The West's self-righteousness

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