Reports on East Timor not yet neutral<\/p>\n
By Bilveer Singh<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE (JP): Even though the East Timor issue is closely
\nconnected to Portugal's domestic politics, the western media
\nprefers to ignore it. Journalists seldom ask what really caused
\nthe problem.<\/p>\n
This has been seen repeatedly over the last 20 years, in
\nparticular whenever a flare-up breaks out in East Timor, be it on
\nNov. 12, 1991, or on Nov. 12, 1994, just before the APEC leaders
\nconference.<\/p>\n
The roots of this phenomenon date back to April 25, 1974, when
\na military coup in Lisbon, Portugal, overthrew the Caetano
\nregime, kicking off the decolonization process in the Portuguese
\ncolonies of Angola, Mozambique and East Timor.<\/p>\n
While analysts, local and foreign, have certain vested
\ninterests in pursuing a particular line, what cannot be denied,
\nand what history bears out, is that the East Timor problem arose
\nfrom the sheer irresponsibility of a colonial power, Portugal.<\/p>\n
After 400 years of rule, which kept the colony one of the most
\nbackward pieces of territory in Southeast Asia, Lisbon decided to
\ndecolonize East Timor.<\/p>\n
In this effort, it sought Jakarta's cooperation. Lisbon's
\ndilemma was that in East Timor there were three different
\npolitical parties, formed immediately following the April 1974
\ncoup in Lisbon. One, Fretilin, wanted independence. Another,
\nApodeti, wanted independence through integration with Indonesia.
\nThe third, UDT, was unsure what to do.<\/p>\n
Jakarta's position was simple: it supported the decolonization
\nof East Timor but preferred that Lisbon provide the same
\nopportunity to all three parties. If this was done, Jakarta would
\naccept the final decision.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, something which Portugal and the majority of
\nwestern journalists prefer to ignore, Lisbon reneged on this
\nunderstanding.<\/p>\n
Instead of being fair to all three parties, Lisbon, under a
\nleftist regime, sided with the Fretilin, a small left-wing party
\nformed by young people who had studied in Portugal. Fretilin also
\ncontained many elements of the dreaded colonial army.<\/p>\n
UDT, which consisted mostly of government officials and the
\ntraditional elite, remained undecided on where it stood. Apodeti,
\non the other hand, was made up of East Timorese freedom fighters,
\nwho had a clear vision of where they were going. They were kept
\non the defensive, with many leaders exiled or executed.<\/p>\n
Lisbon's support of Fretilin led the other two parties to
\nrevolt against it and hence, the outbreak of the civil war.<\/p>\n
Lisbon's failure to be even-headed and its unabashed backing
\nof the Fretilin were the principal causes of the initial
\nbloodshed in East Timor following the Lisbon coup. This policy
\ngreatly shaped the course of events thereafter.<\/p>\n
This is something that is conveniently ignored by most
\nanalysts and observers whose every effort seems to be focused on
\nreinterpreting history, if not rewriting it.<\/p>\n
What is worse, at the peak of the civil war, the Portuguese
\ncolonialists packed and fled, leaving the East Timorese to fight
\nit out. If no force had intervened (a similar case was India's
\nintervention in East Pakistan in 1971, when the Pakistani Army
\nwas brutalizing the Bengalis) the well-armed Fretilin forces
\nwould have massacred the followers of UDT and Apodeti.<\/p>\n
It was in these circumstances that Indonesia was forced to
\nintervene and fight a bloody war to bring the country to peace.<\/p>\n
No war anywhere, limited or total, is pleasant. The Americans
\nfound this out in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and Kuwait. In the
\nsame way, the military conflict in East Timor, or what is left of
\nit, has never been pleasant. The question is, which policy is one
\ngoing to uphold on the basis of what moral values? The
\nirresponsible behavior of the Portuguese as a colonial power that
\nled to the East Timor problem, or the Indonesian effort to bring
\nabout peace and development in the country? This could be debated
\nfor a long time to come.<\/p>\n
What the ASEAN countries have decided is that Indonesia was
\nforced to undertake an unpleasant mission, and that it has done
\nwell. The support Jakarta has been receiving from the ASEAN
\ncountries in the United Nations or other forums emerges from the
\nfact that the ASEAN countries are aware East Timor would have
\nbeen far worse off without Indonesian intervention. No ASEAN
\ncountry would have endorsed a "Cuba" on Indonesia's doorstep.
