The crisis in East Timor (1 Viewer)

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Last edited:

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
From a hardcore realist position:

It seems that you cant manufacture a state - therefore to try is like pouring lives and moneys down a black hole.

Hence we should withdraw and leave them to it. Furthermore we should take advantage of their non-existence to claim the entire east-timor oil/gas field.

The withdrawal would also make the indonesians happy.... the oil less so.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
loquasagacious said:
From a hardcore realist position:

It seems that you cant manufacture a state - therefore to try is like pouring lives and moneys down a black hole.

Hence we should withdraw and leave them to it. Furthermore we should take advantage of their non-existence to claim the entire east-timor oil/gas field.

The withdrawal would also make the indonesians happy.... the oil less so.
From a realist perspective we hardly want an anarchic state to our north and if you think Indonesia will just sit there while East Timor self destructs you are kidding yourself.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Exactly. And why not let the indonesians wear the costs (monetary, human life and international reputation) of being there.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
loquasagacious said:
Exactly. And why not let the indonesians wear the costs (monetary, human life and international reputation) of being there.
What exactly do you think would happen to our international reputation in the event of a bloody reinvasion of east timor by the indonesians?
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
How does; "very little at all" sound?

On the one hand media reports of it would recieve little play in mainstream press and on the other if it is rational for us to stabilise a failed state off our shore then surely it is rational for Indonesia to stabilise one on its very border. Hence coverage will be minimal and Indonesian action justifiable. Therefore net effect on international reputation would be slight.

Reputation among communists, greens, etc etc would be hurt though..... I am shedding crocodile tears over this.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
loquasagacious said:
How does; "very little at all" sound?

On the one hand media reports of it would recieve little play in mainstream press and on the other if it is rational for us to stabilise a failed state off our shore then surely it is rational for Indonesia to stabilise one on its very border. Hence coverage will be minimal and Indonesian action justifiable. Therefore net effect on international reputation would be slight.

Reputation among communists, greens, etc etc would be hurt though..... I am shedding crocodile tears over this.
"little play"? You are either trolling or an idiot. The island would be invaded by CNN and the BBC. It would be front page news for weeks, if not months. East Timor is now on the front page of the NY times web site. That's like saying in 1973: "oh don't worry there won't be any coverage when Saigon falls".
 
Last edited:

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
On the front page for weeks or months now whos an idiot, Iraq didn't manage to occupy the front page continuously for months....

And beside from which how much coverage did Aceh get? Little to none, the only reason it got abit more was because of the tsunami that flooded the area with reporters. Any negative press would be copped by indonesia not us. And indonesia could use its position to gain US support for its actions. eg support us we are the largest muslim state, we're democratic and we're preventing the emergence of an unstable state and terrorist base.

The island wouldnt be invaded by CNN and BBC because the indonesian army is not (entirely) stupid they would seal it off from the media - much like they sealed off Aceh.

Oh and the comparison to Saigon is abit of a stretch.

More realistically Australia will deploy again, restore some semblence of stability, withdraw again in say a year or two years time and everything will fall to pieces a year or so after that. And this cycle could be repeated ad nauseum because:

The east timorese may be a nation in their own right (dubious because their nationalism is negative not positive) however the notion of a state is completely alien to them. They have no previous experience of self-government aside from tribal. There is no middle-class to sustain democracy. The economy is atrocious and I would suggest could only ever survive intrinsically linked to Indonesias. The forces to maintain law and order are partisan.

In my view there are only four long term options for East Timor and none are particularly good:

*Becomes a defacto Australian territory much like PNG did. This would be difficult to sell domestically or internationally, would represent a continuing financial drain and would require a certain level of oppression to sustain.
*Is re-occupied by Indonesia. All the same cons as above except they dont fall on us they fall on indonesia.
*Becomes a failed state lurching from coup to crisis etc. See nauru, fiji, solomon islands, new zealand, etc.
*We establish a state and give them the whole oil fields, a despotic and nepotistic regime in the style of the middle-east emerges. Democracy becomes a pipe dream, East timor becomes a rentier state surviving off oil money. Oil money is used as essentially bribery keeping the population semi-happy with welfare and being prepared to enforce obediance with an Army. This scenario would see the dominant rebel group in charge, its leaders become a junta, its followers the army.

