggle against Portuguese colonialism and then against the
Indonesian occupation. The Indonesian occupation was a 100% IMPERIALIST
occupation, with Indonesian troops standing in for those of the major
imperialist powers. The Timorese have not failed us by trying to take
advantage of contradictions within the imperialist camp nor by calling for a
UN force under the current desperate circumstances. Rather it is us, the
world working class, and especially the working classes of the imperialist
countries who have failed them.

For when the Cuban revolution faced a similar crossroads, and imperialism
was preparing a massive invasion which the revolution would almost certainly
not have survived, the Soviet Union and Nikita Khruschev, who history will
remember, and not just for the many problems of the socialism he was
associated with, were there for Cuba.

But who from our class is there for the Timorese? And so the Timorese have
had no recourse but to call on the United Nations.

>b) The national question has _little, if anything_ to do
>with what is known as "ethnicity".  The Malay national
>question, in particular, does not imply either mingling
>different "ethnic groups" together in an inorganic way, nor
>does it imply that the "largest group" has a historical
>right to stamp the minor groups away.
>
>Ethnicity and nationality, in fact, are seldom the same
>thing though there may be some overlaps. On this,
>Argentinians do know something.


Let me guess. Half or more of the population of Perú, of Bolivia may be
native peoples. But the "national" question isn't the
Quechua, etc., national question, but the Peruvian one, and the Bolivian
one, and
the Latin American one? Did I get it right?

José



---

Free computers.  Free Internet access.  I don't pay -- why should you?
Click on www.free-pc.com to get started today!









More information about the Marxism mailing list