E. Timor settlement: Referendum or autonomy?

E. Timor settlement: Referendum or autonomy?

By Salvador J. Ximenes Soares

DILI, East Timor (JP): The change of leadership in Indonesia,
marked by the stepping down on May 21 of president Soeharto and
the beginning of B.J. Habibie's tenure in office, noticeably
affected the progress toward a settlement in East Timor.

As the leader of a reform and development government, Habibie,
keen to settle the East Timor question once and for all, has
proposed giving East Timor a special status that includes wide-
ranging autonomy.

As a matter of fact, ever since the Nov. 12, 1991 incident
East Timorese leaders have been proposing a special status for
the territory. The proposal gained support from a number of
senior cabinet members of the New Order government but Soeharto
rejected it.

Autonomy has its backers and detractors, even among the East
Timorese themselves, and it must be negotiated with Portugal
under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) secretary-general.

The polemics generally stem from one main debate -- autonomy
or referendum -- over how to settle the East Timor question.
Those in favor of a referendum argue that this will be the most
democratic settlement because the people will vote for self-
determination. Self-determination is the basic right of the East
Timorese whose territory was never part of the Dutch empire.
Referendum supporters are obviously the pro-independence group
who have the sympathy and support of a number of the
organizations fighting to defend and uphold human rights.

On the other hand, according to the pro-autonomy group, the
granting to East Timor of special autonomy will be the most
realistic way forward because it will not lead to a new phase of
civil war and also because it will be the maximum concession that
the Indonesian government can allow.

It is clear that the East Timor issue has now entered a new
phase, after the last 23 years in which there was no clear
direction on how this question should be addressed.

The negotiations initiated by the UN secretary-general began
in 1983, continued for 15 years without any progress and even
showed signs of grinding to a stalemate. On the one hand,
Portugal insists that self-determination has not been allowed for
the East Timorese, while Indonesia, on the other hand, persists
in the belief that the majority of East Timorese did exercise
their right of self-determination when they decided to integrate
into the Republic of Indonesia in 1976.

The UN secretary-general and Portugal have responded
positively to Indonesia's proposal on special status for East
Timor. This favorable response was visible in negotiations
between the Indonesian and Portuguese foreign ministers under the
auspices of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Aug. 4 and Aug. 5.
At the end of the negotiations, a press statement, known as the
New York Communique of Aug. 5, 1998, was issued. Point 1 of the
communique reads: "Both ministers have agreed to discuss in
greater depth Indonesia's proposal for a special status to East
Timor on the basis of a wide-ranging autonomy arrangement without
prejudice to the basic positions of the two parties."

In a press conference with Indonesia's foreign minister Ali
Alatas and Portugal's Jaime Gama at the UN headquarters (the
writer was present on this occasion), Annan even admitted that
Indonesia's proposal was serious and deserved more profound
study.

If it is carefully observed, this issue has undergone a shift
in substance. In principle, the East Timorese, including the pro-
independence figures, can accept autonomy for the territory. The
moot point now is whether this autonomy will be regarded as the
final stage of the solution or a transitional settlement toward
the final stage, in which the final political status of the
province will be determined. It is here that the pro-autonomy and
the pro-independence groups cross paths.

At this juncture, whichever choice is made of the two
alternatives about how to regard autonomy, it is very clear that
autonomy itself will be a significant stage in the process of
settling the East Timor question. That this will be so is obvious
from the opinion of pro-independence leaders/figures.

Jose Alexandre "Xanana" Gusmao has been quoted by local daily
Suara Timor Timur (the Voice of East Timor) and Portuguese daily
Diario de Noticias as saying that he is ready to accept autonomy
as a transitional period of between three and 10 years and that
after that a referendum has to be held. Jose Ramos Horta has also
told Portuguese mass media that he is in a position to accept
autonomy for a period of three to five years.

These pro-independence leaders have not shifted their
political stance because, since the early 1990s, they have been
proposing a solution to the East Timor question, known as the
CNRM peace plan, which includes the granting of autonomy to East
Timor for a few years. Such autonomy would be followed by a
referendum as the final stage of the settlement process.

