Jose Ramos-Horta:
We had to deal with the psychological, emotional trauma of twenty-four years of violence, compounded by the most recent one, the 1999 violence. We had to start a process of national healing and reconciliation.
...
In the case of Timor, we did have violence among East Timorese but 80% of the violence as it was identified, found out through our Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 80% was carried out in the previous four years by Indonesian military. They left. But we also had to reconcile with Indonesia. We had to reconcile with people who worked previously with Indonesia. We had to bring back tens of thousands of East Timorese in the camps of West Timor. So it has been a long mental challenge in the past seven years. With ups and downs. In terms of reconciliation with Indonesia I'd say the most successful, the most exemplary of two countries previously locked in a conflict and reconciling after the conflict.
...
No revenge. And that's what has brought us peace in our borders, brought us the exceptional good relations with Indonesia, people to people, government to government.
I want to move on to one critical issue, and that issue of justice. In the last few weeks there has been much controversy, criticism of myself, of East Timor, of East Timor by the UN, some in the UN, for not vigorously pursuing international justice for the crimes of the past. Well, my answer to that in a bit cynical way, the UN was a full admissory power of East Timor between 1999 and 2002. They had executive authority, legislative authority, the special...of the Secretary General...Why didn't they set up a...tribunal? They didn't. In 2002 they left and then dumped the entire justice system on incipient East Timorese district court.
And a few months ago I received two Western ambassadors where I had woken up that morning in good mood for some reason, and ah so I start work patiently, listen to these two Western ambassadors representing two countries that were most notorious in support of Indonesian occupation of East Timorese in the past, of particular of the Suharto regime, lecturing me about human rights and justice. Well, because I was in good mood, I listened politely and promised to think about it. Had I been in bad mood, I would have said, excuse me, the two of you are lecturing me on human rights and justice? You provided weapons, red carpet to the dictatorship in Indonesia for twenty-four years. You were with that until the very last minute and now you disagree with us in reconciling with the new Indonesia, the Indonesia that freed itself from the dictatorship in 1999. That's what I would have told them but I was in good mood, and they were very pleased that I was so understanding.
...
Recently, Amnesty International issued a statement, then High Commission of Human Rights in Geneva issued a statement....countries like East Timor, if you don't pursue justice at every cost, you foster impunity and weaken the rule of law.
Well, my answer is if you pursue justice at any cost without sensitivity to the values, challenges, complexities on the ground, you can undermine the incipient mission of democracy and justice and and then there is no democracy no justice for anyone. Justice will take its course. It takes time.
...
This will happen in Indonesia. Five years from now, ten or twenty, I don't know, Indonesians didn't need anyone to fight their wars, didn't need anyone to fight for their democracy. They don't need anyone to fight for their justice. They are the ones who will do it, pursue justice in their own country, in their own time, and they will do it as democracy gains roots in Indonesia and as the armed forces is reformed gradually. And they have made remarkable success because, as I told the Secretary General, Indonesia left in '99 in a very unprecedented manner. At the time after awhile which the pro autonomy faction lost--the pro Independence won by 80%--Indonesia could have gone like Burma in 1990: Sorry, we don't believe in electoral result, we are not leaving. Who would have forced Indonesia to leave? No force on Earth would have forced them to leave. What was remarkable? In view of the situation in Indonesia, they had a very weak President, the situation was literally chaotic in Indonesia following the financial crisis in 1998, the fall of Suharto, and yet the weak President told the army: listen to the voice of the people, his people, listen to the international community and media. And they left. Which country would do that? And they left militarily undefeated. We didn't defeat them militarily. They left through very elaborate negotiations. And partly because Indonesia was always a very proud country of it's international standing. And even a worse embarrassment to them, so they decided to leave and once they left what should we have done. We have only two neighbors, Australia and Indonesia. We start rubbing the wounds of those who felt humiliated and have left or we walk fast halfway to reconcile--understanding the trauma in the Indonesian military and being pragmatic that our border is very vulnerable. Well, that's what we did. And I have to say, ten years later, I do not at all, I do not regret, I am very pleased with what we have achieved.
...
