Reports on East Timor not yet neutral

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.