Friday, June 16, 2006
Soldiers don't go on strike, they "mutiny" ...
The whys of Timor's woes
16 June 2006
By CHRIS TROTTER
Why has East Timor exploded? Amid all the vivid images of burning buildings and weeping citizens, in spite of the reassuring footage of Hercules aircraft, armoured vehicles and heroic Kiwi soldiers on patrol, it's the "why" of East Timor that has yet to be satisfactorily explained.
There was a time when the journalists of Australia and New Zealand would have risked their lives to answer that question for us. Those of us old enough to remember such things will recall the five journalists (two Brits, two Aussies and a Kiwi) who were murdered on the eve of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975.
If only to honour their sacrifice and prevent yet another hood of lies being pulled over the face of this tiny, traumatised nation, one might have expected the Australasian news media to have tried a little harder for the truth.
Why, for example, are we being told that the trouble began only when about half of the East Timorese defence force decided to take "industrial action"? As an old trade unionist, I tend to use the more honest word "strike" in preference to that rather pusillanimous term "industrial action".
So let's do that: let's say half the East Timorese army went on strike. Doesn't that sound a little odd?
It should. Because soldiers don't go on strike. When soldiers refuse to follow the orders of their superior officers, they "mutiny". So, let's get this straight: the troubles in East Timor began when half the army mutinied.
Now, an army mutiny is an extremely serious thing, and the punishments meted out to the participants are usually condign. Historically, troops rise in rebellion only as a last, often futile, protest against horrendous conditions and suicidal orders. That's why the first victims of such mutinies are almost always the troops' commanding officers.
Is this what happened in East Timor?
Well, no. This mutiny was led by senior officers. Their grievance? That some of them had been passed over for promotion. Huh? If you're thinking that sounds political, then you're absolutely right.
The mutiny in the East Timor defence force grew out of the sharp antagonisms which continue to fester between the resistance fighters who actively engaged the Indonesian occupiers in the east of the country, and those who collaborated with them in the west.
What was it, then – a mutiny or a military revolt? Let's read the account of Maryann Keady, an Australian radio producer who has reported from Dili since 2002.
"I arrived in Dili just as the first riots broke out on April 28 this year, and as an eyewitness at the front of the unrest, the very young soldiers seemed to have outside help – believed to be local politicians and `outsiders'.
"Most onlookers cited the ability of dissident soldiers to go from an unarmed vocal group to hundreds brandishing sticks and weapons as raising locals' suspicions that this was not an `organic' protest."
So, we have a military uprising, orchestrated by local political figures and aided by outsiders. Not surprisingly, the East Timorese Government moved swiftly and ruthlessly to suppress the revolt.
SOLDIERS fired upon soldiers. A number were killed. But, even though the orders to open fire on the rioting rebels came from the commanders of the East Timor defence force, it was the Prime Minister of East Timor, Mari Alkatiri, who ended up copping the blame.
It now seems clear that the military revolt had both a purpose and a target: the overthrow of the prime minister.
On May 7, Mr Alkatiri gave a speech in which he described what was happening to his country as a "coup". When she reported this to the ABC, Ms Keady was asked if she had in fact got the translation wrong.
She hadn't. On May 31, Ms Keady wrote: "Three years ago, I wrote a piece talking about attempts to oust Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri in East Timor, then a new struggling, independent nation. I wrote that I believed the US and Australia were determined to oust the East Timorese leader, due to his hardline stance on oil and gas, his determination not to take out international loans, and their desire to see Australia-friendly President Xanana Gusmao take power."
Oil and gas?
Oh, sorry, did I neglect to mention the $30 billion of oil and gas that lies below the Timor Sea – and the Australians' contentious claim for the lion's share?
Rightwing Western government's have toppled leftwing Third World leaders for much less.
Spot on...
16 June 2006
By CHRIS TROTTER
Why has East Timor exploded? Amid all the vivid images of burning buildings and weeping citizens, in spite of the reassuring footage of Hercules aircraft, armoured vehicles and heroic Kiwi soldiers on patrol, it's the "why" of East Timor that has yet to be satisfactorily explained.
There was a time when the journalists of Australia and New Zealand would have risked their lives to answer that question for us. Those of us old enough to remember such things will recall the five journalists (two Brits, two Aussies and a Kiwi) who were murdered on the eve of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975.
If only to honour their sacrifice and prevent yet another hood of lies being pulled over the face of this tiny, traumatised nation, one might have expected the Australasian news media to have tried a little harder for the truth.
Why, for example, are we being told that the trouble began only when about half of the East Timorese defence force decided to take "industrial action"? As an old trade unionist, I tend to use the more honest word "strike" in preference to that rather pusillanimous term "industrial action".
So let's do that: let's say half the East Timorese army went on strike. Doesn't that sound a little odd?
It should. Because soldiers don't go on strike. When soldiers refuse to follow the orders of their superior officers, they "mutiny". So, let's get this straight: the troubles in East Timor began when half the army mutinied.
Now, an army mutiny is an extremely serious thing, and the punishments meted out to the participants are usually condign. Historically, troops rise in rebellion only as a last, often futile, protest against horrendous conditions and suicidal orders. That's why the first victims of such mutinies are almost always the troops' commanding officers.
Is this what happened in East Timor?
Well, no. This mutiny was led by senior officers. Their grievance? That some of them had been passed over for promotion. Huh? If you're thinking that sounds political, then you're absolutely right.
The mutiny in the East Timor defence force grew out of the sharp antagonisms which continue to fester between the resistance fighters who actively engaged the Indonesian occupiers in the east of the country, and those who collaborated with them in the west.
What was it, then – a mutiny or a military revolt? Let's read the account of Maryann Keady, an Australian radio producer who has reported from Dili since 2002.
"I arrived in Dili just as the first riots broke out on April 28 this year, and as an eyewitness at the front of the unrest, the very young soldiers seemed to have outside help – believed to be local politicians and `outsiders'.
"Most onlookers cited the ability of dissident soldiers to go from an unarmed vocal group to hundreds brandishing sticks and weapons as raising locals' suspicions that this was not an `organic' protest."
So, we have a military uprising, orchestrated by local political figures and aided by outsiders. Not surprisingly, the East Timorese Government moved swiftly and ruthlessly to suppress the revolt.
SOLDIERS fired upon soldiers. A number were killed. But, even though the orders to open fire on the rioting rebels came from the commanders of the East Timor defence force, it was the Prime Minister of East Timor, Mari Alkatiri, who ended up copping the blame.
It now seems clear that the military revolt had both a purpose and a target: the overthrow of the prime minister.
On May 7, Mr Alkatiri gave a speech in which he described what was happening to his country as a "coup". When she reported this to the ABC, Ms Keady was asked if she had in fact got the translation wrong.
She hadn't. On May 31, Ms Keady wrote: "Three years ago, I wrote a piece talking about attempts to oust Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri in East Timor, then a new struggling, independent nation. I wrote that I believed the US and Australia were determined to oust the East Timorese leader, due to his hardline stance on oil and gas, his determination not to take out international loans, and their desire to see Australia-friendly President Xanana Gusmao take power."
Oil and gas?
Oh, sorry, did I neglect to mention the $30 billion of oil and gas that lies below the Timor Sea – and the Australians' contentious claim for the lion's share?
Rightwing Western government's have toppled leftwing Third World leaders for much less.
Spot on...
