Reports on East Timor not yet neutral
By Bilveer Singh
SINGAPORE (JP): Even though the East Timor issue is closely connected to Portugal's domestic politics, the western media prefers to ignore it. Journalists seldom ask what really caused the problem.
This has been seen repeatedly over the last 20 years, in particular whenever a flare-up breaks out in East Timor, be it on Nov. 12, 1991, or on Nov. 12, 1994, just before the APEC leaders conference.
The roots of this phenomenon date back to April 25, 1974, when a military coup in Lisbon, Portugal, overthrew the Caetano regime, kicking off the decolonization process in the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Mozambique and East Timor.
While analysts, local and foreign, have certain vested interests in pursuing a particular line, what cannot be denied, and what history bears out, is that the East Timor problem arose from the sheer irresponsibility of a colonial power, Portugal.
After 400 years of rule, which kept the colony one of the most backward pieces of territory in Southeast Asia, Lisbon decided to decolonize East Timor.
In this effort, it sought Jakarta's cooperation. Lisbon's dilemma was that in East Timor there were three different political parties, formed immediately following the April 1974 coup in Lisbon. One, Fretilin, wanted independence. Another, Apodeti, wanted independence through integration with Indonesia. The third, UDT, was unsure what to do.
Jakarta's position was simple: it supported the decolonization of East Timor but preferred that Lisbon provide the same opportunity to all three parties. If this was done, Jakarta would accept the final decision.
Unfortunately, something which Portugal and the majority of western journalists prefer to ignore, Lisbon reneged on this understanding.
Instead of being fair to all three parties, Lisbon, under a leftist regime, sided with the Fretilin, a small left-wing party formed by young people who had studied in Portugal. Fretilin also contained many elements of the dreaded colonial army.
UDT, which consisted mostly of government officials and the traditional elite, remained undecided on where it stood. Apodeti, on the other hand, was made up of East Timorese freedom fighters, who had a clear vision of where they were going. They were kept on the defensive, with many leaders exiled or executed.
Lisbon's support of Fretilin led the other two parties to revolt against it and hence, the outbreak of the civil war.
Lisbon's failure to be even-headed and its unabashed backing of the Fretilin were the principal causes of the initial bloodshed in East Timor following the Lisbon coup. This policy greatly shaped the course of events thereafter.
This is something that is conveniently ignored by most analysts and observers whose every effort seems to be focused on reinterpreting history, if not rewriting it.
What is worse, at the peak of the civil war, the Portuguese colonialists packed and fled, leaving the East Timorese to fight it out. If no force had intervened (a similar case was India's intervention in East Pakistan in 1971, when the Pakistani Army was brutalizing the Bengalis) the well-armed Fretilin forces would have massacred the followers of UDT and Apodeti.
It was in these circumstances that Indonesia was forced to intervene and fight a bloody war to bring the country to peace.
No war anywhere, limited or total, is pleasant. The Americans found this out in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and Kuwait. In the same way, the military conflict in East Timor, or what is left of it, has never been pleasant. The question is, which policy is one going to uphold on the basis of what moral values? The irresponsible behavior of the Portuguese as a colonial power that led to the East Timor problem, or the Indonesian effort to bring about peace and development in the country? This could be debated for a long time to come.
What the ASEAN countries have decided is that Indonesia was forced to undertake an unpleasant mission, and that it has done well. The support Jakarta has been receiving from the ASEAN countries in the United Nations or other forums emerges from the fact that the ASEAN countries are aware East Timor would have been far worse off without Indonesian intervention. No ASEAN country would have endorsed a "Cuba" on Indonesia's doorstep. Their stance is not so different from that of the United States, which has penalized Castro all these years.
The West enjoys picking up issues related to human rights, which countries elsewhere can understand because this is part of the western cultural ethos. The problem, from the ASEAN point of view, however, is the totality of the issue.
It is in this context, that the statement on East Timor made by Singapore's Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, prior to the Bogor conference, becomes understandable. In the words of Goh, the problem was "media hype". In his view, one should look at Indonesia from the broader perspective of its achievements rather than nit-picking. American society is not the same as what its various cults represent. In the same way, East Timor is not what the media makes it out to be, sensationalists as they are. The country has an obvious law and order problem and, as is the case anywhere else, force has to be resorted to at times.
When Goh was asked to comment on the East Timor issue, the western media was very busy with what it dubbed "East Timor Revisited", brought about by the presence of 29 East Timorese youths in the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta and the street riots in Dili, where one person died in inter-ethnic clashes between the Bugis originating from South Sulawesi and East Timorese. In response Goh said: "We have to look at Indonesia as a country and look at the achievements of the Indonesian government over the last 28 years."
He felt that "if we were to do an objective study, we must come to the conclusion that President Soeharto has brought much prosperity for the people." He also felt that counter to the western media's habit of combing for trouble-spots, "we should not focus on one particular dot, but should focus on the total picture, the achievements of Indonesia."
Indonesia, in Goh's assessment, "has been united for the last 28 years, its per capita has gone up by five or six times. That is remarkable".
Thus, when one analyses that totality of the Indonesian situation, the problem in East Timor pales into insignificance.
More important, what is often missed is that the majority of the East Timorese are at home with their integration with Indonesia. Integration has brought about prosperity which they had not seen for more than 400 years.
In many ways, East Timor has had far more development aid and infrastructure pumped into it than has gone into West Irian, a territory integrated into Indonesia in 1962. The result, if anything, is that some sort of an envy factor is emerging between the two territories.
It is in this context, that the East Timor issue should be assessed and analyzed.
Every country has problems, as can be seen in Germany, which is feeling the weight of the burden of its recent unification. Yet, the media focus on that country is not on its blatant racism; rather, various justifications for its people's actions and policies are forwarded. Elsewhere, as in the case of East Timor, condemnation is in vogue.
While all agree that there are problems in East Timor, the media, with its negative, one-sided reporting, has done more injustice than justice for the East Timorese. Instead of feeding the false expectations of a small group of East Timorese, the media should be forward looking and talk of undertaking change within the constitutional framework of Indonesia.
The peace and development achieved in East Timor should be appreciated rather than sidelined as a footnote. In the post-Cold War era, East Timor deserves sensible and sensitive treatment from the West, rather than sensationalism that is not serving, and never will serve, anyone's interests.
The writer is a senior lecturer in political science at the National University of Singapore.
Window A: In the post-Cold War era, East Timor deserves far more sensible and sensitive treatment from the West rather than sensationalism that is not serving anyone's interest.