Jose Ramos-Horta, President of East Timor
MIT Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship
The Legatum Lecture Series
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
September 29, 2009
Thank you for the invitation by the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship in bringing me here. This is not first time I come to MIT and I came here over the years. I came here in 80s and 90s to meet with the great professor from here, the only academic at the time who spoke thoroughly about East Timor throughout the U.S. and in the world, and that was Noam Chomsky--who obviously became even more famous, if he were not already famous enough when Hugo Chavez made reference to his book in a TV interview in New York a year, two years ago. I wish I had given a book of mine to Hugo Chavez.
[audience laughter]
And so Noam Chomsky I've been eternally, I've been, I have not seen him in many years but he was one of the few voices of conscience around the world who kept on educating people about East Timor. The theme I over will speak the challenges of nation building.
It is now seven years since the transfer of sovereignty from United Nations to Timor-Leste. The transfer of sovereignty was effected on May 20, 2002, by the then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, after about two years of United Nations administered transition in Timor-Leste from October '99, when UNTA the United Nations Transitions Authority was created, to May 2002, roughly two and half years.
In attempting to pull together the basics of a nation state, only the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, can actually believe that a nation state can be built up in two years. Obviously, the responsibility of that assumption does not belong belong or blame only to the UN. Many East Timorese, compadres of mine in the leadership at the time, were also over patriotic or enthusiastic and found that two years was too long. After five hundred years some were very impatient with the UN. Well, good reason to be impatient with the UN because the UN was not all patient after World War II to create nation states. It was essentially created obviously for vague on a peace and security after World War II, peacekeeping. But it oversaw some quick expeditious decolonization in Africa, Arabia...But not ever before it overseen an actual transition building up a post conflict, post colonial territory towards independence.
And but some of my compatriots should be held responsible or take credit for the UN short transition in Timor. I was the lonely voice in New York at the time arguing with the then head of United Nations peacekeeping...that we need at least a five year transition. Well, he told me, and rightly, that if I were able to persuade Security Council for a two year mission, I would be lucky. Well, that's what the UN did: approve a mission of two years. Well, a few years later I was addressing the UN Security Council in New York from I departed from my prepared text to a more informal conversational explain to Security Council members and I asked the Security Council members whether they had thought or imagined how long it would take in Long Island, since they live there they should be familiar with the, how long it would take to have a small business, one of those popular Chinese takeaway business, to be effective, to be viable, to be sustainable, to turn out profit. Of course, I never had that experience to run a takeaway. But I thought I need at least two years.
Well, later a young, enterprising American friend of mine who ended up in East Timor and now who is in Singapore, she told me it takes five, six, seven years to really have a solid business. So anyway I told the Security Council: two years. And do you think you can have a nation state built up in two years when even a takeaway business cannot?
[audience laughter]
Well after that I went to lunch with all the Security Council members. The Ambassador of Ghana said the following: when he walked into the Security Council building it was with the mind that he would not support the extension of UN mandate in Timor, but he said when I heard you comparing nation building compared with takeaway business, he said, I changed my mind and supported the extension of UN mission in East Timor.
Well, of course, it's not the fault of the Secretary-General. The people around him when they design missions they are constrained by the Budget Committee. They are constrained particularly by the Parliament members, particularly countries like the United States, that whenever there is a major UN peacekeeping mission they have the so-called assessed contribution whereby automatically the US has to foot 25% of the bill of a peacekeeping mission. So the the United States and countries like France, UK, they pay the most, Japan, they are very reluctant. Russia, China are not terribly reluctant because they pay less, much much less. Their assessed contribution is not, it is made on their GDP, it is not made on the basis of their purchasing power. Some countries are suggesting that the assessed contribution be made on the basis of their purchasing power which would contribute China's contribution maybe 20%.
So we had the transition for two years, and what was transferred to us on the midnight of 19 May 2002? Well, I don't know if you are familiar with East Timor but briefly in '99 whatever was there, infrastructures and what was built by Indonesia--Indonesia was there for twenty-four years--that calamity, a human calamity occurred. Close to 200,000 people lost their lives.
