The savagery taking place in East Timor -- armed Indonesian thugs taking over the territory by mayhem and murder -- is something besides a human disaster. It carries a profound lesson for international affairs: the price that can be paid for Kissingerian "realism."
Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, and President Ford visited the tyrant ruler of Indonesia, President Suharto, in December 1975. Mr. Kissinger knew that Mr. Suharto planned to invade East Timor. He made no objection, on the ground that it would be unrealistic to offend Indonesia.
The day after he and President Ford left, the Indonesians invaded. They used arms obtained from US aid: a violation of American law. That was pointed out to Mr. Kissinger in a cable from his State Department aides, but he angrily rejected the point.
"I know what the law is," he told a staff meeting when he got back to Washington, "but how can it be in the US national interest for us to ... kick the Indonesians in the teeth?"
That was Kissingerian realism: the view that the United States should overlook brutalities by friendly authoritarian regimes because they provided "stability." Thus Mr. Kissinger supported Augusto Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran.
The people of East Timor have paid a heavy price for that realism. In the invasion and subsequent occupation, a third of the population of 600,000 died. The Indonesian military carried out, over many years, what the Financial Times of London called "unspeakable atrocities." Now, after voting overwhelmingly for independence, many thousands have been driven out of their country by militiamen armed by Indonesia.
Indonesia has also paid heavily for its seizure of East Timor, and it is going to pay a lot more. The stubborn East Timorese insistence on independence has inspired other remote areas of the archipelago state to rebellion. And what foreign company will want to invest in a country that, apart from human concerns, cannot control its own military?
The United Nations and the entire international community have been badly hurt by the debacle in East Timor. Having led the way to the referendum on independence, they relied on Indonesian promises to maintain security because -- once again -- they did not want to offend the government.
Now UN employees have been killed and UN offices sacked by the militia forces. The international community has been made to look hapless against a ragtag challenge. And the only response by the UN Security Council so far has been to send a mission: not to East Timor but to Jakarta.
The international community has been so silent about all that has happened in East Timor over the last 24 years, and so feeble, that it has a responsibility to act firmly now. Many responses are available.
The US should immediately end all programs involving the Indonesian military: training, sharing of intelligence, military aid. Indonesia's military is either covertly supporting the militiamen or has failed to oppose their rampage, violating many assurances.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are heavily involved in keeping the Indonesian economy afloat. The country has asked for US$71 billion in funding this year from the two institutions. Further tranches should be withheld until legitimate order is restored in East Timor.
If those measures do not bring the Indonesian Government and military leaders to their senses, it will be necessary -- quickly -- to send in an international peacekeeping force.
American political leaders, especially, should reflect on the larger lesson. Ignoring human realities may not, after all, be "realistic." The Shah did not bring stability to Iran; his policies opened the way to a virulently anti-American regime. General Pinochet awaits justice in the British courts.
Using American troops abroad is always, rightly, a delicate decision. But it is not so hard to speak out, and the voice of American leaders carries weight. In Bosnia we learned the price of failing to speak out promptly against aggression. The price of silence on East Timor remains to be calculated.
NY Times News Service
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS