The West's self-righteousness

As if the inept, insensitive handling of the East Timor problem by the United Nations since Indonesia occupied the territory was not enough, further ham-fisted measures are now being taken.

Once again a UN supervised poll has not turned out to be the panacea it was intended. As a consequence urgent intervention is now necessary to prevent death and destruction in East Timor, but does it need to be done in such an insensitive manner?

Why, when the Indonesian Military vehemently objects to Australian involvement, is Australia permitted not only to participate in, but also to lead, the peacekeeping force? If it is appreciated that the loss of East Timor, to many Indonesians, is a very bitter pill to swallow, why not achieve the objective of safeguarding the East Timorese, in a way which is more palatable to Indonesia, if this makes the task easier?

The reaction to Australian blundering is already evident. The Australian embassy has been invaded, consulates broken into and an important Indonesia-Australian security pact has been cancelled.

If Indonesians see an Australian presence in East Timor as tantamount to an invasion, will this help the peace process or is the resulting jingoism (engineered or otherwise) likely to jeopardize it? If the latter, then the UN would do well to consider whether the coming Nov. 10 anniversary of the British attack on Surabaya in 1945, will have consequences for a Western led peacekeeping force in East Timor? What comparison will be made if the Western "peacekeeping" contingent inappropriately uses force the UN has now authorized?

As usual, the UN is way out of its depth and, as a result, its impetuous, blundering Western self-righteousness, however well intended, is likely to cost more lives than it saves. Given the fragility of the situation, it may even cost Indonesians their fledgling democracy.

FRANK RICHARDSON

Jakarta