But the same time they built enormous infrastructure. Thousands of kilometers roads, government buildings, schools, clinics. But all of that, in anger, in frustration was destroyed by Indonesian military orchestrated violence. The capital Dili was destroyed about 75%. The second town, Manatutu, my district, was destroyed 100%. Average throughout the country every district, south district, town, was destroyed 75, 80%. Half the population then about 900,000 in '99, more than 200,000 became displaced into West Timor, forcibly displaced. By 2002 the UN tried to restore basic services but restore basic services really. An administration didn't really exist. The national trade hardly exist. The economy was stand still because people were still dislocated. There was no major investment coming from the UN. The World Bank in account of rebuilding economic infrastructure. Most no plans, underprepared plans to speak of.
So what we received was really a sketch of a state, a skeleton of a state.
Of course, the UN helped, assisted us in reorganizing political party system, built the elections, constitutional assembly. The Constitutional Assembly drafted the Constitution. The Constitution was very much modeled after the Portuguese Constitution, a semi Presidential system. A few judges have short forces training in governing. We didn't have the judges. We didn't have the prosecutors. So this is what we received.
But this burden ias not the only burden we had to deal with. We had to deal with the psychological, emotional trauma of twenty-four years of violence, confounded by the most recent one, the 1999 violence. We had to start a process of national healing and reconciliation. And when you talk about national healing reconciliation in based on a previous twenty-four years of violence, where a third party is involved, so an external third party to say the least if not others who are indirectly involved, makes a situation far more difficult.
It is not reconciliation or healing like in South Africa. The words external responsibilities on what happened in South Africa, but it was people there black and white and the vice versa it was there. Or like it was in Guatemala. There was not a third party. 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 twenty-four years by the 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 in 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. Soon after the violence in '99 I ambassadorial went to Indonesia more than once.
The then Indonesia President Abdurrahman ad-Dakhil Wahid came to Timor in January 2000. President Megawati Sukarnoputri the newly elected attended our independence celebration in the evening of May 20, May 19, 2002. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of the elect recently made East Timor his first overseas state visit in 2004, 2005. All East Timorese, most East Timorese displaced persons have returned. Have returned. Many thousands still live in West Timor but they have taken Indonesian citizenship. Our border, east and west, the quietest of any border anywhere in the world.
This was not so the case in 2000, for instance. Most analysts at the time writing on East Timor, they thought the biggest security challenges facing East Timor in the future would come from across the border. Well, they all proved to be wrong. Credit to Estanislau da Silva particularly to the current President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono he and others managed first to calm down the military who were forced out of East Timor, the very town army that is forced out of the territory they consider to be theirs, profoundly wounded and traumatized. They had to calm them down but also calm down the so-called militias. Hundreds of them, thousands of them, were for one reason or another loyal to Indonesia and they did their job. But their job was done by them and also with out support or our own efforts in pursuing reconciliation. No revenge.
And that's what has brought us peace in our borders, brought us these exceptional good relations with Indonesia, people to people, and 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 representative 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 the incipient East Timorese district court.
And a few months ago I received two Western ambassadors. Well, I had woken up that morning in good mood for some reason.
[audience laughter]
And so I start work, patiently, to 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.
[audience laughter]
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, you know, and they were very pleased that I was so understanding.
[audience laughter]
Anyway. So there has been this debate going on.
The Secretary-General I saw him yesterday in New York. He raised also the issue of justice and impunity. And I respond to the Secretary-General, and I say what I responded was what I told him was not new I said in a public speech August 30 and I said in a press release. I said, Mr. Secretary-General, what we are doing, what we have been doing for the past eight years is no different than what South Africa did after the end of apartheid, no different from what Portugal did at the end of the dictatorship in '74 when transition from dictatorship to democracy, it didn't go around setting up tribunal to try everyone that served the dictatorship in the past. Or Spain, the transition from Franco to democracy, they didn't set up tribunal to try everyone. Or Mozambique had a civil war for over ten years, more than a million people killed, they reach an agreement, peace agreement, one of the most successful peace agreements ever, brokered by the Community of Sant'Egidio that is connected to the Vatican. And no one responsible for the violence, for the civil war, were brought to trial in Mozambique.
And because I told the Secretary-General, we all begin we all have this habit of repeating academic jargons. Someone, somewhere, one day wrote a sentence saying, "lack of justice encourages impunity" so we all start repeating it. "Lack of justice encourages impunity". Well, I point facts that challenge these academic jargons.
