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
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS