RI must argue on East Timor
In the past few weeks I have dedicated most of my spare time to gathering support for the continuation of Australian Television, and preparing an eight page document outlining the audience it serves among the expatriate and Indonesian community. But after watching the S.B.S. program "Insight" on Aus TV Feb. 24, I was tempted to commit my efforts to the paper shredder.
The debate revolved around the question: "As Australia recognizes Indonesian sovereignty in East Timor, should Australia allow, tolerate, sanction or encourage the separatist campaign being waged by the East Timorese community in exile?" Unfortunately the program only came across as the "The Jose Ramos Horta family and friends sympathy show."
It is the first time I've seen Horta on TV, and he presents himself as supremely confident, in much the same way as Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams. In fact, I see many similarities between the IRA and Fretilin, not the least being their practiced brand of Hispanic Catholicism. The same brand practiced by the thugs in Peru who are occupying the Japanese Embassy. An interesting digression, prompted only because Horta made reference to "his brand of religion" during the interview.
Despite the commendable neutrality of the studio presenter and the political ambiguity of the gentleman presenting the government's sentiments, the program showed East Timor as nothing more than a concentration camp whose entire population was subject to abuse by Indonesian troops. Totally unjust and completely inaccurate. The pro-separatist movement was and still is a minority movement. The majority of East Timorese voted for integration in 1976 and the majority still wish to be the 27th province of Indonesia.
I suppose it wouldn't have occurred to Aus. TV that the case presented by a handful of Fretilin and U.D.T. members in exile, supported by the militant voice of Timorese youth with no knowledge of life under Portugal, may be a little one-sided. It may also not have occurred to them that the hundreds of thousands still residing peacefully in East Timor, enjoying the fruits of Indonesian commitment, may have a different story to tell. Just in case they do, better not interview any.
The interview with Fretilin and U.D.T. members created an impression that the struggle was with Indonesia alone. It also suggested that had the two groups combined forces, they may have been successful in gaining independence as a sovereign state. There was no mention of civil war, and no mention of the ill- armed APODETI force who represented the interests of the silent majority. The mere fact that some 40,000 East Timorese fled into Indonesian West Timor during the first few weeks of the civil war bears testimony to East Timorese sentiments at the time, and was supported by the massive pro-integration vote of 1976.
And of course there was absolutely no mention of Fretilin's collaboration with Moscow, Beijing, Hanoi, and Havana. Both Aus. TV and S.B.S. have sufficient resources to research the political situation that existed during the civil war and integration period.
Fretilin success would have resulted in another Cuba, 300 nautical miles from Darwin. No more, no less. Why was Horta not questioned over this important historical fact? For far too long Indonesia, as is Javanese custom, turned the other cheek. It is now high time Indonesia engaged its critics more positively and presented the Indonesian side of the argument.
Sadly, the country which arguably benefited most from East Timor not becoming another Cuba, seems unable, or as I suspect, gutlessly unwilling to do so.
G.N. BROWN
Sanur, Bali