Would we say that because there was lack of justice in pursuing those responsible for crimes against humanity in South Africa, apartheid era, from architects and executioners of apartheid, there have been impunity for South Africa? There is violence. There is crime as elsewhere, but it has nothing to do with apartheid. It has to do with conditions today in South Africa that are pervasive in many other countries. Poverty in neighborhoods.
Are we saying that the violence in the favelas in Rio has to do with the fact that in the post Brazil dictatorship there were no trials of those responsible for the violence in the past in the Brazilian dictatorship? Or are we saying, are we surprised that transition to democracy in Portugal and Spain without bringing to justice anyone, a single individual, responsible for violence in the previous fifty years has not actually produced instability, impunity in Portugal and Spain? Are models of stability and tolerant injustice.
Or we say there is impunity in United States because after the carpet bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, no one was prosecuted so rule of law does not exist in United States because there was no justice for the crimes in Vietnam.
Well, I simply do not simply do not simplistically or naively swallow academic jargons. And that's what I told Secretary-General. Suddenly everybody repeats the same thing. Recently, Amnesty International issued a statement, then High Commission of Human Rights in Geneva issued a statement, forcing countries like East Timor, if you do not 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 the sensitive 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.
[audience coughs]
As it happened in Chile, I was there some over ten years ago, Chileans were angry as they saw Pinochet elements circulating around with elements freely. At the time it was next to impossible, unthinkable to bring to trial the end of pro Pinochet Pinochet elements but as democracy progressed and consolidated in Chile, they brought Pinochet to trial. Today it would be unthinkable that the military would come to the states in Chile. Democracy is gaining roots.
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 '90, 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 Jusuf Habibie, the situation was literally chaotic in Indonesia following the financial crisis in 1998, the fall of Suharto, and yet the weak President Jusuf Habibie 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 given under Suharto was always a very proud country of it's international standing. And Timor a worse embarrassment to them, so they decided to listen.
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, internally in my country, and in the relationship with our neighbors.
If we were to have an international tribunal, I'd say to 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 in self-defense? 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 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.
And in these years of mine has been said again and again in my country, in East Timor, and yet I was elected with 70% of the vote, and in a recent international survey of popularity of leaders in the country done by the International Republican Institute, I was given 82% approval ratings. If this issue of justice was identified as the number one issue of concern and I'm identified as weak on the accounts of justice, well, then, my popularity would be like maybe 8%. I don't hide from the people, that's what I tell the people.
I have a TV program. Once a month I travel extensively throughout the country, pre recorded around the country in some remote 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.
[audience laughter]
And in my last TV program only two weeks ago in a very remote place called Ilon in the south coast, the roads are horrendous to get there, several hours when here it takes only one hour to get to the place of the same distance, I took some cabinet ministers with me. The head of public works was there. And when there were specific questions that were not my responsibility I passed on to the head of education to the public works. Well, when I spoke normally I have a polite applause. But when the gentleman from public works spoke and explained government policy in 2009 and 2010, he was interrupted so many times with applause because he explained about the roads and bridges in the area. That's what people care today in my country. Even the issue of peace and security is no longer an issue.
Three years ago when I was Prime Minister, I was Foreign Minister, I had to fend questions every day about security, about more police here. Now not a single question on police, on army, on security. They all on ask about number one, I would say roads, number two, water supply, number three, electricity, number four, they're complaining about lack of telephone coverage in the area or if there is coverage it's bad and expensive. So that's what people worry often about. And even on violence I can share with you some statistics on violence in East Timor compared with United States.
[audience laughter]
And these are not of my making. These are from the UN police. Assault, assault data counties comparison data. South Africa per 100,000, 1,207. Australia. That was in 2007, 2008. Australia, 796 per 100,000. USA, 795 cases per 100,000 people. The world at large average 250 cases, Ireland, Republic of Ireland 247 cases. East Timor 169 cases per 100,000.
That's to say how far we have progressed in securing peace stability in the country.
A few weeks ago one of the famous American journals, I think Foreign Policy, you probably have seen it on Internet, said East Timor is a failed state.
Well, how can one be a failed state? Our criminality rate is lower than the United States' by far. We don't have a single debt, a single dollar in foreign debt. We are zero debt in terms of international loans. Not only that, in 2008, our economy grow grow 12.3% last year. This year INF estimate our economy will grow at least 9%. I believe much more, at least 11, 12% again. Agricultural output gone up considerably in only one, two years since we invest more seriously on agriculture to ensure food security. And together with China Timor-Leste is one of the countries financing U.S. debt. We have 5 million dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds.
