Support for East Timor

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 10 November 1999

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 1999 Spring Session Index Browse by Subject About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

I. Calls on the federal government to take those steps required to counter the destabilisation of the ungoverned province of East Timor in the lead up to independence.

II. Commends the United Nations for the establishment of an international inquiry into gross human rights violations and atrocities in East Timor.

(a) organise an immediate United Nations supervised repatriation of East Timorese refugees from West Timor and other parts of Indonesia; and

(b) demand the immediate withdrawal of all Indonesian military and militia personnel from East Timor.

(a) urgently increase the emergency release of food and other humanitarian supplies to refugees in remote areas of East Timor to prevent starvation; and

(b) urge all governments, the World Bank and the IMF to ensure that economic assistance to Indonesia supports democratic and economic reform.

V. Commends the Australian government for providing sanctuary to East Timorese refugees.

(a) expand that sanctuary to East Timorese refugees who are being targeted by the Indonesian military and militias;

(d) thank the East Timorese people for their great sacrifice and support during World War II and to welcome the decision of the Indonesian government in recognising the referendum outcome which granted autonomy and independence to East Timor; and

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I have been a supporter of the independence of East Timor for 20 years. As soon as I became aware of the situation it was one of those causes that I had no hesitancy in throwing my weight behind, in whatever way I could, financially and in attending meetings, because it was stark injustice to a people who deserved far more considered attention from Australia.

I congratulate the Hon. Terry Roberts for moving the motion. It is probably important that we do not take on board as far as the Notice Paper of this place is concerned every international issue which may be of concern for us. I think that that would make it very difficult for us to treat them seriously, and to some extent it would make a farce of the process of motions moved in this place and reduce the significance, the currency, of the ones that we do. But I feel that this motion stands head and shoulders above other calls for this parliament to consider international causes, because of its geographical, emotional and social proximity to Australia, particularly to those of us, and there are many thousands throughout Australia, who have felt a strong empathy for the people of East Timor and their suffering over the 25 years since the Indonesian invasion.

It was a rapidly moving feast, I think one could say. When I went away from Australia on a study tour in August, the referendum had been called, although the timing of the referendum had been questioned by some quite authoritative people such as Bishop Belo, and I think Xanano Gusmao himself indicated that East Timor needed a longer period of time to prepare for a referendum for independence. I think that subsequent events proved how tragically correct they were.

It needed more time not only from the material point of view, the development of the structures and the resources to take on independence but quite clearly for a preparation of the population and the diluting of the anger and the spite that certain sections of the Indonesian armed forces felt at losing what they had regarded to be their possession and which they had ruthlessly held under military domination for the 25 years. I do not believe that anybody anticipated the horror and the magnitude of the backlash from the militia and the militia inspired by Indonesian armed forces. In fact, I believe that many of the Indonesian armed forces in East Timor became involved in the aftermath of persecution and atrocities.

So it was with hope and a feeling of optimism that, as East Timor approached the referendum, there would be a strong vote in favour of independence and that with a bit of minor mumbling and grumbling the process would proceed and a young fledgling nation would be born, limited in resources and looking to Australia for help and friendship. That atmosphere carried over into the result of the referendum which, as honourable members would know, was an overwhelming expression of support for independence, and immediately began the slaughter, the intimidation, the almost inconceivable cruelty of a militia, which could not have done what it did without the massive support, encouragement and involvement, I believe, of the Indonesian armed forces that were there in East Timor and in West Timor.

It was with great despair that I read the news reports of what was happening. Although, in context, it was only moderate satisfaction but it was satisfaction indeed when I saw and read that Australian troops were moving in, taking an initiative, and I congratulate them. Their performance and presentation-and it has continued right through to this day-was one of an effective, strong, caring and dignified involvement of a foreign armed force, in the first instance going in virtually ahead of the United Nations' preparation. But the image internationally was that Australia was taking this step with the blessing of the United Nations. There was no doubt that the international press was portraying the Australian involvement as praiseworthy, altruistic and, if not formally, certainly informally, with the blessing and imprimatur of the United Nations.

