By Mario de Queiroz and Jose Ramos-Horta
DILI, May 20 2009 (IPS)

Seven years after winning its independence following nearly five centuries of foreign domination, East Timor is firmly and proudly building its future, despite the heavy burden of widespread, deep-rooted poverty.

José Ramos-Horta Credit: Jeffrey Kingston

Between the Nov. 28, 1975 unilateral declaration of independence by Portugal’s most distant and neglected colony and the international recognition of its independence on May 20, 2002, Ramos-Horta was a key figure in East Timor’s resistance movement.

A tireless fighter for East Timor’s independence struggle between 1975 and 1999, Ramos-Horta was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996, jointly with Catholic Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo.

The prize was seen as recognition of their perseverance in denouncing the worst genocide relative to population since the Holocaust: fully one-third of the country’s 660,000 people were killed or starved to death during the 24-year occupation by Indonesia.

Ramos-Horta was born on Dec. 26, 1949 in Dili to a Timorese mother and a sergeant in the Portuguese Navy. Four of his 10 brothers and sisters were killed during the occupation.

The current president’s Portuguese father was banished to East Timor for taking part in a failed 1936 uprising by non-commissioned officers against Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, dictator of Portugal from 1932 to 1968. (The dictatorship stretched from 1926 to 1974, four years after Oliveira Salazar’s death.)

When he was just 25 years old, Ramos-Horta became foreign minister of the short-lived “Democratic Republic of East Timor”, proclaimed on Nov. 28, 1975 and dissolved by the Indonesians when they invaded the former Portuguese colony on Dec. 7 that year.

At the time of the invasion, Ramos-Horta was at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he was presenting the new country.

During his 24 years in exile, Ramos-Horta was the diplomatic face of the East Timorese independence effort, representing abroad the leader of the resistance movement, former president (2002-2007) and current prime minister José Alexandre “Xanana” Gusmão.

On May 9, 2007 he handily defeated his rival Francisco Guterres in the presidential elections, and succeeded Gusmão, his long-time friend and companion in the struggle.

The challenges faced by Ramos-Horta are daunting in this small South Pacific nation of 1.1 million people that occupies the eastern half of Timor island at the southern tip of the Malay archipelago, 600 kilometres from the north coast of Australia. The other half of the island, West Timor, forms part of Indonesia.

IPS: The economy of your country, which has a per capita income of 600 dollars, has traditionally been based on cacao, coffee, cloves, and coconuts, but vast reserves of oil and natural gas have also been found in the last few years. JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA: East Timor posted one of the best economic performances in the world in 2008, with 12.5 percent real – not oil-based – growth.

It’s clear that economic growth alone does not mean that the centuries-old problems of extreme poverty have been resolved. But I again want to emphasise that our economic growth last year was based on agriculture, which improved with good rains and an increase in coffee output.

IPS: Will oil play an important role in the process of eradicating, or at least reducing, extreme poverty? JRH: Yes, the oil and natural gas revenues are enabling us to invest more in the poor, something that I always advocated, for example through direct cash transfers of 20 dollars a month…to the elderly and the most vulnerable, veterans of the resistance struggle, widows, orphans and others affected by poverty.

In 2007 we already achieved economic growth of eight percent, only months after the 2006 political crisis that caused our economy to contract to below-zero growth. I think it’s possible to continue posting growth of around 10 percent in 2009.

IPS: Giving help to the poorest of the poor inevitably translates into an increase in public spending. JRH: In this stage of our development it is essential to support the most vulnerable, but yes, it’s true, we will have to be more prudent with public spending in 2010.

IPS: Since the 2006 crisis, there has been virtually a climate of civil war, because of the irreconcilable positions taken by then president Gusmão and Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri, who stepped down. In that scenario, you appeared as the only person working towards a consensus. Three years later, do you think you have managed to achieve stability? JRH: On the political front, the government of the five-party Alliance of the Parliamentary Majority (AMP), led by Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão, which will complete two years in office in August, has shown itself to be quite solid, despite the fact that it is a broad, heterogeneous coalition that has faced complex challenges in governing.

FRETILIN (the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor, presided over by Alkatiri) has been a tough, strong opposition force, never giving the AMP a respite. The prime minister, in conversations with me, has praised the way FRETILIN has played that role, which is vital to our democracy and crucial for overseeing government action and avoiding excesses.