[audience laughter]
And we are told by United States that we are failed state. We are paying for your debt and we are failed state?
[audience laughter]
This was not U.S. administration but infamous foreign policy. Of course, this does not mean this statistical data is permanent and that things are completely stable. No. We have to continue to strengthen the reforms in our security sector, police, army that were the source of what happened in 2006. We have to continue in invest in education which we are doing. From our own oil money, we are paying for the students in East Timor, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in Australia. We are investing more in agriculture to ensure food security. Peace is still precarious. It's still fragile because our institutions are fragile. But we have continued to work on that to ensure that in the next few years we will deliver a country that is deserving of the people who have paid such a big price.
And last but not least, speaking here, having me here since yesterday I meeting with some of the best and the brightest of the center for the Legatum Center, I hope that Timor-Leste and MIT can develop a working and active partnership where some of you, many of you could use some of your expertise, your experience, your brains in helping us where we lack most. Because once we figure out we can have a lot of revenue from oil and gas but not having creative mind, experience people who can figure out where to invest, how to do to set up businesses.
Some people talk often about the oil curse. One of the jargons of the year. For me it's not oil curse. For me it's corruption curse. There is no oil curse in Norway. There is oil curse elsewhere. It depends on leadership and policy and so on. If we use the funds the money we have available in intelligent, coherent way with your help, we can really transform the country.
The country is wide open, virgin territory, where a lot of investors are coming in today. They are flying into Timor from Singapore, Bali, everyday. All hotels are full. Even new hotels going up. So I hope some of you will find the time and help come and build our country.
And a message for you, as I have said many time to East Timorese and other young people around the world. We can be as useful to humanity to our community that we have a conscience, we have a soul. Having an academic degree the best education but without a sense of solidarity a feeling that we are a part of this planet when there are so many people who are not as privileged as we are. What is worth all that effort in studying in a classroom? I told one young Timorese many many years ago who asked advice. I said study study and study, not to be good, not to be better, but to be the best and take pride in your family, your community, and your country and to serve the country and humanity. That is my advice.
I believe with the challenges that the international community face, I have to tell you 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.
MIT Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship
The Legatum Lecture Series
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
September 29, 2009
Thank you for the invitation by the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship in bringing me here. This is not first time I come to MIT and I came here over the years. I came here in 80s and 90s to meet with the great professor from here, the only academic at the time who spoke thoroughly about East Timor throughout the U.S. and in the world, and that was Noam Chomsky--who obviously became even more famous, if he were not already famous enough when Hugo Chavez made reference to his book in a TV interview in New York a year, two years ago. I wish I had given a book of mine to Hugo Chavez.
[audience laughter]
And so Noam Chomsky I've been eternally, I've been, I have not seen him in many years but he was one of the few voices of conscience around the world who kept on educating people about East Timor. The theme I over will speak the challenges of nation building.
It is now seven years since the transfer of sovereignty from United Nations to Timor-Leste. The transfer of sovereignty was effected on May 20, 2002, by the then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, after about two years of United Nations administered transition in Timor-Leste from October '99, when UNTA the United Nations Transitions Authority was created, to May 2002, roughly two and half years.
In attempting to pull together the basics of a nation state, only the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, can actually believe that a nation state can be built up in two years. Obviously, the responsibility of that assumption does not belong belong or blame only to the UN. Many East Timorese, compadres of mine in the leadership at the time, were also over patriotic or enthusiastic and found that two years was too long. After five hundred years some were very impatient with the UN. Well, good reason to be impatient with the UN because the UN was not all patient after World War II to create nation states. It was essentially created obviously for vague on a peace and security after World War II, peacekeeping. But it oversaw some quick expeditious decolonization in Africa, Arabia...But not ever before it overseen an actual transition building up a post conflict, post colonial territory towards independence.
And but some of my compatriots should be held responsible or take credit for the UN short transition in Timor. I was the lonely voice in New York at the time arguing with the then head of United Nations peacekeeping...that we need at least a five year transition. Well, he told me, and rightly, that if I were able to persuade Security Council for a two year mission, I would be lucky. Well, that's what the UN did: approve a mission of two years. Well, a few years later I was addressing the UN Security Council in New York from I departed from my prepared text to a more informal conversational explain to Security Council members and I asked the Security Council members whether they had thought or imagined how long it would take in Long Island, since they live there they should be familiar with the, how long it would take to have a small business, one of those popular Chinese takeaway business, to be effective, to be viable, to be sustainable, to turn out profit. Of course, I never had that experience to run a takeaway. But I thought I need at least two years.
