By JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25HORT.html DILI, East Timor I often find myself counting how many of us are left in this world. One recent morning my two surviving brothers and I had coffee together. And I found myself counting again. We were seven brothers and five sisters, another large family in this tiny Catholic country. One brother died when he was a baby. Antonio, our oldest brother, died in 1992 of lack of medical care. Three other siblings were murdered in our country's long conflict with Indonesia. One, a younger sister, Maria Ortencia, died on Dec. 19, 1978, killed by a rocket fired from a OV-10 Bronco aircraft, which the United States had sold to Indonesia. She was buried on a majestic mountaintop and her grave was tended by the humble people of the area for 20 years. Early in September of last year, I went through the heart-wrenching process of unearthing the improvised grave of our sister, whom I last saw when she was 18. As her body was exhumed, I noticed that the back of her head and one side of her face had been blown off. She must have died instantly. We reburied our sister in the cemetery in the capital, Dili. Two other siblings who were killed, our brothers Nuno and Guilherme, were executed by Indonesian soldiers in 1977. With little information on the area where they were killed and disposed of, we have no hope of recovering their bodies for a dignified burial. There is hardly a family in my country that has not lost a loved one. Many families were entirely wiped out during the decades of occupation by Indonesia and the war of resistance against it. The United States and other Western nations contributed to this tragedy. Some bear a direct responsibility because they helped Indonesia by providing military aid. Others were accomplices through indifference and silence. But all redeemed themselves. In 1999, a global peacekeeping force helped East Timor secure its independence and protect its people. It is now a free nation. But I still acutely remember the suffering and misery brought about by war. It would certainly be a better world if war were not necessary. Yet I also remember the desperation and anger I felt when the rest of the world chose to ignore the tragedy that was drowning my people. We begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary. So I follow with some consternation the debate on Iraq in the United Nations Security Council and in NATO. I am unimpressed by the grandstanding of certain European leaders. Their actions undermine the only truly effective means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the use of force. Critics of the United States give no credit to the Bush administration's aggressive strategy, even though it is the real reason that Iraq has allowed weapons inspectors to return and why Baghdad is cooperating a bit more, if it indeed is at all. The antiwar demonstrations are truly noble. I know that differences of opinion and public debate over issues like war and peace are vital. We enjoy the right to demonstrate and express opinions today because East Timor is an independent democracy — something we didn't have during a 25-year reign of terror. Fortunately for all of us, the age of globalization has meant that citizens have a greater say in almost every major issue. But if the antiwar movement dissuades the United States and its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have contributed to the peace of the dead. Saddam Hussein will emerge victorious and ever more defiant. What has been accomplished so far will unravel. Containment is doomed to fail. We cannot forget that despots protected by their own elaborate security apparatus are still able to make decisions. Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace. I agree that the Bush administration must give more time to the weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate. The United States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its enemies. It can afford to be a little more patient. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, has proved himself to be a strong mediator and no friend of dictators. He and a group of world leaders should use this time to persuade Saddam Hussein to resign and go into exile. In turn, Saddam Hussein could be credited with preventing another war and sparing his people. But even this approach will not work without the continued threat of force. Abandoning such a threat would be perilous. Yes, the antiwar movement would be able to claim its own victory in preventing a war. But it would have to accept that it also helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself to the tens of thousands of his victims. History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar intellectual once told me how he felt when the world finally interceded in his country: "I am a pacifist. But I was happy, I felt liberated, when I saw NATO bombs falling." José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996. Indeed.
Wow.....over forty views in over forty minutes.....and no one (I mean that figuratively DaDakota....don't take offense) has a response. I gues this BBS only appeals to the extremes. What a great read from a Noble Peace Prize winner.
Too complicated. Please post things to which I can enjoy having emotional, hyperbolic, polarizing reactions. Thank you.
This is a point I've been making for quite a while. Why don't those "anti-war" people protest Saddam? If they care about people so much then why don't they protest the guy who's actually started wars and actually killed thousands of people either by his own hand or through his oppressive regime. You want to protest the U.S.? Fine. Do so, it's your right. But please be consistant and protest the real villian here as well: Saddam Hussein. It's because I never hear any real criticism of Saddam from the "anti-war" movement that I've come to the conclusion that they don't care about the war or the Iraqi people; they just want to critisize Bush.
Well, to play devil's advocate, 111chase111, some lefties are very active in, for instance, amnesty international. You quickly come to learn that Saddam, in terms of human misery and horror statistics, barely ranks in the top five all-star despots of the world. There are protests and letter campaigns that urge our government to do something substantive about the worst human rights abusers in the world. But some of them are supposedly with us in our latest war on an abstract noun, so there you have it.
