Timor-Leste, 2004

In view of

time constraints, I shall share an abbreviated version of

my speech. The full text is being distributed in the

Hall. Please forgive me for skipping the usual formal

greetings to all the deserving dignitaries.

I first walked into this building in December

1975, in the midst of a North American winter, having

never seen snow in my life, to appear before the

Security Council. I learned then, and since, that not all

United Nations resolutions are implemented. But I also

learned that, in spite of its shortcomings and failings,

the United Nations offers us hope and that we must

cling to that hope, for it gives us the strength and the

courage to continue.

When the Secretary-General visited Timor-Leste

in May 2002 to preside over the formal transfer of

sovereignty to our elected President, I said to him:

“Mr. Secretary-General, you are going to lose your job

as President of Timor-Leste”. I can assure members

that Kofi Annan did not seem too upset to be

relinquishing that unpaid and difficult job. We thank

him for his wise stewardship of Timor-Leste’s

transition to independence.

We cannot fail to pay tribute to our beloved

friend, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was brutally

murdered in Iraq just over a year ago. Our people wept

over his death, but Sergio will always live in us. His

passage through Timor-Leste, his charisma, energy and

smile will be with us forever. Our tribute goes also to

all the United Nations personnel who lost their lives in

our country and in many other difficult regions around

the world.

We offer our sincere condolences and solidarity

to Russia, Spain, Indonesia and Australia — the latest

victims in a seemingly endless catalogue of barbarity

committed by fanatics.

It was only a little over two years ago that

Secretary-General Kofi Annan handed over power to

our elected President. Since then, we have made real

progress in several sectors, such as public

administration, education and health. Yet, we are

failing in other areas.

The most fragile sector of the Administration in

Timor-Leste is the judiciary. We have very few trained

judges, prosecutors or lawyers. We are committed to

creating a strong and independent judiciary, but that

achievement is still many years off. We thank those

countries that have assisted us in improving our

judiciary and we implore them to continue their efforts

for many years to come.

Our economy is limping along, although it is

doing much better than anticipated. We are confident

that in two to three years we will experience strong

economic growth as a result of revenues from oil and

gas, as well as capital investment in public

infrastructure, including roads, bridges, ports and

airports, telecommunications, public housing, health,

agriculture, fisheries and tourism. We should then be

able to begin drastically reducing unemployment and

poverty.

Here we wish to congratulate the Indonesian

people and their leaders for their great experiment in

democracy. Few imagined in 1999 that within only a

few years the fourth largest nation in the world — and

the largest Muslim country — would emerge as a

vibrant democracy.

Talks are under way between Australia and

Timor-Leste to rectify our differing interpretations of

international law and State practice as regards maritime

boundaries between coastal States. Timor-Leste shares

the view of the majority of the international

community that, where there are overlapping claims

between two coastal States, the principle of

equidistance should apply.

Allow me now to address some issues that are of

concern to us. In the past 20 years or so, our world has

been the stage for several major conflicts, including the

invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s,

which resulted in the death of over a million people.

Chemical and biological weapons were unleashed on

both civilians and combatants. Soon after the end of

the Iraq-Iran war, the same regime in Baghdad

launched another invasion, this time against the State

of Kuwait. Most of us have now relegated the

Cambodian tragedy of the 1970s to a footnote in our

intellectual memory, but let us not forget the almost

universal indifference of the international community

16

to the genocide unleashed by the Khmer Rouge in

Cambodia.

Like many of you, and millions of peace

marchers, we are opposed to violence and wars. But we

must ask ourselves some troubling questions. Should

we oppose the use of force even in the face of genocide

and ethnic cleansing? In the eternal dilemma of war

and peace there are pacifists and idealists who oppose

the use of force under any circumstances and there are

the realists who support the use of force under certain

circumstances, namely, if it has been sanctioned by the

Security Council. Those who are absolutely against the

use of force have been unable to articulate a better

strategy for dealing with the savagery of ethnic

cleansing and genocide. Patient diplomacy lasts as long

as it lasts; it might bear fruit, or it might not. Genocide,

however, continues as we can see in the Sudan where

thousands of our fellow human beings are dying right

now.

In the tragic case of Cambodia in the 1970s, the

world knew that an evil regime was deliberately

purging the nation and murdering hundreds of

thousands of innocent human beings. Yet, the Security

Council never even discussed the Khmer Rouge

genocide. Around the same time as the Cambodian

tragedy, genocide was taking place on the African

continent, in Uganda. The Security Council neither

debated nor took any action on the situation in Uganda

under Idi Amin. It required the moral courage of a

Julius Nyerere of the United Republic of Tanzania to

put an end to Idi Amin’s genocidal rule. We would ask,

if there had been a lone world leader with the moral

courage to order his country’s armed forces to

intervene in Rwanda in 1994, would he have been

hailed as a saviour or vilified as an aggressor?

