Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Before it ceases to be free, readers might be interested in this scathing attack on Downer, including the following passage:

AUSTRALIA wanted East Timor to remain an Indonesian province and the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, lobbied Jakarta to delay a vote for independence, a report to the United Nations has found. East Timor's truth and reconciliation commission has been collecting evidence from thousands of witnesses for the past three years about Indonesia's takeover of the former Portuguese colony in 1975. Its final report, which says about 183,000 East Timorese died as a result of the occupation, was handed to the UN two weeks ago. The 2500-page study was published this week on the website of the US-based International Centre for Transitional Justice. The report says Australia 'contributed significantly to denying the people of Timor-Leste their right to self-determination before and during the Indonesian occupation.

 

Alexander Downer does not exactly come out of this report smelling of roses. Nor do the Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating governments, in comparison with which John Howard, for all his limitations, must be described as magnificent. This fact was acknowledged by Jose Ramos Horta shortly after East Timor won its independence.

Ironically Australia was and remains hoist on a petard of its own making, as I dare say it will be in future whenever principle is cast aside in favour of 'pragmatism'. The charge levelled by many Indonesians that Australia 'interfered' in the internal affairs of their country has a great deal more force than many in the above mentioned governments, the present government and its Jakarta Lobby supporters in Australia would like it to have. Australia was only one of a tiny minority of about 7 member states of the UN which went so far as to grant de jure  (as distinct from de facto) recognition of Indonesia's claim to East Timor, despite its murderous record there. This ironically lent support to the later Indonesian and al-Quaida claims of 'interference'.

Australian policy on Indonesia lurches on, like the proverbial drunken sailor. In 1999, the Indonesians tore up Keating's security treaty, and  Downer was placed in the extraordinary position of having to go on TV to announce that this country was not about to go to war with Indonesia. The Indonesian military did its level best to destroy East Timor completely, yet General Cosgrove praised them as they departed East Timor for their outstanding cooperation. Australia as far as I can recall quietly picked up the ($1 billion) tab for the damage they did, while at the same time continuing the normal stream of aid to Indonesia itself. Downer and Howard subsequently played hail-fellow-well-met with the succeeding Indonesian regimes, with Howard making the odd announcement that he would bomb terrorist bases anywhere in SE Asia with or without approval of the national governments concerned, and Downer periodically advising Australians to stay away from Indonesia. 

Australia now helps train the murderous Kopassus and is not in the slightest bit interested in bringing those accused of war crimes and outright genocide in East Timor to trial. Australian taxpayers, via aid, continue to do their bit to bankroll the staggering Indonesian economy. Pragmatism marches on.

And now the hot potato of West Papuan refugees.

Michael de Angelos: "If you wish to point to any actions by previous Labor governments it reaffirms that Howard and Downer should have been fully aware of the likely scenario that would occur in East Timor with the backing of the murderous Indonesians."

Finally, a role for the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in Australian politics.

It is to serve as an example to Coalition governments of what not to do.

The responsibilities of the Whitlam government in 1975 with respect to East Timor were thus fully met. It was craven and inactive.

Well done, a benchmark properly established of what not to do.

Then, years later, the tardy Howard government with its incompetent Foreign Minister, John Downer, and with this splendid example of what not to do before their eyes, are too slow to intervene in East Timor.

Clearly they should have intervened immediately the world sensed trouble, being careful not to breach anyone's sovereign rights of course.

I mean, why didn't Howard intervene in 1975 for example's sake?

After all, he had the benchmark before him?

If only Gough was still Prime Minister. He knew what not to do.

My comment CP about Howard's response in East Timor was no more than that. I was not referring to any incident in the past. I remember the events well. Far from responding immediately to calls to delay the East Timor vote unless troops were there to protect civillian attacks and which observors claimed would happen both Howard and Alexander Downer dismissed these calls and encouraged people to vote. If you wish to point to any actions by previous Labor governments it reaffirms that Howard and Downer should have been fully aware of the likely scenario that would occur in East Timor with the backing of the murderous Indonesians.

The East Timorese paid a terrible price and hundreds were slaughtered within days. It was only after a massive outcry including the Murdoch rags which for once got it right, that Howard acted. Days late.

And if you continue to talk about Cuba you simply cannot ignore the atrocities that have been committed upon innocent Cubans by American governments in their bizarre obsession with Castro. Jeb Bush's preocupation and involvement with thugs from the former Batista regime is not even something he denies.

