Is East Timor's Alkatiri a leader or follower?

Is East Timor's Alkatiri a leader or follower?

Paulo Gorjao, Lecturer, Lusiada University, Portugal

It is obvious that Indonesia (together with Australia) will be
the two countries that constitute the most important of East
Timorese bilateral relations in the long term. However, in the
short and medium term, diplomatic relations between Indonesia and
East Timor may be disrupted owing to a lack of will to judge
those responsible for the atrocities committed in East Timor
during 1999.

Thus, the president, prime minister and foreign minister of
East Timor must express their views with utmost caution. As far
as the prime minister is concerned, this has not always happened
in the past. Indeed, it is widely known that Mari Alkatiri has
long held the strong belief that justice has to be done. He has
said several times in public and in private that the Indonesian
military, as well as the East Timorese prointegration militia,
should be held accountable for their acts. Last month he stressed
again that crimes against humanity had to be judged.

Yet, during his recent visit to Indonesia, his first official
visit to this country, Alkatiri's message to President Megawati
Soekarnoputri was slightly different. Rather than saying that he
would like to see those responsible tried for the atrocities, he
chose instead to emphasize that East Timor would not lobby for an
international tribunal.

Furthermore, and also for the first time, he said, during an
interview, that he supported the idea of an amnesty for those
East Timorese already convicted of human rights violations.
What is the explanation for this significant shift?

The answer is pure realpolitik. Geography leaves no other
option for East Timor but to seek stable diplomatic relations
with Indonesia. East Timor has land and sea borders with
Indonesia and, therefore, it cannot avoid this fact. Indonesia
can be a source of threats as well as of opportunities, and, in
large measure, this depends on how East Timor manages its
relations with Jakarta.

On the other hand, Indonesia is the natural ally to balance
Australian influence in the territory. Again, geography dictates
that East Timor is sandwiched between two great and powerful
friends.

However, this is as true today as it was when Alkatiri became
prime minister. Thus, his assurances that East Timor would not
lobby for an international tribunal should have taken place a
long time ago. President Xanana Gusmao, Alkatiri's greatest
political rival, as well as Foreign Minister Ramos Horta,
understood much earlier that seeking justice would only harm the
relations between both countries. Indeed, the entire relationship
would become hostage to a single issue.

Alkatiri's shift seems to mark a welcome (though late)
reorientation of his priorities. Justice should not be seen as an
absolute goal. The promotion of the economic well-being of the
East Timorese is certainly more important, as the stability of
democracy in East Timor depends on how well the system will
perform in the coming years.

It was clear, at least since the beginning of 2001, that,
regarding justice, significant distortions would occur. In March
2001, the New York Times quoted the complaints of East Timorese
judge Maria Natercia Pereira about the lack of fairness of the
judicial system, as they were only prosecuting the "small" East
Timorese and not the "big" ones who had given the orders.

Horta expressed similar concerns and Gusmao emphasized that
amnesty should take place sooner rather than later.
Thus, Alkatiri's recent views expressed to the Portuguese news
agency Lusa that a general amnesty was the only way to resolve
the injustice of perpetrators of less serious crimes being
imprisoned, while those responsible for major human rights
violations remained free, is welcome, but quite belated.

Indeed, the East Timorese Commission for Reception, Truth and
Reconciliation should have been able to grant amnesties. In
practice, it is meaningless and does not look for truth nor allow
reconciliation. On justice and reconciliation, rather than
looking forward, Alkatiri has been concerned only with the past.
Until recently, he had been unable to free himself from his
personal beliefs and had been hostage to those inside the
government (and Fretilin) who did not wish to see Indonesia go
unpunished.

Meanwhile, Gusmao continues to show him the path to follow in
a wide range of issues. On June 16, in Lisbon, Gusmao gave a new
lesson to Alkatiri about realpolitik and the promotion of stable
relations between East Timor and Indonesia when he urged the
international community to cancel Indonesia's debt.

This stance was certainly welcomed in Jakarta and will
contribute to the consolidation of friendly relations between
both countries. Obviously, East Timor has a deep interest in a
stable and moderate Indonesia. East Timor's worst enemies in
Indonesia are the nationalist radical forces that will prevail if
it fails in the consolidation of democracy.

Assuming that the past teaches us something about the future,
it will take several months before Alkatiri does the same thing
and urges the international community to cancel Indonesia's debt.
Unfortunately, thus far, and unlike Gusmao, Alkatiri has been
following rather than leading fragile East Timorese public
opinion. As prime minister, he still has to prove his mettle.

The writer was Visiting Fellow in November/December 2002 at
the Australian Defense Studies Center.