In selectively recalling some of the most flagrant

cases of our collective failure to prevent wars and

genocide, our sole intention is to provoke reflection on

the failings and weaknesses of the United Nations with

a view to exploring ways of making our Organization a

more effective custodian of world peace.

Allow us to add some thoughts to the ongoing

debate as to how we can realize an improved United

Nations. We wish, however, to preface our views on

United Nations reform by stating that we do not

believe that a simple expansion of Security Council

membership will suffice to strengthen the United

Nations. It may make the Council more representative

by better reflecting current global demographics and

power-balances, but it will not necessarily make it

more effective.

That said, there is a clear need to expand

membership in the Security Council for non-permanent

and permanent members. Timor-Leste fully supports

the Franco-German initiative on United Nations

reforms. We also believe that the new expanded

Security Council should include countries like

Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil and one or

two from the African continent. But, to reassure you, I

should add that Timor-Leste is not seeking a permanent

seat in the Security Council for itself — please do not

worry about that.

We particularly support permanent membership

status for Indonesia because we believe in the need for

balanced representation within the Security Council,

encompassing all the world’s major civilizations and

faiths. Non-inclusion of Indonesia — the largest

secular Muslim country in the world — as a new

permanent member would again leave the Security

Council with a predominantly Christian representation.

Incidentally, my Government has already

received requests for support for a seat in Council for

as far ahead as 2020 and 2024. Moreover, on the basis

of the two-year rotation arrangement, it seems that

Timor-Leste, and many other small nations, will only

be able to offer its services to the Security Council

somewhere in 2049. Incidentally, we are very touched

that many delegations have already expressed support

for Timor-Leste for 2049.

The world is faced with a growing AIDS

pandemic, the epicentre of which is now shifting to

Asia. Moreover, malaria and tuberculosis have been

with us for many generations, yet there is no real

commitment of resources that will enable our scientists

and societies to address those epidemics.

The combined official development assistance

(ODA) of the rich industrialized countries does not

exceed US$ 50 billion annually. Compare that with the

more than US$ 300 billion those countries provide in

subsidies to their farmers and industries.

Weapons-producing countries are flooding the

world with all types of arms that fuel conflicts. There

must be a strict code of conduct on weapons exports

aimed at reducing the flow of conventional weapons to

poor countries and regions in conflict.

17

We in Timor-Leste do not wish to sound

ungrateful, but we have reason to be sceptical about

ODA that ends up back in the donor metropolis with

only a fraction of that much-publicized aid benefiting

the recipient country. There has to be a thorough

reform of ODA with a view to ensuring that developing

countries actually receive what is pledged. We wonder

sometimes about the usefulness of the endless

meetings, study trips, evaluations, feasibility studies

and other activities, when, in reality, all the

information required can be downloaded from the

Internet by a 7-year-old child. Actually my 10-year-old

niece, Sarah, does most of the Internet searches for me

and instead of paying an international consultant

something like $1,000 a day in consulting fees, she is

happy with two scoops of chocolate ice cream.

We join with the leaders of Brazil, Chile, France,

Spain and others in urging the rich of the North to

allocate 0.7 per cent of their national wealth to ODA,

thus meeting the target set by the United Nations. It is

perplexing that only four small rich countries have met

and/or exceeded that modest target.

Europe and the United States should gradually

eliminate all agricultural subsidies to their farmers that

kill competition and market access of poor countries.

We understand the political difficulties faced by some

friends in Europe and the United States when dealing

with the issue of subsidies. Hence, we believe that

developing countries, the European Union and the

United States should be able to reach a reasonable

compromise on this issue.

We conclude our remarks with reference to some

international situations. Regarding the ongoing conflict

in Western Sahara, we endorse the comments made by

His Excellency President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of

Algeria, a country that has contributed enormously to

the liberation of the African continent. On this issue,

our Government is guided by Algeria and the African

Union.

We appeal to our senior Asian leaders, in

particular, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to redouble

their efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict

in Myanmar.

On the subject of sanctions, we wish to appeal to

our friends in the United States Congress to rise above

their parochial politics and lift all forms of sanctions

on Cuba.

There is deep-seated resentment and anger among

Muslims and many non-Muslims around the world over

Israel’s policies that thwart Palestinian right to a

dignified existence and homeland.

The two-State solution agreed upon by all sides

has to be rapidly resurrected and implemented as a first

step towards durable peace in the region. The

Palestinian intifada and suicide-bombing, as well as the

Israeli policy of annexation and retaliation, have

deepened the anger and hatred. There has to be a way

out.

We hope that the United States, which initiated

the war in Iraq and gallantly freed the Iraqi people

from a tyrant, will go half-way and meet those on the

other side of the debate. The United States and its

allies should not shoulder the burden of Iraq alone.

The Euro-Atlantic partnership is the single most

important pillar of the world’s security and economic

well-being. Americans and Europeans share the same

values of democracy and freedom. Surely, they are

wise enough to overcome their differences, however

deep, and give the Iraqi people a chance to finally be

free and at peace among themselves and with their

neighbours. May God Almighty Bless You All.