Is 'Domino Theory' relevant to present East Timor situation?

By Terry Russel

JAKARTA (JP): The Domino Theory is alive and well. The United States used this theory to justify invasions of North Korea in 1950, Cuba in 1961, Vietnam in 1964, the Dominican Republic in 1965 and Grenada in 1983.

Now Indonesia's new political party, the Indonesia Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Struggle) is using it to justify Indonesia's retention of East Timor.

While the American version fears the spread of communism, the Indonesian version fears the spread of separatism. Under this theory, East Timor must remain part of Indonesia in order to prevent Aceh and Irian Jaya from also separating.

But is this fear of a domino effect reasonable? If Indonesia and the international community accept the arguments for East Timor's separation, can these same arguments be used by Acehnese and Irianese separatists?

Part of this fear comes from questionable teachings about East Timor's history. According to Soeharto-era history books, East Timor before 1975 had a similar colonial experience to Aceh and Irian Jaya.

After integration with Indonesia, a small portion of East Timor's population sought independence and a few of these were killed in the ensuing struggle, just as in Aceh and Irian Jaya.

If this is the truth and there are no important omissions, the arguments for the three provinces' separation from Indonesia seem similar. In the Habibie era, however, we can question the above history.

The Portuguese had less control over the interior of their colonies than did the Dutch. They had fewer land-owners, administrators and garrisons in the interior. Portuguese colonies like Macau, Sao Tome, Principe, Goa, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau and East Timor were small because they were essentially trading colonies. In contrast, the Dutch in South Africa and Indonesia aimed at settlement and more direct control of local resources.

Thus, Dutch disruption of inland culture and political structures in much of Indonesia was greater than Portuguese disruption in East Timor.

Portuguese colonists intermarried far more freely with local people than did Dutch colonists. The language and religion Portugal brought to East Timor were different to that brought to Aceh and Irian Jaya by the Dutch.

The decolonization of Aceh and other Indonesian provinces after World War II gave them a sense of unity. They had forcefully ejected the Dutch together. The East Timorese did not share in that struggle. Nor did they share the experience of forcefully ejecting their own colonizers, the Portuguese.

The Portuguese, unlike the Dutch, left voluntarily so East Timorese never developed the same sense of enmity with their colonizers as did the Acehnese. Instead, the East Timorese took to fighting each other and to fighting Indonesians. Their decolonization experience was different to Aceh's. It gave them nothing in common with other Indonesian provinces.

The official history of post 1975 East Timor is also questionable.

In February 1976, the Jakarta-appointed deputy governor of East Timor, Francisco Lopez de Cruz, reported that the civil war and ensuing integration struggle had already killed 60,000 East Timorese, or 10 percent of East Timor's population.

By 1993, according to East Timorese governor Abilio Soares, former Portuguese president Mario Soares, and an Australian Government Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, this figure had risen to 200,000. This figure, which included deaths from disease and famine caused by war, represented nearly one third of all East Timorese!

In contrast, in Aceh or Irian Jaya, even the highest death toll estimates remain under 15,000. Clearly East Timor experienced a far higher level of suffering and of opposition to Indonesian rule than did other Indonesian provinces.

Finally, let us turn to international law. Though Irian Jaya's referendum to integrate with Indonesia was, like East Timor's, conducted under dubious circumstances, only East Timor's referendum was rejected as unfair by the United Nations. The UN accepted Aceh and Irian Jaya as part of Indonesia but still considers East Timor a Portuguese territory.

Indonesia needs slight revision of its history books so its people have more information upon which to base their fears and aspirations.

PDI Struggle supporters are right in fearing that East Timorese independence will give encouragement to Irianese and Acehnese separatists. East Timorese independence may not, however, strengthen Irianese and Acehnese arguments for independence.

The writer, an English instructor with B.A. (Hons) in world history, has traveled to East Timor three times and taught in the Catholic Seminary in Dili in 1997 and 1998,