IPS: And with respect to security? JRH: In that respect, East Timor is at peace. Things are very calm in the neighbourhoods and streets of all districts. For comparison, according to United Nations crime rates from 2008, the country had 169 cases of simple assault per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to a global average of 250.

This rate is much better than those seen in the United States, with 795 per 100,000, or Australia, with 796. And last year there were three homicides per 100,000 people, compared to six per 100,000 in the United States.

It is not in vain that a recent opinion poll conducted throughout the country by the International Republican Institute found that 79 percent of respondents approved of the prime minister.

In the areas of politics and security, we have managed to stabilise the situation overall, although we admit that our institutions and political culture are still very fragile.

IPS: East Timor was occupied for 24 years by Indonesia, which was forced to pull out by an international military force in August 1999. Australia consistently supported the invasion and Portugal colonised this country for 460 years, doing very little to develop it. How are relations with these three countries today? JRH: Our relations with Indonesia are exemplary. They could not be better. With Australia they are also optimal. We have been able to maintain good relations with these two neighbours – which are different, of course, but are both powerful – based on a realistic, pragmatic policy focused on consolidating our national interests.

Portugal is a chapter apart. Our relations with it are special, founded on centuries of history, but also based on the last 30 years, when it was the country that gave us the most support, while it remains one of our best friends today.

Portugal has a strong presence in East Timor, not only because of the obvious affective ties, but also in the form of important concrete support, as it is one of our biggest partners in the area of development, as well as in defence and security.

IPS: Nevertheless, in Portugal itself, criticism is often voiced about the centuries-old neglect by Lisbon of the most ill-treated of its former colonies. JRH: Timor has not had an easy history, but in spite of everything, it has the best of memories of Portugal.

The thing is, if we look at the overall picture, the little that East Timor has had of spiritual, moral and religious wealth is owed to those missionaries who struck roots in this far-away island. It’s true that the state did little over all those centuries, but a country is not only a state. It is also the common people, who settled here and formed mixed-race families; and it’s the Catholic Church, which built our most beautiful and best schools.

IPS: It has been over a year since the Feb. 11, 2008 attempt on your life. Did the fact that you survived further strengthen your well-known religious convictions? JRH: I survived the assassination attempt because God wants me to live so I could continue serving our long-suffering people. The physical scars (from two bullet wounds in the back) are there, visible, but I bear no ill-feeling towards those who wanted to hurt me.

I could quote Christ when he was dying on the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they’ve done.”

IPS: And the reasons for the attack have yet to be clarified. JRH: That’s true. Actually, until now no one has been able to find a coherent explanation for what they did. The man who shot me, Marcelo Caetano, the alleged assassin, broke down crying and confessed that it was his decision, saying he was mentally disturbed.

At any rate, I’m alive, in good health, I walk between five and 10 kilometres nearly every day without getting tired, and I have the same spirit: open to everyone, little and big, with a great joie de vivre.

* Not for publication in Italy.

Excerpt:

By Jose Ramos-Horta and - -
DILI, Jun 1 2004 (IPS)

ASEAN made history with its recent public remarks about Burma and its military government, calling upon them to release popular national leader Suu Kyi from house arrest and to take action to settle the country\’s long-running civil and political wars, writes Jose Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Laureate and East Timor\’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this article, Ramos-Horta writes that this reflected the mounting alarm of ASEAN leaders of Burma\’s right to assume the chairmanship of the group in 2006. If there is no change, in 2006 ASEAN will be led by a military government that keeps over 1,300 political prisoners, relies on forced labour for public works, and has left over one million people internally displaced, ASEAN must encourage and expect Burma to seriously engage with its own people, especially Suu Kyi, her party, and the political leaders of the ethnic nationalities. We must encourage and expect Burma to engage with its neighbours, with ASEAN, and with the United Nations, to effect political and economic change. And we must encourage and expect the SPDC to demonstrate their leadership bona fides by rising to these challenges.

In Burma, the respected popular national leader and Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi continues her struggle for democracy, alone in her lakeside villa on the shore of Inya Lake in Rangoon, the South-east Asian nation’s capital. Incarcerated by her country’s military government, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), she is cut off from family, friends, and supporters.