This is becoming tedious. End of story.

David Curry: ".... the grossly irresponsible way Howard and Downer trumpeted what they described as Australia’s right to send bombers into a sovereign country like Indonesia, if they thought it was in Australia’s interests....What’s your view, CP? Was that a responsible claim to make, from a foreign policy point of view?"

Was it in Australia's interest for John Howard to send troops into East Timor?

I mean, there were plenty of people in Indonesia who thought that was breaching Indonesian sovreignty.

Would it have been in our interest for Gough Whitlam to send troops into East Timor in 1975?

Robert Ekins: "The security agreement has a clause that forbids the Australian government from commenting or protesting about human rights abuses in Papua, or criticising Indonesian policy at a government level."

Michael de Angelos: "CP, always finding a Labor incident in the past to off-set against current Coaltion woes will not help them."

Michael, I don't mean to be picky. But you specifically said that the Australian Government, in particular the Howard government, only sent Australian troops into East Timor because of the "unprecedented public outcry" at the slaughter underway there.

The slaughter started in 1975, many, many years before Howard became Prime Minister.

And it was occasioned by a world, wide public outcry.

It might be more accurate to say post-WW2 Australia didn't send troops into East Timor until John Howard became Prime Minister, despite the unprecedented public outcry.

Perhaps you weren't aware Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975?

Now, talking about sending troops into liberate island states...

Given that Cuba is one of the world's most notorious human rights offenders, don't you think it is odd that you would castigate John Howard for not sending troops into East Timor - even though he did  - and in the same breath criticise Jeb Bush (of all people) for aiding and encouraging Cuban human rights refugees in Florida?

Also, it wasn't the Cuban flag per se that sane people found objectionable while it fluttered on the Green Left Weekly homepage, it was the craven subservience to a foreign communist dictator it represented by the Green Left Weekly editorial team.

Actually, I wasn't even offended. Amused, yes. But but not offended.

And it did help explain why John Pilger heaps such unrestrained praise on Green Left Weekly.

Anyway, they didn't have the Soviet flag on their masthead when they were called Direct Action and were proud to be a  front organisation for a foreign communist governemnt.

So why would they then have a Cuban flag on their web site after they began pretending to have something to do with the Greens?

I've never understood this.

CP, always finding a Labor incident in the past to off-set against current Coaltion woes will not help them. I doubt John Pilger writes under assumed names or incognito but at least he thoroughly researches his subject.

Nor do I find Castro the great scourge he is claimed to be and see no problem with someone displaying a Cuban flag.

Considering the appalling atrocities that have been committed against innocent Cubans by every US president since JFK, that island has needed a hard man like him to survive. Thousands have died in US backed plots led by Florida based ex-Cubans with active participation by Jeb Bush. If you are intent on trawling the past, at the same time as denouncing Castro, you should give mention to the murderous dictators (including Saddam Hussein) that have been installed throughout South America in CIA backed coups, who are then removed when they start to believe their own publicity.

Citizens in these countries are meaningless to the USA when it's corporate power is threatened or there's a buck to be made, a natural commodity to be exploited.

Michael de Angelos: "It was only after unprecedented public outcry as the slaughter began that Howard finally sent in our troops."

Presumably you don't mean the public outcry about the slaughter that began in 1975?

And we are still just talking East Timor, aren't we, and not Kurdistan or some place?

Just getting back to the article;

"A new joint security pact is being signed during 2006, which will guarantee Australia will not interfere in Indonesia's affairs – meaning that Australia will not support secessionist movements such as the one in the Indonesian province of Aceh."

So, hang on a moment. Was there some suggestion that Australia would support the Free Aceh movement prior to the signing of the joint security pact?

And that we would interfere in Indonesia's affairs?

If not, what does it matter that we sign a joint security pact?

Especially given the earlier concerns that Howard's policy of pre-emption might needlessly aggravate and concern regional powers?

It won't impinge on our rights in the region nor prevent us from criticising Indonesia, will it?

So, what's the problem?

Michael de Angelos: "Thanks for the link to the Green Left Weekly, CP. Never actually read it before. Are there articles there by Jon Pilger?"

Well, it's hard to say if they're by him or not. His name is on the by-line of quite a few of them, and he fulsomely endorses the publication. But as to who writes them, it's anyone's guess.

Why don't you call the publishers and ask them?

(Would you believe there used to be a hotlink from an animated .gif of a fluttering Cuban flag on their front page. It took you straight to the English language version of the official journal of the Cuban government, Granma. I'm not kidding. Not so proud these days.)