If we were to have an international tribunal, I say we start with whom? We start with Indonesia or start with United States that provided weapons to the Suharto regime. Or Australia. Or all of them at once. And how, and why only Indonesians and why not East Timorese themselves, who including from the resistance side who were involved in violence? Or we should only try the so-called enemy. Or try only the weak side. That's why I say the greatest gift for us, the greatest justice is that today we are free. We are free because the Indonesians freed themselves. We are free because of the changes in the attitude of the international community including the United States. So let's put all the past behind us. Let's look after the victims, the wounded, in the minds, in the bodies, in the souls, feel the country that is deserving of so much sacrifice. Chasing the ghost of the past will lead us nowhere. I am happy to endure criticisms from the ulta-patriots of international justice who want to make East Timor a guinea pig of international justice. I will not be part of that.
...
I have a TV program. Once a month I travel extensively throughout the country, previous borders around most of the country, on Sundays most villages. The theme is called "the road to peace and national unity." I do ten, twenty minutes presentation in the local language and people are supposed to contribute with comments, with questions, with challenges, on what it takes to build this peace and national unity in East Timor. And you know what I never hear a single question from the people on this abstract thing. The questions they are motivated by are focus on the thing: they go back to roads, to telephones, to electricity, to jobs. They sometimes even joke with me. Mr. President, we really like your road to peace, but we prefer a road to our village.
...
And together with China we are one of the countries financing U.S. debt. We have 5 million dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds. And we are told by United States that we are failed state. We are paying for your debt and we are "failed state"?
...
As I listened to President Obama the other day, I was sitting on the Security Council listening to his proposal for a nuclear free world, I had but only fear and sympathy for him. Fear in the sense that it's far too big agenda. As I listened to him, I thought, how is he going to help India and Pakistan resolve their border disputes, how is he going to help India and China resolve their border disputes? Before you can think of nuclear disarmament within this particular region, you have to think of the border disputes and poverty. Without that, why would Pakistan sell any nuclear weapons? Without nuclear weapons, it's no match to an India that's at least ten times bigger than Pakistan. Nuclear weapons are shortcuts to superpower status. To convince countries to surrender such powerful tools, you have to work on the ground.
...
Why on Earth in Timor are we still unable to catch rain water? The rain falls down the mountains wash everything into the sea. Maybe ten years, twenty years from now we will have found technology that makes our energy cheap and simple. Today all of these politically correct speeches about renewable energy but at my end of the world it's still far too expensive. So you people are the ones who can save humanity from environmental catastrophe.
We had to deal with the psychological, emotional trauma of twenty-four years of violence, compounded by the most recent one, the 1999 violence. We had to start a process of national healing and reconciliation.
...
In the case of Timor, we did have violence among East Timorese but 80% of the violence as it was identified, found out through our Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 80% was carried out in the previous four years by Indonesian military. They left. But we also had to reconcile with Indonesia. We had to reconcile with people who worked previously with Indonesia. We had to bring back tens of thousands of East Timorese in the camps of West Timor. So it has been a long mental challenge in the past seven years. With ups and downs. In terms of reconciliation with Indonesia I'd say the most successful, the most exemplary of two countries previously locked in a conflict and reconciling after the conflict.
...
No revenge. And that's what has brought us peace in our borders, brought us the exceptional good relations with Indonesia, people to people, government to government.
I want to move on to one critical issue, and that issue of justice. In the last few weeks there has been much controversy, criticism of myself, of East Timor, of East Timor by the UN, some in the UN, for not vigorously pursuing international justice for the crimes of the past. Well, my answer to that in a bit cynical way, the UN was a full admissory power of East Timor between 1999 and 2002. They had executive authority, legislative authority, the special...of the Secretary General...Why didn't they set up a...tribunal? They didn't. In 2002 they left and then dumped the entire justice system on incipient East Timorese district court.
And a few months ago I received two Western ambassadors where I had woken up that morning in good mood for some reason, and ah so I start work patiently, listen to these two Western ambassadors representing two countries that were most notorious in support of Indonesian occupation of East Timorese in the past, of particular of the Suharto regime, lecturing me about human rights and justice. Well, because I was in good mood, I listened politely and promised to think about it. Had I been in bad mood, I would have said, excuse me, the two of you are lecturing me on human rights and justice? You provided weapons, red carpet to the dictatorship in Indonesia for twenty-four years. You were with that until the very last minute and now you disagree with us in reconciling with the new Indonesia, the Indonesia that freed itself from the dictatorship in 1999. That's what I would have told them but I was in good mood, and they were very pleased that I was so understanding.
...
Recently, Amnesty International issued a statement, then High Commission of Human Rights in Geneva issued a statement....countries like East Timor, if you don't pursue justice at every cost, you foster impunity and weaken the rule of law.
