Is there any statesmanship?

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

CLAUS D. SYLVESTER

Sidoarjo, East Java