Dili Bishop Carlos Felipe Xiemenes Belo, told CNN and
Australia's ABC television stations in the middle of June that a
proposal for autonomy was acceptable but that after 10 to 15
years, the people's opinions must be sounded out.

On the other hand, the pro-integration group sees the granting
of autonomy as being in line with their struggle as long as it is
legally based and is recognized by the international community.
Their hope, longing and struggle may be likened to a daybreak in
that it will come true. Therefore, in their opinion, the granting
of autonomy is quite appropriate and will serve as the final
stage of the political settlement of the East Timor question.

In this respect, the East Timorese should not fall into the
trap of the majority-minority dichotomy, as claimed by some
people, for two reasons. First, all East Timorese enjoy equal
rights and position with respect to the future of their territory
and their people. Everyone or every group is convinced of the
truth of their political stance. Whether or not this stance is
realistic is another matter.

Second, some 75 percent of the East Timorese, who do not
express their opinions and live in villages and in mountainous
areas, cannot make head or tail of the autonomy versus referendum
argument. The most important thing for them is to be able to
enjoy a peaceful life and to secure a better future for their
children.

Now, in line with developments in East Timor, two things must
be underlined.

First, the East Timorese are still traumatized,
psychologically and sociologically, by the aftermath of their
civil war. They nurture painful empirical and traumatic
experiences in human rights matters. Nowadays, these experiences
have brought them more pain as they are divided not only into
pro-autonomy and pro-referendum groups but also into various
smaller groups. Therefore, the East Timorese need an atmosphere
conducive to constructive and open dialog which may reduce the
heightening tension among these groups.

Various quarters at home and abroad, whether individuals,
groups or organizations, sympathize with the East Timorese and
wish to help solve the East Timor question. In my opinion,
however, this sympathy and support must not fan hatred and
revenge and must clearly demonstrate impartiality. Otherwise, the
existing differences will only get wider.

It is, therefore, a wise act on the part of outsiders, both at
home and abroad, to encourage the East Timorese to hold
constructive, open and honest dialogs among themselves. Various
parties in East Timor must be encouraged to discuss all political
choices available and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of
remaining within the Republic of Indonesian under an autonomous
status or implementing a referendum and its consequent
implications.

From the very beginning, the East Timor issue has not been
confined only to its people but has also assumed a wider
dimension involving Indonesia, Portugal and the international
community. This is inseparable from the Cold War conflict and the
world communist movement which reached its highest intensity in
the mid-1970s.

Therefore, the message sent by Annan to the East Timorese
through Bishop Belo must be understood by all parties, East
Timorese and others. The United Nations is seeking the most just
solution to the East Timor question and therefore all parties
must have trust in the United Nations' ability to handle the
question properly.

In the context of seeking a solution to the East Timor
problem, it is now time for Jakarta to show its earnestness and
commitment to grant wide-ranging autonomy to East Timor. One of
the tests in this respect is the organization of an accelerated
general election in 1999, which is a national political agenda.

The question is whether or not East Timor should take part in
this election. The government must seriously consider this matter
in anticipation of any agreement to be reached in the coming
negotiations. The logical consequence of the granting of wide-
ranging autonomy to East Timor (irrespective of whether it will
be a final or transitional solution) will be that East Timor will
have its own administration established and regulated by the East
Timorese themselves.

This means that in the case of the 1999 general election,
there will be a local general election which will feature local
parties which are not affiliated to or serve as the extension of
national parties.

One sincere hope at this juncture is that whatever form the
final solution to the East Timor question will assume, all
parties related to this question -- Indonesia, Portugal and the
social groups in East Timor -- should submit themselves to a win-
win formula. Therefore, a solution which will lead to a win-lose
situation must be averted. A middle-course solution will be the
best choice and require that all parties should sacrifice part of
their demands to achieve an agreement leading toward long-lasting
peace in East Timor.

The writer is a member of the House of Representatives and
General Manager of the Suara Timor Timur daily.

Window: It is, therefore, a wise act on the part of outsiders,
both at home and abroad, to encourage the East Timorese to hold
constructive, open and honest dialogs among themselves.