RI must argue on East Timor

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