Well, later a young, enterprising American friend of mine who ended up in East Timor and now who is in Singapore, she told me it takes five, six, seven years to really have a solid business. So anyway I told the Security Council: two years. And do you think you can have a nation state built up in two years when even a takeaway business cannot?
[audience laughter]
Well after that I went to lunch with all the Security Council members. The Ambassador of Ghana said the following: when he walked into the Security Council building it was with the mind that he would not support the extension of UN mandate in Timor, but he said when I heard you comparing nation building compared with takeaway business, he said, I changed my mind and supported the extension of UN mission in East Timor.
Well, of course, it's not the fault of the Secretary-General. The people around him when they design missions they are constrained by the Budget Committee. They are constrained particularly by the Parliament members, particularly countries like the United States, that whenever there is a major UN peacekeeping mission they have the so-called assessed contribution whereby automatically the US has to foot 25% of the bill of a peacekeeping mission. So the the United States and countries like France, UK, they pay the most, Japan, they are very reluctant. Russia, China are not terribly reluctant because they pay less, much much less. Their assessed contribution is not, it is made on their GDP, it is not made on the basis of their purchasing power. Some countries are suggesting that the assessed contribution be made on the basis of their purchasing power which would contribute China's contribution maybe 20%.
So we had the transition for two years, and what was transferred to us on the midnight of 19 May 2002? Well, I don't know if you are familiar with East Timor but briefly in '99 whatever was there, infrastructures and what was built by Indonesia--Indonesia was there for twenty-four years--that calamity, a human calamity occurred. Close to 200,000 people lost their lives.
But the same time they built enormous infrastructure. Thousands of kilometers roads, government buildings, schools, clinics. But all of that, in anger, in frustration was destroyed by Indonesian military orchestrated violence. The capital Dili was destroyed about 75%. The second town, Manatutu, my district, was destroyed 100%. Average throughout the country every district, south district, town, was destroyed 75, 80%. Half the population then about 900,000 in '99, more than 200,000 became displaced into West Timor, forcibly displaced. By 2002 the UN tried to restore basic services but restore basic services really. An administration didn't really exist. The national trade hardly exist. The economy was stand still because people were still dislocated. There was no major investment coming from the UN. The World Bank in account of rebuilding economic infrastructure. Most no plans, underprepared plans to speak of.
So what we received was really a sketch of a state, a skeleton of a state.
Of course, the UN helped, assisted us in reorganizing political party system, built the elections, constitutional assembly. The Constitutional Assembly drafted the Constitution. The Constitution was very much modeled after the Portuguese Constitution, a semi Presidential system. A few judges have short forces training in governing. We didn't have the judges. We didn't have the prosecutors. So this is what we received.
But this burden ias not the only burden we had to deal with. We had to deal with the psychological, emotional trauma of twenty-four years of violence, confounded by the most recent one, the 1999 violence. We had to start a process of national healing and reconciliation. And when you talk about national healing reconciliation in based on a previous twenty-four years of violence, where a third party is involved, so an external third party to say the least if not others who are indirectly involved, makes a situation far more difficult.
It is not reconciliation or healing like in South Africa. The words external responsibilities on what happened in South Africa, but it was people there black and white and the vice versa it was there. Or like it was in Guatemala. There was not a third party. 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 twenty-four years by the 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 in 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. Soon after the violence in '99 I ambassadorial went to Indonesia more than once.
The then Indonesia President Abdurrahman ad-Dakhil Wahid came to Timor in January 2000. President Megawati Sukarnoputri the newly elected attended our independence celebration in the evening of May 20, May 19, 2002. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of the elect recently made East Timor his first overseas state visit in 2004, 2005. All East Timorese, most East Timorese displaced persons have returned. Have returned. Many thousands still live in West Timor but they have taken Indonesian citizenship. Our border, east and west, the quietest of any border anywhere in the world.
