The East Timor dilemma

Human Rights

By lan Williams

FORUM COUNTRIES were united on the New Caledonia issue when it surfaced again at the United Nations Decolonization Committee in August.

While France still refuses to have any thing to do with the UN Committee, the actual resolution emerging from it was a collaborative effort between the Forum diplomats, FLNKS and France.

In the light of the struggle by the Forum countries, in the teeth of French opposition, to re-inscribe New Caledonia as a dependent territory, this is, in its own way, considerable progress.

Moved by Fiji and Papua New Guinea, the resolution supported the measures already taken to implement the

Matignon Ac :ords, particu larly com nending the iecision to ipen a Melanesian :ulture centre ind the French

villingness to foster relations between the "orum countries and New Caledonia.

Alexis O. Maino of PNG noted the 'orum would have preferred the in lusion of a clause on a visiting UN nission to the territory, but accepted hat realistically, the best that could be oped for at the moment was French cceptance of bilateral visits from the orum countries.

However, the hearing revealed that ot everyone was happy with the latignon Accords. Several petitioners iggested the Accord had derailed the lomentum of the Kanaks’ struggle and iven much more opportunity for the ‘ttlers to be reinforced and liberal el pings of French money to win sup ort. Paul Robel of the Independent lommission of Inquiry into New Cale onia pointed out there was only one .anak physician and he was working i France. Professional jobs generated by :onomic expansion in the territory went > French people from the metropolis ither than to Kanaks.

The attitude of the committee next ‘ ar will depend on the progress of the rthcoming talks to monitor the accords id the attitude the FLNKS takes to the •ogress so far.

Unfortunately, there was much less icific unity on the most contentious on the agenda East Timor.

Considering the issue for the first time since the Dili massacre last November, the Committee over-rode Indonesian protests and heard a number of pet itioners. One diplomat somewhat shame facedly confessed to PIM. “I think the people in East Timor would welcome the degree of repression carried out by the French in New Caledonia, in comparison with what the Indonesians have been doing”.

However, among the Forum del egations, only Vanuatu dares speak out officially about East Timor. Vanuatu’s Ambassador Robert Van Lierop said trenchantly, “Indonesia is just as wrong in its occupation of East Timor as Iraq was in its annexation of Kuwait”. For the others, the long shadow of Indonesia ensured silence. In that thev are not

‘lndonesia is just as wrong its occupation timor as Iraq was in its annexation

alone. Very few countries recognize the legality of Djakarta’s annexation, but most of the world community has decided to hold its peace.

At the Decolonization Committee, the chairman, PNG’s Renagi Renagi Lohia, resisted Indonesian objections to allow ing petitioners to be heard. Professor Roger Clark of the International Plat form of Jurists for East Timor revived what is probably the most sensitive issue.

The issue was not just human rights, he said, but that of self-determination, and added that Indonesia was in breach of UN charter prohibitions on the use of force.

On the human rights issue he pointed out that Francisco Miranda Branco was sentenced to 15 years for “subversion”.

His main crime was that he was a member of a committee intended to meet the Portuguese parliamentary delegation to which Djarkta had agreed.

Since the massacre, the issue has caused the Timor file to be dusted off in many foreign ministries, under heavy pressure from voters and human rights organizations. European governments, spurred along by Portugal, have pro tested vociferously at the disparity be tween the reprimands and dismissals meted out to some of the soldiers involved, and the lengthy jail sentences imposed on civilians who survived the

massacre but were arrested subsequently.

Following the massacre, the issue was revived at the LIN Human Rights Committee, where Indonesian lobbying had driven it off the agenda since 1985.

In 1988 the Sub-Commission on Preven tion of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities decided by 10 votes to nine, with five abstentions, not to take action on the territory. However, the same sub commission, voting by secret ballot, agreed in 1989 and 1990 to send a draft resolution to the Human Rights Com mittee, which may illustrate the effect of Indonesian pressure.

In 1991, the resolution was once again thwarted. Indonesia is a member of the Human Rights Committee as is in fact Iraq! But in 1992, the massacre forced the issue. However, Portugal accepted a

compromise, a chairman’s statement which con demned the massacre but welcomed the prompt set ting up of an

Indonesian government commission to investigate. Portugal thought it did not have the votes to carry a resolution, but others thought it underestimated inter national revulsion following the mass acre.

One can hardly blame the Forum countries, since even the United Nations secretariat itself behaves timorously on the issue. In the wake of the massacre, the Secretary General sent Amos Wako to report. His report was received in private and has not been made public, despite protests in the British House of Lords.

There a government minister said icily, “It is for the United Nations Secretary General to decide whether or not to release Wako’s report, and we under stand that he has chosen not to”.

In the US, the House of Representa tives had voted unanimously to cut off military aid to Indonesia, and there is a bill pending which would cut other aid and trade support.

The Decolonization Committee could not pass a resolution on the issue because Djakarta’s friends in the UN General Assembly have ensured the item is not raised there. Indeed the last time it was, in 1983, the abstentions almost won the day, proving perhaps the truth of the saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent or democratic countries to abstain. □