Well, my answer is if you pursue justice at any cost without sensitivity to the values, challenges, complexities on the ground, you can undermine the incipient mission of democracy and justice and and then there is no democracy no justice for anyone. Justice will take its course. It takes time.
...
This will happen in Indonesia. Five years from now, ten or twenty, I don't know, Indonesians didn't need anyone to fight their wars, didn't need anyone to fight for their democracy. They don't need anyone to fight for their justice. They are the ones who will do it, pursue justice in their own country, in their own time, and they will do it as democracy gains roots in Indonesia and as the armed forces is reformed gradually. And they have made remarkable success because, as I told the Secretary General, Indonesia left in '99 in a very unprecedented manner. At the time after awhile which the pro autonomy faction lost--the pro Independence won by 80%--Indonesia could have gone like Burma in 1990: Sorry, we don't believe in electoral result, we are not leaving. Who would have forced Indonesia to leave? No force on Earth would have forced them to leave. What was remarkable? In view of the situation in Indonesia, they had a very weak President, the situation was literally chaotic in Indonesia following the financial crisis in 1998, the fall of Suharto, and yet the weak President told the army: listen to the voice of the people, his people, listen to the international community and media. And they left. Which country would do that? And they left militarily undefeated. We didn't defeat them militarily. They left through very elaborate negotiations. And partly because Indonesia was always a very proud country of it's international standing. And even a worse embarrassment to them, so they decided to leave and once they left what should we have done. We have only two neighbors, Australia and Indonesia. We start rubbing the wounds of those who felt humiliated and have left or we walk fast halfway to reconcile--understanding the trauma in the Indonesian military and being pragmatic that our border is very vulnerable. Well, that's what we did. And I have to say, ten years later, I do not at all, I do not regret, I am very pleased with what we have achieved.
...
If we were to have an international tribunal, I say we start with whom? We start with Indonesia or start with United States that provided weapons to the Suharto regime. Or Australia. Or all of them at once. And how, and why only Indonesians and why not East Timorese themselves, who including from the resistance side who were involved in violence? Or we should only try the so-called enemy. Or try only the weak side. That's why I say the greatest gift for us, the greatest justice is that today we are free. We are free because the Indonesians freed themselves. We are free because of the changes in the attitude of the international community including the United States. So let's put all the past behind us. Let's look after the victims, the wounded, in the minds, in the bodies, in the souls, feel the country that is deserving of so much sacrifice. Chasing the ghost of the past will lead us nowhere. I am happy to endure criticisms from the ulta-patriots of international justice who want to make East Timor a guinea pig of international justice. I will not be part of that.
...
I have a TV program. Once a month I travel extensively throughout the country, previous borders around most of the country, on Sundays most villages. The theme is called "the road to peace and national unity." I do ten, twenty minutes presentation in the local language and people are supposed to contribute with comments, with questions, with challenges, on what it takes to build this peace and national unity in East Timor. And you know what I never hear a single question from the people on this abstract thing. The questions they are motivated by are focus on the thing: they go back to roads, to telephones, to electricity, to jobs. They sometimes even joke with me. Mr. President, we really like your road to peace, but we prefer a road to our village.
...
And together with China we are one of the countries financing U.S. debt. We have 5 million dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds. And we are told by United States that we are failed state. We are paying for your debt and we are "failed state"?
...
As I listened to President Obama the other day, I was sitting on the Security Council listening to his proposal for a nuclear free world, I had but only fear and sympathy for him. Fear in the sense that it's far too big agenda. As I listened to him, I thought, how is he going to help India and Pakistan resolve their border disputes, how is he going to help India and China resolve their border disputes? Before you can think of nuclear disarmament within this particular region, you have to think of the border disputes and poverty. Without that, why would Pakistan sell any nuclear weapons? Without nuclear weapons, it's no match to an India that's at least ten times bigger than Pakistan. Nuclear weapons are shortcuts to superpower status. To convince countries to surrender such powerful tools, you have to work on the ground.
...
Why on Earth in Timor are we still unable to catch rain water? The rain falls down the mountains wash everything into the sea. Maybe ten years, twenty years from now we will have found technology that makes our energy cheap and simple. Today all of these politically correct speeches about renewable energy but at my end of the world it's still far too expensive. So you people are the ones who can save humanity from environmental catastrophe.