This was not so the case in 2000, for instance. Most analysts at the time writing on East Timor, they thought the biggest security challenges facing East Timor in the future would come from across the border. Well, they all proved to be wrong. Credit to Estanislau da Silva particularly to the current President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono he and others managed first to calm down the military who were forced out of East Timor, the very town army that is forced out of the territory they consider to be theirs, profoundly wounded and traumatized. They had to calm them down but also calm down the so-called militias. Hundreds of them, thousands of them, were for one reason or another loyal to Indonesia and they did their job. But their job was done by them and also with out support or our own efforts in pursuing reconciliation. No revenge.
And that's what has brought us peace in our borders, brought us these exceptional good relations with Indonesia, people to people, and 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 representative 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 the incipient East Timorese district court.
And a few months ago I received two Western ambassadors. Well, I had woken up that morning in good mood for some reason.
[audience laughter]
And so I start work, patiently, to 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.
[audience laughter]
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, you know, and they were very pleased that I was so understanding.
[audience laughter]
Anyway. So there has been this debate going on.
The Secretary-General I saw him yesterday in New York. He raised also the issue of justice and impunity. And I respond to the Secretary-General, and I say what I responded was what I told him was not new I said in a public speech August 30 and I said in a press release. I said, Mr. Secretary-General, what we are doing, what we have been doing for the past eight years is no different than what South Africa did after the end of apartheid, no different from what Portugal did at the end of the dictatorship in '74 when transition from dictatorship to democracy, it didn't go around setting up tribunal to try everyone that served the dictatorship in the past. Or Spain, the transition from Franco to democracy, they didn't set up tribunal to try everyone. Or Mozambique had a civil war for over ten years, more than a million people killed, they reach an agreement, peace agreement, one of the most successful peace agreements ever, brokered by the Community of Sant'Egidio that is connected to the Vatican. And no one responsible for the violence, for the civil war, were brought to trial in Mozambique.
And because I told the Secretary-General, we all begin we all have this habit of repeating academic jargons. Someone, somewhere, one day wrote a sentence saying, "lack of justice encourages impunity" so we all start repeating it. "Lack of justice encourages impunity". Well, I point facts that challenge these academic jargons.
Would we say that because there was lack of justice in pursuing those responsible for crimes against humanity in South Africa, apartheid era, from architects and executioners of apartheid, there have been impunity for South Africa? There is violence. There is crime as elsewhere, but it has nothing to do with apartheid. It has to do with conditions today in South Africa that are pervasive in many other countries. Poverty in neighborhoods.
Are we saying that the violence in the favelas in Rio has to do with the fact that in the post Brazil dictatorship there were no trials of those responsible for the violence in the past in the Brazilian dictatorship? Or are we saying, are we surprised that transition to democracy in Portugal and Spain without bringing to justice anyone, a single individual, responsible for violence in the previous fifty years has not actually produced instability, impunity in Portugal and Spain? Are models of stability and tolerant injustice.
Or we say there is impunity in United States because after the carpet bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, no one was prosecuted so rule of law does not exist in United States because there was no justice for the crimes in Vietnam.
Well, I simply do not simply do not simplistically or naively swallow academic jargons. And that's what I told Secretary-General. Suddenly everybody repeats the same thing. Recently, Amnesty International issued a statement, then High Commission of Human Rights in Geneva issued a statement, forcing countries like East Timor, if you do not 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 the sensitive 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.
[audience coughs]
As it happened in Chile, I was there some over ten years ago, Chileans were angry as they saw Pinochet elements circulating around with elements freely. At the time it was next to impossible, unthinkable to bring to trial the end of pro Pinochet Pinochet elements but as democracy progressed and consolidated in Chile, they brought Pinochet to trial. Today it would be unthinkable that the military would come to the states in Chile. Democracy is gaining roots.
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 '90, 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 Jusuf Habibie, the situation was literally chaotic in Indonesia following the financial crisis in 1998, the fall of Suharto, and yet the weak President Jusuf Habibie 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 given under Suharto was always a very proud country of it's international standing. And Timor a worse embarrassment to them, so they decided to listen.
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, internally in my country, and in the relationship with our neighbors.
If we were to have an international tribunal, I'd say to 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 in self-defense? 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 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.
And in these years of mine has been said again and again in my country, in East Timor, and yet I was elected with 70% of the vote, and in a recent international survey of popularity of leaders in the country done by the International Republican Institute, I was given 82% approval ratings. If this issue of justice was identified as the number one issue of concern and I'm identified as weak on the accounts of justice, well, then, my popularity would be like maybe 8%. I don't hide from the people, that's what I tell the people.
