Attack in Maliana

Attack in Maliana

Looking over the news with respect to an attack recently on a
UN post in Maliana, East Timor, it is important to review some of
the statements that were put forward by certain people who are
connected with that matter. Two contentious statements are
identified in this case. They are (1) a statement from the
foreign side, and (2) a statement by the Indonesian side. Which
one of those is correct needs further study.

Apart from which one of them is true, it can be considered
that the statement from the foreign side is more tendentious and
provocative. For example, U.S. State Department spokesman James
Rubin said that "we are not satisfied with the fact that the
Indonesian Military has not taken steps to bring under control
these militias. We're not satisfied with the position of the
Indonesian Military and its government." The next example, a
statement made by UNAMET: "the post was attacked by about 100
militia members. A witness said a member of the local military
command was involved in the attack".

Based on these two statements, it is clear that foreign sides
have reacted tendentiously. They already understood that the two
conflicting parties (pro and anti integrationists) were involved
in that incident. Therefore, they must condemn the militias only.
But in reality, they merely believed that the militias and the
Indonesian Military were the troublemakers. They did not consider
the anti-integration group as the other side, which is also
responsible for the incident. In my opinion, those statements are
very tendentious and discredit Indonesia's position in the eye of
the international community.

The foreign statements are also provocative in nature. The
UN's special envoy for East Timor, Jamsheed Marker, said: "There
was no need for the development of peacekeeping forces to take
over from the unarmed UN civilian police". Is it a warning of
provocation?

I do not think it was necessary for Marker to make such a
statement. It is too premature. Although the statement does not
explicitly indicate the will of the United Nations Assistance
Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) to deploy a peacekeeping force in
East Timor, it implies an arrogant attitude.

So far as I know, the incident was a reflection of a negative
attitude UNAMET has shown to prointegration East Timorese. So it
is understandable that their attack on the UN post in Maliana is
but a reflection of their disappointment. I hope all related
parties have the good will to create a conducive climate to make
the forthcoming poll a success.

ARIRIS MIFTACHURRAHMAN

Bekasi, West Java