Laureate Jose Ramos Horta has displayed significant tact and diplomacy in his response to the Australian Government’s change of position on East Timor. He welcomed the switch and acknowledged that it is impossible for a Government to make huge reversals of policy in one step.
The Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, announced this week “”that the long term prospects for reconciliation in East Timor would be best served by the holding of an act of self-determination at some future time, following a substantial period of autonomy”.
It would not alter Australia’s recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor.
“”The nature of an arrangement for autonomy and the form of any act of self determination are essentially matters for the parties involved, but Australia continues to urge that the East Timorese be directly involved in the consideration of their future, in order for an atmosphere of trust to develop,” he said. Australia would support the release of East Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao to take part in the process.
It was a bit short on detail. It falls far short of calls for a referendum now. But it goes further than the Indonesian position of local autonomy for East Timor as a final settlement.
Mr Downer’s statement is welcome as far as it goes. But ultimately Australia should not accept anything short of an internationally supervised free and fair referendum by the people of East Timor, even if that is a decade away. Any Indonesian-run “”consultation” process is bound to be greeted with suspicion and therefore will not settle the matter. Large number of East Timorese would stay in, probably armed, opposition. It is in neither Australia’s, Indonesia’s or the East Timorese interest to have anything short of a proper act of self-determination.
Indonesia, of course, worries that an act of self-determination and possible independence for East Timor is bound to lead to similar demands for the people of Aceh and Irian Jaya and the disintegration of Indonesia. The comparison is not a valid one. Aceh and Irian Jaya were both formerly ruled by the Dutch. East Timor was Portuguese and stayed politically separate from the rest of the Indonesian archipelago for several decades after Indonesia became a nation. Aceh and Irian Jaya are recognised in international law, the UN and all its members as part of Indonesia. There is international sympathy for the plight of their people, but no significant international support for acts of self-determination in the way there is for East Timor.
The climate has changed in a way that should favour East Timor. The Cold War has ended so it cannot be seen as an enclave for destabilising communism in the region. Suharto has gone. The extent to which he rules from his political grave is another matter but President B. J. Habibie has made significant changes in attitude towards East Timor and to dissent, the rule of law and the electoral process. How the changes in attitude reflect in changes on the ground has yet to be fully tested. The army still seems to have huge influence.
It would be better to see how these changes in Indonesia develop before there is any vote in East Timor. In a more liberal, democratic and economically prosperous Indonesia (which it is likely to be a decade hence), it might be better for East Timor to remain associated, rather than try its hand at independence and face becoming prey to multi-nationals, internal corruption and lack of infrastructure. But as things stand, the East Timorese have good grounds for rejecting an Indonesia in which the army that repressed, massacred and tortured them has such a large influence.
It is too easy to paint a picture of an independent East Timor as some form of new Garden of Eden. All too quickly under-developed new nations succumb to abuses of power by local rulers.
East Timor, of course, has the prospect of significant oil revenues. In the past these have been an obstacle to self-determination because Indonesia has wanted the wealth for Java. As the new Australian position develops, however, the oil could be an element in arguing for a change in Indonesian attitude if Australia suggests it might give some of its share of the oil royalties to East Timor.
The Labor Party has gone further than the Coalition in changing its attitude. It seeks a full referendum. It has broken with the past, but at some cost. The new Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Laurie Brereton, had what can only be described as a row with the former Labor Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, on issue. Interestingly, there does not appear to have been a full-scale party-room or even Cabinet debate about the change of policy from the Coalition side, but the Coalition has the benefit of having its former pro-Indonesian Foreign Minister (Andrew Peacock) safely gagged in a diplomatic post and its former foreign-affairs spokesman (Robert Hill) no doubt more comfortable with the new position than the old.
The sensitivities indicate the difficulty of changing course, particularly from the Government benches. They also show the difficulty of setting out too many details of the new position.
That Mr Ramos Horta has recognised this should augur well for East Timor. It must be better, at least for the next few years, for Australia and the East Timorese to maintain political flexibility and fluidity, while always keeping the goal of an genuine act of self-determination in mind and while always retaining a moral bottom line that repression and human rights breaches are unacceptable. Making uncompromising demands on Indonesia and President Habibe (himself in a fairly fragile political position) could result in a counter-productive backlash.