I have a TV program. Once a month I travel extensively throughout the country, pre recorded around the country in some remote 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.
[audience laughter]
And in my last TV program only two weeks ago in a very remote place called Ilon in the south coast, the roads are horrendous to get there, several hours when here it takes only one hour to get to the place of the same distance, I took some cabinet ministers with me. The head of public works was there. And when there were specific questions that were not my responsibility I passed on to the head of education to the public works. Well, when I spoke normally I have a polite applause. But when the gentleman from public works spoke and explained government policy in 2009 and 2010, he was interrupted so many times with applause because he explained about the roads and bridges in the area. That's what people care today in my country. Even the issue of peace and security is no longer an issue.
Three years ago when I was Prime Minister, I was Foreign Minister, I had to fend questions every day about security, about more police here. Now not a single question on police, on army, on security. They all on ask about number one, I would say roads, number two, water supply, number three, electricity, number four, they're complaining about lack of telephone coverage in the area or if there is coverage it's bad and expensive. So that's what people worry often about. And even on violence I can share with you some statistics on violence in East Timor compared with United States.
[audience laughter]
And these are not of my making. These are from the UN police. Assault, assault data counties comparison data. South Africa per 100,000, 1,207. Australia. That was in 2007, 2008. Australia, 796 per 100,000. USA, 795 cases per 100,000 people. The world at large average 250 cases, Ireland, Republic of Ireland 247 cases. East Timor 169 cases per 100,000.
That's to say how far we have progressed in securing peace stability in the country.
A few weeks ago one of the famous American journals, I think Foreign Policy, you probably have seen it on Internet, said East Timor is a failed state.
Well, how can one be a failed state? Our criminality rate is lower than the United States' by far. We don't have a single debt, a single dollar in foreign debt. We are zero debt in terms of international loans. Not only that, in 2008, our economy grow grow 12.3% last year. This year INF estimate our economy will grow at least 9%. I believe much more, at least 11, 12% again. Agricultural output gone up considerably in only one, two years since we invest more seriously on agriculture to ensure food security. And together with China Timor-Leste is one of the countries financing U.S. debt. We have 5 million dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds.
[audience laughter]
And we are told by United States that we are failed state. We are paying for your debt and we are failed state?
[audience laughter]
This was not U.S. administration but infamous foreign policy. Of course, this does not mean this statistical data is permanent and that things are completely stable. No. We have to continue to strengthen the reforms in our security sector, police, army that were the source of what happened in 2006. We have to continue in invest in education which we are doing. From our own oil money, we are paying for the students in East Timor, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in Australia. We are investing more in agriculture to ensure food security. Peace is still precarious. It's still fragile because our institutions are fragile. But we have continued to work on that to ensure that in the next few years we will deliver a country that is deserving of the people who have paid such a big price.
And last but not least, speaking here, having me here since yesterday I meeting with some of the best and the brightest of the center for the Legatum Center, I hope that Timor-Leste and MIT can develop a working and active partnership where some of you, many of you could use some of your expertise, your experience, your brains in helping us where we lack most. Because once we figure out we can have a lot of revenue from oil and gas but not having creative mind, experience people who can figure out where to invest, how to do to set up businesses.
Some people talk often about the oil curse. One of the jargons of the year. For me it's not oil curse. For me it's corruption curse. There is no oil curse in Norway. There is oil curse elsewhere. It depends on leadership and policy and so on. If we use the funds the money we have available in intelligent, coherent way with your help, we can really transform the country.
The country is wide open, virgin territory, where a lot of investors are coming in today. They are flying into Timor from Singapore, Bali, everyday. All hotels are full. Even new hotels going up. So I hope some of you will find the time and help come and build our country.
And a message for you, as I have said many time to East Timorese and other young people around the world. We can be as useful to humanity to our community that we have a conscience, we have a soul. Having an academic degree the best education but without a sense of solidarity a feeling that we are a part of this planet when there are so many people who are not as privileged as we are. What is worth all that effort in studying in a classroom? I told one young Timorese many many years ago who asked advice. I said study study and study, not to be good, not to be better, but to be the best and take pride in your family, your community, and your country and to serve the country and humanity. That is my advice.
I believe with the challenges that the international community face, I have to tell you 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.