In Timor Leste (East Timor), Xanana Gusmao is struggling to consolidate democracy. He is president of a free East Timor and his biggest challenge is poverty. He lives high above Dili, the capital, and is surrounded by family, friends, and supporters.

Both are pro-democracy leaders, experienced in struggle and sacrifice. Both have suffered incarceration and been accused of causing their countries’ problems. Both have received visits from world leaders while imprisoned; she at her lakeside villa, he in prison.

Suu Kyi promotes peace through dialogue, diplomacy, and resistance, very much in the Gandhi mode. Gusmao was part of a relentless armed resistance in East Timor fighting the occupation while the East Timorese community abroad engaged in dialogue and diplomacy to win international support. He was a commander of the Timorese Armed Resistance, Falintil. She is the general secretary of the National League for Democracy (NLD), a political party. Both groups have survived armed ambush, hers as recently as the attacks of May 30, 2003.

He is a poet and she, a writer. But writers are not free in Burma.

How similar the stories of my country’s president and the woman the Burmese simply call ‘The Lady’ — and yet how different.

How can we ignore her or what is happening in Burma to the 50 million Burmese? We cannot, and the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) has not. Nor has the United Nations Secretary General.

And neither have Burma’s regional neighbours. They have, in fact, expressed their dismay and disappointment about the SPDC’s actions and attitude towards Suu Kyi.

ASEAN itself provides a forum that can help bring about change in Burma. In fact, ASEAN can lead the way. It has publicly rebuked Burma.

ASEAN made history with its recent public remarks about the SPDC and Burma, calling upon them to release Suu Kyi from house arrest and to take action to settle the country’s long-running civil and political wars. This was a clear sign of ASEAN’s maturity and confidence as both a regional and an international player. It also reflected the mounting alarm of ASEAN leaders of Burma’s right to assume the chairmanship of the group in 2006.

The reality if there is no change is that in 2006 ASEAN will be led by a military government that keeps over 1,300 political prisoners, that relies on forced labour for public works, and that has left over one million people internally displaced.

The country also has a large number of land mines and is said by the Red Cross to have possibly the world’s largest number of child soldiers.

The systematic rape of predominantly ethnic women by the armed forces continues and every year condemnations are issued by the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. This is very worrisome to ASEAN leaders.

The question then is how do we respond to the crisis of governance in Burma? The SPDC leaders understandably have said that internal affairs are internal affairs. But in Burma’s case, their internal affairs have devastated their country and spilled over with negative effects on their neighbours and on ASEAN. We must encourage change, we must expect change, and we must engage for change.

Burma’s membership in ASEAN has been marked by contention and caused the group considerable damage. The most recent incident was the Asia-Europe Meeting’s (ASEM) cancellation of summit meetings with Asian finance ministers who want to include Burma.

ASEAN membership incurs responsibilities as well as privileges, and the regional grouping has a right to expect each member to fulfil the former. One of these is to not tarnish the others’ good standing.

We must then encourage and expect Burma to seriously engage with its own people, especially Suu Kyi, the NLD, and the political leaders of the ethnic nationalities.

We must encourage and expect Burma to engage with its neighbours, with ASEAN, and with the United Nations, to effect political and economic change.

We must encourage and expect the SPDC to demonstrate their leadership bona fides by rising to these challenges.

SPDC Prime Minister Khin Nyunt is facing a huge challenge. ASEAN can help. The SPDC must go much further than the reiteration of an already-failed road map to democracy, and the reconvening in May of an already-failed national convention process.

While both the road map and the national convention are fora that could be used to stimulate reform, this is not possible in their current form, which excludes the key political leaders in Burma.