So theres four things that could happen, Australian power, indonesian power, no power (which lets face it would mean an indonesian invasion) and their own repressive state.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
In Australian terms it would be equivalent to the fall of saigon and would be the biggest foreign policy debacle in Australia's post-war history. I guarantee it would be front page news in Australia for months and I think it would get quite a few inches and front pages in international publications. As you pointed out it has been a liberal cause celeb for years. Most of the reporters at the major international papers are liberals.

Aceh and East Timor aren't comparable. East Timor has since 1975 got heaps more coverage both internationally and in Australia. There are quite a few US Congressmen who have a long time interest in East Timor. Any reinvasion of East Timor would be bloody and Indonesia could face getting US military assistance cut off again. The cold war is over so Indonesia can't hype a communist threat and East Timor being a nearly entirely christian nation would make the idea of it being a base for islamic terrorists quite a stretch.

As for East Timor's fate most of the states to our north are basket cases but they seem to manage to limp along (ie PNG, Fiji, Vanuatu). East Timor will probably do the same.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I think the Indonesians moved in about 10days after independence was declared from Portugal in 75. 30 years later, and the U.N and other internat. bodies still look down on us (Whitlam and Ford) for ignoring this. So it does matter what we do.
This was largely redeemed by Howard and Clinton threatening Indonesia into withdrawing, and later sorting things out under Cosgrove.
It's insane to consider Indonesia invading. An expansionist Muslim country would not go down well. But it's still important that this gets sorted - I mean can you imagine those filthy Indonesian dogs laughing and saying 'we told you they wouldn't work'?
Prop them up, I say. Maybe get neo-colonial, but prop them up all the same.
 

leetom

there's too many of them!
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
846
Location
Picton
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Iron said:
Prop them up, I say. Maybe get neo-colonial, but prop them up all the same.
Indeed. Perhaps we should consider imposing an Australian bureacracy on them. With an Australian governor, we could develop their oil infrastructure and use the money to cover the cost of a continued deployment of Australian security personnel and to finance a public works scheme for Dili.
 

Snaykew

:)
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
538
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Why would people even suggest letting Indonesia back in? You know what they did last time. Have we lost that much humanity in us? It won't cost that much to deploy troops there to keep the peace as I doubt anyone would fire on our diggers. Both the rebels and government forces are pro-Australian.

If we can help with no disadvantage to ourselves, why not? Why not help stabilise a nation we helped create?

Also, what's with all this talk of appeasing the Indonesians? Are we Britain and they Germany back in the late 1930s all of a sudden? "Oh you can invade this but don't do it again!".

leetom: Hell even the Americans aren't that tight with Iraq. How much do you suppose our deployment into East Timor costs? Sure, our diggers would be paid more because they are on tour but that's a good thing. A few bits and pieces of maintenance. Barely any fighting I bet. All they'd do is patrol the streets. Even if there were some major battles, our diggers already outnumber them with a lot more toys to play with.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Snaykew said:
Why would people even suggest letting Indonesia back in? You know what they did last time. Have we lost that much humanity in us? It won't cost that much to deploy troops there to keep the peace as I doubt anyone would fire on our diggers. Both the rebels and government forces are pro-Australian.

If we can help with no disadvantage to ourselves, why not? Why not help stabilise a nation we helped create?

Also, what's with all this talk of appeasing the Indonesians? Are we Britain and they Germany back in the late 1930s all of a sudden? "Oh you can invade this but don't do it again!".

leetom: Hell even the Americans aren't that tight with Iraq. How much do you suppose our deployment into East Timor costs? Sure, our diggers would be paid more because they are on tour but that's a good thing. A few bits and pieces of maintenance. Barely any fighting I bet. All they'd do is patrol the streets. Even if there were some major battles, our diggers already outnumber them with a lot more toys to play with.
Any extended modern deployment of troops is expensive even if it's only a couple thousand. You have to factor in all the logistical costs. Not to mention the cost to the army in terms of overstretch and reduced traininig oppurtunities of having 2 thousand troops based semi-permanently in east timor and a couple thousand more in afghan/Iraq. We've only got an army of 25 000 it would be very easy to overstretch them.
 

mr_shittles

Big Chief
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
399
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Well, I think Australia id doing a good thing deploying in East Timor. I think that East Timor can be rebuilt, but it will require a large military presence from Australia and also financial support.

The Timorse people value the presence of Australian forces, and most of them would mauch prefer if Australia had a permanent installation there. The leaders of East Timor however, do not place such a high value on international forces, and simply pretend they are smart enough and competent enough to run their own country.

When a new nation is being built (or rebuilt) it is very important that a strong multinational presence is there to guide the nation and provide for its security early on.
 

leetom

there's too many of them!
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
846
Location
Picton
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
mr_shittles said:
When a new nation is being built (or rebuilt) it is very important that a strong multinational presence is there to guide the nation and provide for its security early on.
Not even multinational, just us.

There's no point beating about the bush here- the island nations on our fringe have difficulty governing themselves. We should invade and develop them ourselves- developing the most lucrative industries (oil, fishing, tourism etc) and making them as prosperous as possible. At the same time we can promote local cultures, enabling the locals to take pride in themselves and feel content in belonging to such a great federation.
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
invade is sucha dirty word. I prefer to call it lending a hand in person
 

Captain Gh3y

Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
4,153
Location
falling from grace with god
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Snaykew said:
Why would people even suggest letting Indonesia back in? You know what they did last time. Have we lost that much humanity in us? It won't cost that much to deploy troops there to keep the peace as I doubt anyone would fire on our diggers. Both the rebels and government forces are pro-Australian.

If we can help with no disadvantage to ourselves, why not? Why not help stabilise a nation we helped create?

Also, what's with all this talk of appeasing the Indonesians? Are we Britain and they Germany back in the late 1930s all of a sudden? "Oh you can invade this but don't do it again!".

leetom: Hell even the Americans aren't that tight with Iraq. How much do you suppose our deployment into East Timor costs? Sure, our diggers would be paid more because they are on tour but that's a good thing. A few bits and pieces of maintenance. Barely any fighting I bet. All they'd do is patrol the streets. Even if there were some major battles, our diggers already outnumber them with a lot more toys to play with.
Woah, Godwin's Law on the first page of a thread, that's pretty quick.

There is a difference between appeasing Indonesia and helping out every provence that wants to separate from them. Imagine if an insignificant state or province of Australia, eg. Victoria, wanted to separate from us and instantly our most powerful neighbour eg. Samoa invaded and helped them seaparate. That's how Indonesia feels.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
The problem with any long-term australian deployment and administration is we would inevitably provoke two responses.

One from the international community would be a perception of us as neo-imperialist.

The second from the east-timorese would be a transferal or extension of their negative nationalism eg currently east-timorese nationalism has evolved in opposition to indonesian occupation it would now evolve in opposition to ours. Think of PNG and how much they detest us, this would be a repition.
 
T

Tom Ruprecht

Guest
I've been following East Timorese politics for a while, and I have to say, Alkatiri is ineffective and doesn't give a thing about the East Timor people. He rarely responds to anything, ignores government advisors (those not in his faction), and plays power politics. East Timor has so many problems it doesn't have time for power politics.

Might I also add, this "Dr." title in East Timor is utterly misleading. They will have you believe that they have the most educated government in the world - all government ministers are Dr.s! WOW!

Except that "Dr." in East Timor doesn't actually refer to a doctorate. Any person with an undergraduate degree can be a "Dr". And not even that. "Dr." can be used as a title of respect, e.g. public office.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top