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.