To build a coalition, a community, and a country requires compromise. The challenge is there for all parties in Burma and we all stand ready and able to help. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Jose Ramos-Horta and - -
DILI, East Timor, Jul 1 2003 (IPS)

Current events in Burma are deeply disturbing, writes Jose Ramos-Horta, 1996 Nobel Peace Prize recipient and East Timor\’s minister for foreign affairs. Revered monk Sayadaw U Satetara, a high-ranking member of the holy Sangha and strong supporter of imprisoned Burmese opposition leader Suu Kyi, passed away last week from what many suspect were not natural causes. Suu Kyi remains incarcerated and held incommunicado. In this article for IPS, the author writes that leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)– of which Burma is a member — must keep up the pressure on the Burmese generals. Embarrassed that the international reputation of ASEAN was suffering because of the gross and systematic human rights violations in Burma, the ministers demanded at their recent annual meeting that Suu Kyi be freed immediately. As regional powers, China, Japan, and India, working closely with Indonesia, current chair of ASEAN, must resolve this impasse. Failure to do so will weaken ASEAN and undermine its international influence. In the 1970s, we witnessed regional silence and complicity surrounding the Cambodian tragedy. It will be tragic if the same attitude is adopted with regard to Burma.

Current events in Burma are deeply disturbing. A very revered monk, Sayadaw U Satetara, a high-ranking member of the holy Sangha and strong supporter of imprisoned Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, passed away last week from what many suspect were not natural causes.

In the meantime, Suu Kyi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her campaign to restore democracy and civil liberties in Burma by peaceful means, remains incarcerated and held incommunicado.

The recent attacks on Suu Kyi, leader of the country’s opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), and her supporters were orchestrated by hard-liners in Burma’s military regime who fear her enduring popularity and the national reconciliation process supported by other, more tolerant, members of the ruling junta.

Appeals for Suu Kyi’s release from Rangoon’s friends and Burma’s neighbours seem to have fallen on deaf ears. This certainly does not augur well for the country, and Burma could pay a high price internationally for the hard-liners’ intransigence.

Burma’s most important foreign donor, Japan, until recently excessively cautious in its approach to human rights issues in the region, has decided to stop almost all its support for the country.

Leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), must also keep up the pressure on the Burmese generals.

The foreign ministers of ASEAN — of which Burma is a member — recently broke a taboo against interfering in what have traditionally been regarded as the internal affairs of a member state.

Embarrassed that the international reputation of ASEAN was suffering because of the gross and systematic human rights violations in Burma, the ministers demanded at their recent annual meeting in Phnom Penh that Suu Kyi be freed immediately.

China, as a regional power, too, must take its cue from Japan and act decisively in pressuring the Burmese junta to release Suu Kyi. While understandably cautious in its conduct of foreign relations and not wanting to be misconstrued as a regional bully, China cannot sidestep its responsibility by avoiding a central role in the resolution of conflicts on its doorstep.

There is also a role for India. As Asia’s oldest and the world’s first largest democracy, India is in a position to prod the Burmese generals to loosen their grip on the nation. New Delhi has had diplomatic experience in dealing with Rangoon within the ambit of the Non-Aligned Movement. At this crucial moment, India must not eschew its own responsibilities.

As regional powers, China, Japan and India, working closely with Indonesia in its current position as chair of ASEAN, must find a solution to this impasse. Failure to do so will weaken ASEAN and undermine its international influence.

In the 1970s, we witnessed regional silence and complicity surrounding the Cambodian tragedy. It will be tragic if the same attitude is adopted with regard to Burma.

But the winds of change are blowing through the region, and there are encouraging signs that ASEAN is becoming more prepared to address human rights abuses in its own backyard.

China, too, has opened up even if it continues to be a one-party state. Only two countries, Burma and North Korea, remain frozen in time.

There is, however, hope for Burma.

Burma’s military regime can learn from the positive lessons of its neighbours, namely Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Cambodia. These might not be perfect democracies, but they are relatively open and economically successful.

In working towards a peaceful and stable political transition, the democracy movement in Burma as well as the international community must also consider safeguards and incentives for those in power to allow the evolution to proceed. The military should be offered assurances that there will be no vendetta against it once democracy is restored in Burma.

Meanwhile, the United States and the European Union should consider responding to each meaningful step taken by the military government with measures such as a gradual easing of travel restrictions for regime members and providing humanitarian aid through non-government organizations.

There must also be a role for the United Nations in Burma. The UN, in close consultation with ASEAN leaders, must be involved in facilitating and supervising the steps for free elections within three years.

With political reform under way, the World Bank and other institutions, such as the United Nations Development Program, should step in to help reform Burma’s institutions and economy.

But for all this to happen the military must first release Suu Kyi and her supporters, reopen the offices of the National League for Democracy, and accept a clear timetable for restoring democracy in Burma. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: