Dear Vladimir Jares and the List
I really agree with all Vladimir's views
However I hope that Vladimir would agree with me
that the UN is not perfect - no human organisation
has been, is or ever will be - another example is the
Roman Catholic Church <very relevant
for East Timor as even Mr Treanor
recognises>
We all make mistakes but admitting them and making
amends must be the first step to resolving any problem
either personal local national or international
Is that not at least one reason why the international boundaries list
exists ??
The UN however is at least trying its very best to solve this
really awful problem - even the Indonesian Government
is also desperate it seems to me to help
While not an Australian myself I do applaud their support
of the UN absolutely and there is frankly no way that I see
any Australian Government wishing to influence the future
of an East Timor independent state other than at the normal
diplomatic and trade level in order to encourage them
to develop economically and politically in their own right.
I also think that this subject is really worth discussing
in a forum like ours - after all most border problems
or anomalies derive from history - so we may be
able to influence future history now
Some examples from the past at least in Europe are :-
Gibraltar
Ceuta y Melilla
Campione d'Italia
Andorra
Baarle Nassau/Hertog
Alsace /Lorraine
Eire/ Northern Ireland <sorry that is still current>
Danzig/Gdansk
Karelia
even Les Iles Anglo- Normandes
<the Channel Islands>
where HM Queen is addressed at formal dinners
as
"Your Majesty Duke of Normandy Our Queen"
because the Channel Islands are the last remnant of
the Dukedom of Normandy
Anyway Mr Treanor sorry but I think you are talking
total nonsense - but I respect your right absolutely to express
those views
Who said that originally ? Answers in an email please
Regards Christopher Mawhood
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>;
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>;
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 20 September 1999 16:01
Subject: Re: Re-colonising Timor is wrong
> Well, usually I do not respond to the messages that go beyond the
> mandate of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea,
> Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations. However, as a United Nations
> staff member from a country which has never "colonized" any territory,
> I simply cannot be silent when the international boundaries forum is
> used for propagating personal opinions based on total misunderstanding
> of the current state of international law and the role of the United
> Nations. The misleading logic of the writers message is obvious -
> starting from false premises, he twists the reality, mixes the result
> with his lack of faith in the value of human life and, after putting
> on a few qualifying labels, he comes to the wrong conclusions. I do
> not think that the international boundaries forum is a place to enter
> into any specific arguments over this message, if the writer is
> willing to further discuss his opinions, he is most than welcome to do
> it directly through my mailbox.
>
> This being said and for the sake of about 100 of our colleagues,
> United Nations staff members, who risked their life to protect a large
> group of civilian population, I would invite both the writer and
> interested international boundaries readers to visit the UNAMET site:
>
> http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/etimor.htm
>
> and to read the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
> on the human rights situation in East Timor and other documents.
>
> In concluding, I would like to remind Mr. Treanor of the purposes of
the
> United Nations for which we, staff of the Organization, work:
>
> "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to
take
> effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of
threats to
> the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches
> of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity
with
> the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement
> of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach
of the
> peace;
>
> "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
> principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to
take
> other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
>
> "To achieve international co-operation in solving international
problems of
> an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in
promoting
> and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms
for
> all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
>
> "To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the
attainment of
> these common ends. "
>
>
>
> He may need to accept that other people could be guided by those noble
> goals.
>
>
>
>
>=====================================================================
>
> Vladimir Jares
>Law of the Sea Officer Specialiste du droit de la mer
>Division for Ocean Affairs and Division des affaires maritimes
> the Law of the Sea et du droit de la mer
>Office of Legal Affairs Bureau des affaires juridiques
>DC2-0440 DC2-0440
>United Nations Nations Unies
>New York, NY 10017 New York, NY 10017
>
> phone: (212) 963 3945
> fax: (212) 963 5847
> email: [log in to unmask]
>=====================================================================
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re-colonising Timor is wrong
>Author: <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
>Date: 20/09/1999 3:45 PM
>
>
>Once again, a media campaign in western countries is generating public
support
>for military intervention. East Timor is "the next Kosovo". But the
comparison
>with Kosovo indicates why an intervention is wrong.
>
>A military intervention would establish a UN protectorate: Kosovo shows
what
>that means. At first all decisions would be taken by international
>organisations. As in Kosovo, they would exercise absolute military power.
They
>would appoint the courts, the police, any local armed forces. The vast
>majority of the population would be excluded from all political process. A
>tiny pro-western, English-speaking, elite would be placed in positions of
>power - first as translators and assistants, later as founders of the
>UN-funded "democratic" political parties. The media would be controlled
>entirely by the UN, which would have censorship powers. In Bosnia and
Kosovo,
>political and cultural life has become dependent on western foundations: in
>the Timorese case, the Catholic church would assume that role as well.
Those
>who opposed the UN protectorate would have no resources to organise that
>opposition: they will be politically marginalised.
>
>---
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/koseth.html
> Kosovo intervention ethics
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/osce-pristina.html
> OSCE controls media in Kosovo
>----
>
>
>Timor intervention is not an ethical duty, as some media claim (the BBC
spoke
>of a "moral crusade"). There is no moral duty to help those in danger,
beyond
>the personal level. I can not go to Timor in person to protect anyone,
>therefore I have no further obligations. I certainly have no moral
obligation
>to support the Australian army, or the Portuguese army, or the US army.
>Remember that armies kill people: an intervention in Timor with no
casualties
>is impossible. As in Kosovo, there will almost certainly be revenge
attacks -
>on the Javanese iimmigrants to Timor. No "obligation to assist" extends so
>far, that I have to give political support to a military intervention.
There
>are good reasons to oppose intervention: in reality it is a
*re-colonisation*
>of East Timor.
>
>Timor will become a UN protectorate, on a poor Asian island, close to a
rich
>country with neoliberal economic policies. It will inevitably become a
victim
>of neoliberalism. The prevention of genocide can not justify neoliberalism.
>The best comparison is with Haiti. Thanks to US intervention, the
population
>live in abject poverty, with no future except as ultra-cheap labour for US
>firms. Typical of the conditions on Haiti is, that a main supply of protein
is
>slaughterhouse waste from the US. Even in Bosnia, the poor were reduced to
>scavenging on the waste dumps of US bases. That is how the US treats a
white
>European population - no wonder the Haitians are treated as human garbage
dumps.
>
>That is the future, that the Timorese can expect from an
Australian-Portugese
>controlled protectorate. All thanks to a combination of media, "left-wing"
>activists and intellectuals, military lobbies, and promoters of a
neoliberal
>Asian-Pacific economy. It would be morally wrong to blackmail Timor's
>inhabitants into accepting that, by giving them the choice of "genocide or
>neoliberalism", the choice "be colonised or be killed". Reducing a
population
>to a humiliating dependent status, under conditions of extreme poverty, can
>not be described as "help". Colonisation is not "help". Colonialism was
wrong,
>and is wrong - even if the colonial force prevents violence. The Timor
>intervention is unethical. It is morally wrong for any soldier to take part
in
>such an intervention: soldiers should refuse orders to participate in an
>intervention force.
>
>--------
>Paul Treanor
>http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nuke-jakarta.html
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
