Is there any statesmanship?
<p>Is there any statesmanship?</p><p> Mentioning the word "statesmanship" in connection with
President B.J. Habibie's recent decision to let East Timor go, is
misleading. Almost all parties involved in the unfolding drama
display ineffectual statesmanship.</p><p>The Australian government's turnaround on East Timor has an
odor of overt greed -- are they eying East Timor's prospective
share of Timor Gap oil? Do they anticipate an economically weak
party opposing the Indonesian government to be a pushover?
Comments made by Australia's opposition party, which skipped the
plight of East Timorese people to focus on the province's oil
reserves, lend credence to this conclusion.</p><p>Turning to Gusmao: how can a state of 800,000 people survive
in a global economy? Any future government has almost nonexistent
prospects to generate income. Who is going to pay the possible
future president Gusmao's salary (and that of his friends)?</p><p>Financing basic infrastructure needs -- health, schooling,
welfare and safety does not seem to have been accounted for. Or
does Gusmao already count on Australia's future generosity in the
oil business? He should be careful: the commercial world is not
for the weakhearted; the Australian government has already voiced
concern over a potential East Timor "burden". He might ask
Portugal why they became a member of a United Europe.</p><p>From the mimicry that accompanied Habibie's pronouncement on
new East Timor policy, I concluded that it was a hastily made
decision. His subsequent declaration of a January deadline for a
solution to the East Timor issue -- before it was essentially
"thrown out" of Indonesia -- backed up my reasoning.</p><p>Let us not forget the other jokers in this game: Portugal,
Horta and others -- where is their sense of responsibility for
the East Timorese? The President's apparent lone decision was
such a bombshell worldwide, that few had the chance to welcome
the change. Few appear happy with the judgment. No group seems to
want to ask the East Timorese people what it is they want. Is
this how we define "statesmanship? Sorry, but I cannot agree.</p><p>Negotiations by Foreign Minister Ali Alatas with Portugal --
which continues to absolve itself of any responsibility for the
province -- seemed to be on the right track.</p><p>However, every single policy on Indonesia's newest province
has been shattered. The prospect of a Soviet sponsored communist
state in then president Soeharto's backyard, after Portugal's
hasty pullout from the country and abrupt termination of
sponsorship of Timor Leste, had seemed a real possibility. But
then the Soviet system collapsed and Soeharto stepped down from
the Presidency. Political interests in the province have changed
drastically over time; thousands have died in the process.</p><p>High hopes had developed during the ongoing negotiations, but
they were decimated by Habibie's rash decision. The ensuing
confusion in East Timor and the rest of Indonesia is tragically
obvious. Progress in the reform movement, with its hopes for a
better future, should reduce East Timorese needs to resist
integration.</p><p>To be part of a strong, just and democratic Indonesia, as well
as receiving wide-ranging autonomy measures and assistance for
the development of their economy, should be very much in the
interest of the people of East Timor.</p><p>Where is the statesman who is courageous enough to tell East
Timor's people that they were left behind but that staying with
the New Indonesia should be considered? Who is trying to
overcome the injustices of the past and preach reconciliation?
Why does civil war appear so likely?</p><p>Gusmao, rather than the opportunist Ramos Horta, should be
asked why, with the turnaround in the East Timor situation,
shouldn't he question his previous assumptions?</p><p> CLAUS D. SYLVESTER</p><p>Sidoarjo, East Java</p>
President B.J. Habibie's recent decision to let East Timor go, is
misleading. Almost all parties involved in the unfolding drama
display ineffectual statesmanship.</p><p>The Australian government's turnaround on East Timor has an
odor of overt greed -- are they eying East Timor's prospective
share of Timor Gap oil? Do they anticipate an economically weak
party opposing the Indonesian government to be a pushover?
Comments made by Australia's opposition party, which skipped the
plight of East Timorese people to focus on the province's oil
reserves, lend credence to this conclusion.</p><p>Turning to Gusmao: how can a state of 800,000 people survive
in a global economy? Any future government has almost nonexistent
prospects to generate income. Who is going to pay the possible
future president Gusmao's salary (and that of his friends)?</p><p>Financing basic infrastructure needs -- health, schooling,
welfare and safety does not seem to have been accounted for. Or
does Gusmao already count on Australia's future generosity in the
oil business? He should be careful: the commercial world is not
for the weakhearted; the Australian government has already voiced
concern over a potential East Timor "burden". He might ask
Portugal why they became a member of a United Europe.</p><p>From the mimicry that accompanied Habibie's pronouncement on
new East Timor policy, I concluded that it was a hastily made
decision. His subsequent declaration of a January deadline for a
solution to the East Timor issue -- before it was essentially
"thrown out" of Indonesia -- backed up my reasoning.</p><p>Let us not forget the other jokers in this game: Portugal,
Horta and others -- where is their sense of responsibility for
the East Timorese? The President's apparent lone decision was
such a bombshell worldwide, that few had the chance to welcome
the change. Few appear happy with the judgment. No group seems to
want to ask the East Timorese people what it is they want. Is
this how we define "statesmanship? Sorry, but I cannot agree.</p><p>Negotiations by Foreign Minister Ali Alatas with Portugal --
which continues to absolve itself of any responsibility for the
province -- seemed to be on the right track.</p><p>However, every single policy on Indonesia's newest province
has been shattered. The prospect of a Soviet sponsored communist
state in then president Soeharto's backyard, after Portugal's
hasty pullout from the country and abrupt termination of
sponsorship of Timor Leste, had seemed a real possibility. But
then the Soviet system collapsed and Soeharto stepped down from
the Presidency. Political interests in the province have changed
drastically over time; thousands have died in the process.</p><p>High hopes had developed during the ongoing negotiations, but
they were decimated by Habibie's rash decision. The ensuing
confusion in East Timor and the rest of Indonesia is tragically
obvious. Progress in the reform movement, with its hopes for a
better future, should reduce East Timorese needs to resist
integration.</p><p>To be part of a strong, just and democratic Indonesia, as well
as receiving wide-ranging autonomy measures and assistance for
the development of their economy, should be very much in the
interest of the people of East Timor.</p><p>Where is the statesman who is courageous enough to tell East
Timor's people that they were left behind but that staying with
the New Indonesia should be considered? Who is trying to
overcome the injustices of the past and preach reconciliation?
Why does civil war appear so likely?</p><p>Gusmao, rather than the opportunist Ramos Horta, should be
asked why, with the turnaround in the East Timor situation,
shouldn't he question his previous assumptions?</p><p> CLAUS D. SYLVESTER</p><p>Sidoarjo, East Java</p>