Daphne O'Brien, let me refresh your memory about that flying over East Timor incident that you mentioned.

It was television footage of our then Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, and recently appointed Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alitas having a glass of champagne in celebration of the signing of an agreement to carve up the oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap.

As the 'mile high club' was sipping champers, Indonesia was slaughtering East Timorese below so as to secure ownership of the promised oil/gas fields. Aren't we nice?

We then had the gall to cajole and bully independent East Timor when they decided that they weren't obliged to abide by that earlier agreement. Happily, both our countries decided to 'agree to disagree' for the next fifty years. This will allow East Timor to catch its breath and earn a bit of desperately needed cash.

If memory serves me well Howard prevaricated sending in Aussie troops and  the slaughter began. International observors almost begged for the elections not to go ahead without troops to protect the civilian population. It was only after unprecedented public outcry as the slaughter began that Howard finally sent in our troops. The fine details are always forgotten once politicians revel in the glory.

Thanks for the link to the Green Left Weekly, CP. Never actually read it before. Are there articles there by Jon Pilger?

C Parsons, you really should spend less time reading Green Left Weekly, I don’t think it’s good for you.  I’m beginning to wonder if you’re a subscriber.

If your point, repeated ad nauseum, is that GLW is often a less than credible source for news and balanced commentary, then I suspect most on Webdiary would agree. Certainly I would. Why keep bringing it up?

A couple of points.

First, trying to imply hypocrisy on Dale Mills’ part by including quotes from three other sources is simply illogical. You seem to think that everybody with vaguely ‘left’ leanings belongs to a single, constitutional committee that meets regularly to decide policy, like the Labor caucus.  No conscience votes allowed.

If these meetings occur, how come I’ve never been invited?

If you can’t link all four comments to Mills in some way – and having words in common is not the same thing - then you can’t even begin to argue hypocrisy on his part.

But leaving aside the problems inherent in trying to define a single ‘left’ viewpoint, there are two very different issues in the quotes you supply.

One is the grossly irresponsible way Howard and Downer trumpeted what they described as Australia’s right to send bombers into a sovereign country like Indonesia, if they thought it was in Australia’s interests.  Pre-emption, in other words - or “what used to be called aggression”, to use one of your quotes.

What’s your view, CP? Was that a responsible claim to make, from a foreign policy point of view? Would you feel more warmly disposed towards the Iranian president if he had characterised his plans to wipe Israel off the map as “pre-emption”.

Me, I think our deputy sheriff might have become a bit full of himself.

The other issue, the one Dale Mills discusses in his article, seems to be about the moral dilemmas we will face in forging closer diplomatic and military ties with Indonesia. Should we desist from criticising Indonesia’s appalling human rights record in East Timor and Papua, for the sake of closer ties?

It’s tricky, diplomatically, to be sure, but I don’t see how we can turn a blind eye to the shocking abuses happening in Papua. That doesn’t mean we should support the Papuan resistance movement, but I believe we should use every diplomatic avenue we can to raise the issues.  Otherwise, what principles and values do we stand for? If our Government claims to value human rights (although they don’t much, these days) then we need to speak up for them. The relationship between Australia and Indonesia should be robust enough to weather a bit of criticism, whichever direction it goes.

And for the record, I respected Howard for pushing hard to get Australian troops into East Timor after the independence vote.

Dale Mills: "Australia is moving ever closer diplomatically and militarily to Indonesia. A new joint security pact is being signed during 2006, which will guarantee Australia will not interfere in Indonesia's affairs...."

Is that bad all of a sudden, is it?

Because....

"Howard says he's prepared to break international law and disregard the sovereignty of neigbouring nations in order to strike at alleged `terrorist' bases in the region. His justification is that he `would not hesitate to put the lives of Australians ahead of any other consideration'."

- Lisa Macdonald, a national co-convener of the Socialist Alliance

"While this may ease the concerns of the governments of South-East Asia, it in no way diminishes Howard's threat of pre-emptive military action — what used to be called “aggression” — against the poor people of these countries. "

- Howard's Aggression, Editorial, Green Left Weekly

"The Prime Minister, John Howard, continued to push hard with his threat of pre-emptive attacks against terrorists outside our national borders, while Labor leader Mark Latham labelled the concept risky and dangerous, with potentially disastrous consequences for Australia."

- Michael Brissenden, the 7.30 Report

Just wondered.