I was therefore stunned and devastated to read the headlines that Howard's Doctrine was proclaimed and the words `US deputy' appeared in all the papers that I read both in the UK, Ireland and in Europe. The effect was dramatic in that the image of the Australian involvement from having been benign became self-serving and intrusive, a racial dominance. It was a very painful readjustment for me as an Australian offshore to feel the devastation of loss at what had appeared to be one of our finest hours being portrayed as something demeaning and self-serving.

I must say that in the subsequent months I have had time to revise the degree of indignation and disgust I felt because I believe that the armed forces have continued to behave impeccably and in an exemplary fashion and, of course, they had acquired the blessing of the United Nations sometime afterwards.

It is disturbing to read Mr Murdoch's rather didactic sermon to Australia on how to deal with our international affairs. An article in this morning's Financial Review entitled `Murdoch unprepared for sea change', an analysis by Peter Hartcher, Asia-Pacific editor, states:

Rupert Murdoch tells us that he is concerned at the trend for western nations to base foreign policy on `humanistic or moralistic concerns, divorced from attention to national interest'. East Timor, for instance or Kosovo. He is concerned because he thinks that such an approach is often based on emotionalism rather than a hard-headed realism.

It is not that he is wrong exactly. `He has spotted that something has changed', says a leading international expert on security policy, Dr Coral Bell of the Centre for Strategic and Defence Studies in Canberra. `It's just that he doesn't understand any of it. He's putting it down to a simple case of morality versus the national interest. But the world has become far more complex than that.

The frightening fact is, however, that, although academics will criticise Murdoch's position, it is infectious to those people who are only too ready to look for an excuse to say, `Me first, Jack-I don't want to get involved in anything offshore which might cost us Australian blood or Australian money unless there is a dividend in it for Australia at the end of the day.'

Quite simply, for those who have not, I urge members to take further note of the text of Mr Murdoch's position in which he takes the rather presumptuous line of lecturing to his former country on how to run its foreign policy. I most vehemently reject the tenor of what Murdoch says. I believe that this is the most satisfactory justification for resourcing an adequate and modern armed force for Australia.

I would be a vocal advocate for making sure that the budget allocations are up to the standard required to maintain that force if I could continue to feel that the motive for Australian troops moving off shore at any time would be in conjunction with the United Nation's campaign and that those armed forces would be involved in theatres of war or dispute at the behest of the international community to confront human injustice and oppression.

Whether or not there is a dollar in it for Australia at the end I do not care. I believe it belittles the moral stature of Australia if we are to go through a calculation of: `We go in if there's a dividend of $1 billion; we stay out if there's no money in it for us and it costs us at the end of the day.' I would feel ashamed of Australia if it followed the Murdoch theme of approaching overseas involvement in foreign affairs. The article states further:

Or as Coral Bell puts it: `There is a profound shift in the norms of the society of western states.' The national interest in western countries increasingly incorporates moral concerns. It is not so much a choice any more as a balancing.

For multinational Murdoch, badged as an American-Australian on the one hand but doing business in China and Indonesia on the other, this will be very uncomfortable as he is caught on the cutting edge of this divide. He will just have to get over it.

And so I hope will all other Australians who had any doubt that we should not have played this role in East Timor and continued to do so.

That is all that I wish to contribute at this stage other than to observe that, because events moved so quickly in East Timor, part of the text of the Hon. Terry Roberts' motion has passed by because the Indonesian troops have withdrawn from East Timor. I believe that this motion should be amended so that it reflects the contemporary situation, because if it passes-and I hope it will-it will be relayed to the Prime Minister and the federal Minister for Foreign Affairs in general terms.

I will seek to consult with the mover of this motion, the Hon. Terry Roberts, to consider some minor amendments which I look forward to moving if I am granted leave to conclude my remarks later. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.