Good article, but it raises the same question I do. Why didn't we go into East Timor. Thank God for the Aussies because they stepped up in that situation. I had never even heard of the problems there until the summer before my senior year in highschool when I went on a student trip to Australia. So I ask everybody who has suddenly decided to make this about helping the people of Iraq, why aren't we drawing up plans for places like Burma? This isn't about the people of Iraq, if that were the case, why are we supportive of a Royal Family in Saudi Arabia with a poor record in human rights. This is about fear, fear of being attacked by Iraq or terrorists helped by Saddam. Well, I don't share that fear. I would like to see Saddam gone, but I want it to be something the whole world backs. Then I'd like to see us free people all over the world, even if they don't have oil or pose an immediate threat to us.
but why do we have to save everyone just to prove we're allowed to save some. can't we just help some people and it also coincides with our interests? sounds like the ideal situation. iraqi people are free - they win we get some oil and a little more safety - we win everyone is rid of saddam and his evil - oi to the world and everybody wins
The U.S. didn't go into East Timor because we were in support of the Indonesian government for the majority (if not entire thing) of the occupation, and we were major suppliers of weapons and training to Indonesia..
Is there no rhetoric beneath you? Seriously, Amnesty International says the Saddam has used systematic rape, torture (including the torture of small children to make parents talk), and genocide to opress the people of Iraq. Amnesty International says that over 175,000 Iraqis have disappeared and are presumed dead. Let's not forget the generations of Kurds who will suffer from the chemical and biological attacks because Saddam wanted to test his weapons. I have a hard time believing that there are 5 governments more brutal than Iraq.
I totally agree. It's boiled down to the point where peaceniks and radical humanitarians see eye to eye that America=bad. So no matter what we do, it's done for "our own hypocritical self-interests". I wonder if the US had handled this with a little more sugar and spin that we'd have the 9 UN Security Council votes to support the war. I still believe that even if Gore was Prez, we'd still be talking about Iraq. It sounds like such a political thing to do, that whole "inciting war with a common and battered enemy in the time of crisis" thing....
The point is about objectivity...if, and i say 'if' without conceding the point, but just to further this discussion, if the US is going to be the global cop, and therefore uphold international law, it has to be objective, and when it does so in it's own interest, it is no longer upholding justice, but just doing what it sees as best for itself..and therefore calls into question whether or not what it is doing is 'right' at all... For example, think back to the "Wild West"..pretty lawless time, no? And what were the lawmen like? Self serving by and large...when you are the 'law', and you act in your best interests, and especially only in your best interests, you lose the objectivity to decide right and wrong, and your right to do so is reduced to your might to do so. Justice is depicted as blind, and often isn't...but if it's going to be looking anywhere, it had better not be at it's own profit margin...
Yes, almost all of yours, to be honest. To boil it down: do you believe the prime motivation for our massing for an invasion of Iraq is our government's deep care for the plight of Iraqi citizens? (YES or NO). My answer: NO. If you answer "yes," do you have a problem with our associations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? If you answer "no," then we shouldn't be picking nits about Saddam versus other despots. We should talk about the prime motivations only and save ourselves hollow talk. Look, I liked this thread until someone said "why don't protestors yell about Saddam?!" The obvious answer is "well, he doesn't listen. Ideally, democracies do!" The more complicated answer, defending many hard-working people on the left, was what I posted to 111chase111.
I regret to tell you B-Bob that because you failed to answer my questions, you have been removed from my signature. Once again, you minimize Saddam's brutality for unknown reasons with your statement - You quickly come to learn that Saddam, in terms of human misery and horror statistics, barely ranks in the top five all-star despots of the world. I don't believe you are correct. By the way, the suffering of the Iraqi people is not the primary reason we are going to cut off Saddam's head and put it on a stick- but it is a good reason. I have a huge problem with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well. If I were King of the world, the first thing I would do (after jailing you for disrespect, and stealing your belongings) is embark on a massive national effort to rid us of the internal combustion engine.
You (*sigh*) I regret to tell you, he who would antagonize and annoy, that you asked *one* question in this thread and I answered it precisely. I regret to tell you that I am happy I no longer appear in your signature. I am happy to tell you that I did not minimize Saddam's brutality. Nice spin. Well, no, it's clumsy spin. Maybe he is top five, maybe he is not. The whole original ranking was parody and completely irrelevant, and I could explain the concept to you if ... But enough, you have earned Trader_Jorge type status with your posting style and your obsession with confrontation at the expense of communication. Congratulations. You will be directly addressed by me no further. You should celebrate.