\nTheir stance is not so different from that of the United States,
\nwhich has penalized Castro all these years.<\/p>\n
The West enjoys picking up issues related to human rights,
\nwhich countries elsewhere can understand because this is part of
\nthe western cultural ethos. The problem, from the ASEAN point of
\nview, however, is the totality of the issue.<\/p>\n
It is in this context, that the statement on East Timor made
\nby Singapore's Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, prior to the Bogor
\nconference, becomes understandable. In the words of Goh, the
\nproblem was "media hype". In his view, one should look at
\nIndonesia from the broader perspective of its achievements rather
\nthan nit-picking. American society is not the same as what its
\nvarious cults represent. In the same way, East Timor is not what
\nthe media makes it out to be, sensationalists as they are. The
\ncountry has an obvious law and order problem and, as is the case
\nanywhere else, force has to be resorted to at times.<\/p>\n
When Goh was asked to comment on the East Timor issue, the
\nwestern media was very busy with what it dubbed "East Timor
\nRevisited", brought about by the presence of 29 East Timorese
\nyouths in the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta and the
\nstreet riots in Dili, where one person died in inter-ethnic
\nclashes between the Bugis originating from South Sulawesi and
\nEast Timorese. In response Goh said: "We have to look at
\nIndonesia as a country and look at the achievements of the
\nIndonesian government over the last 28 years."<\/p>\n
He felt that "if we were to do an objective study, we must
\ncome to the conclusion that President Soeharto has brought much
\nprosperity for the people." He also felt that counter to the
\nwestern media's habit of combing for trouble-spots, "we should
\nnot focus on one particular dot, but should focus on the total
\npicture, the achievements of Indonesia."<\/p>\n
Indonesia, in Goh's assessment, "has been united for the last
\n28 years, its per capita has gone up by five or six times. That
\nis remarkable".<\/p>\n
Thus, when one analyses that totality of the Indonesian
\nsituation, the problem in East Timor pales into insignificance.<\/p>\n
More important, what is often missed is that the majority of
\nthe East Timorese are at home with their integration with
\nIndonesia. Integration has brought about prosperity which they
\nhad not seen for more than 400 years.<\/p>\n
In many ways, East Timor has had far more development aid and
\ninfrastructure pumped into it than has gone into West Irian, a
\nterritory integrated into Indonesia in 1962. The result, if
\nanything, is that some sort of an envy factor is emerging between
\nthe two territories.<\/p>\n
It is in this context, that the East Timor issue should be
\nassessed and analyzed.<\/p>\n
Every country has problems, as can be seen in Germany, which
\nis feeling the weight of the burden of its recent unification.
\nYet, the media focus on that country is not on its blatant
\nracism; rather, various justifications for its people's actions
\nand policies are forwarded. Elsewhere, as in the case of East
\nTimor, condemnation is in vogue.<\/p>\n
While all agree that there are problems in East Timor, the
\nmedia, with its negative, one-sided reporting, has done more
\ninjustice than justice for the East Timorese. Instead of feeding
\nthe false expectations of a small group of East Timorese, the
\nmedia should be forward looking and talk of undertaking change
\nwithin the constitutional framework of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The peace and development achieved in East Timor should be
\nappreciated rather than sidelined as a footnote. In the post-Cold
\nWar era, East Timor deserves sensible and sensitive treatment
\nfrom the West, rather than sensationalism that is not serving,
\nand never will serve, anyone's interests.<\/p>\n
The writer is a senior lecturer in political science at the
\nNational University of Singapore.<\/p>\n
Window A: In the post-Cold War era, East Timor deserves far more
\nsensible and sensitive treatment from the West rather than
\nsensationalism that is not serving anyone's interest.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reports-on-east-timor-not-yet-neutral-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}