The Problem of East Timor Genocide

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

The problem of genocide is often considered as one of the most controversial issues in the world history because this question involves the discussion of a lot of cruel massacres, and the main reason for them is the destruction of the certain ethnical group which can occupy the definite territories.

It is also important to pay attention to the necessity to distinguish between such notions as ‘genocide’ and ‘democide’ because of the similar nature of the concepts, but these notions are different in such an aspect as the role of the ethnicity and nationality in this process¹.

According to the investigations of many researchers, the situation in East Timor during the period of 1975-1999 is traditionally related to the problem of genocide because the actions of the authorities are discussed as the intents to destroy the population in East Timor as the definite ethnic group, using violence and discrimination as the main methods²³.

To understand the peculiarities of genocide against the native people at the territories of East Timor, it is necessary to focus on examining such aspects as the causes for the genocide, the techniques used by the perpetrators for its realisation, the consequences of the process, and the position of the international authorities in relation to solving the problem in East Timor.

The Problem of Genocide in East Timor

The events and processes which are traditionally discussed by historians, sociologists, and politicians as the features of the genocide in East Timor were observed at the territories during the period of 1975-1999, unless East Timor began its way to the independence which was proclaimed in 2002.

Nevertheless, the negative consequences of the decades of suffering from the genocide provided by the Indonesian forces remain the influential factor for the development of this new state. The Indonesian President Suharto and the military authorities controlling the forces of the state are discussed as the violent perpetrators in the situation of discriminating the population of East Timor with following the goal to kill the representatives of this ethnic group⁴.

Being opposite to the local Revolutionary Front of Independent East Timor (Fretilin), the Indonesian forces realised the democide of the population according to their political views and their support of the idea of the territories’ independence. Moreover, the ethnical genocide became the main feature of the period, and it resulted in the mass killings of the Timorese people.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is an action or process “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”⁵.

The definite factors are presented in the Convention which can be discussed as significant for determining this or that action as an example of genocide. The perpetrators of the genocide in East Timor realised the physical genocide because they killed people depending on their ethnical identity and caused bodily or mental harm to the representatives of the ethnicity. The Indonesian militia also forced the population of East Timor to live in the concentration camps, suffer from starvation and do the work which was dangerous for their lives.

Thus, they discriminated and humiliated the population. Jones also concentrates on the fact the situation in East Timor can also be discussed as the ‘gendercide’ when males and females were discriminated according to their gender. Men were killed at the concentration camps in the first turn because they were discussed as the threat of the opposition, and women were forcibly sterilised in order to prevent the further births⁶.

Thus, the aspects of the physical and biological genocide were presented. Furthermore, the situation in East Timor can be analysed as the cultural genocide against the definite ethnical group with references to such factor as the discrimination of the language⁷. The range of aspects in relation to which it is possible to characterise the situation in East Timor allows speaking about the process as an example of genocide in the region.

The Background Events of the Genocide in East Timor

The history of the territories of East Timor is characterised by the prolonged periods of being the colonies of such countries as Portugal and Japan (during World War II).

When the period of the territories’ colonisation was ceased in 1975 the independently oriented representatives of the population organised the Revolutionary Front of Independent East Timor (Fretilin) in order to proclaim the independence of East Timor and take their independent position at the world political arena.

This force was supported by the majority of the population, but the Indonesian government hoped to re-establish the unity of the Indonesian territories and declared the annexation of the territories of East Timor by Indonesia in July of 1976⁸.

The fact of the annexation was supported by the active invasion of the Indonesian military forces which provided their violent actions against the native population at the territories. Thus, the great amounts of people were killed during 1975-1976 as a result of the opposition of the Indonesian forces and Fretilin.

The declaration of the annexation allowed the Indonesian government to use the power as the method to force the population of East Timor to admit the fact of the annexation and its dependence on the actions of the Indonesian government.

The Causes for the Genocide

Examining the peculiarities of developing the genocide in East Timor, it is possible to determine several groups of factors which can be discussed as influential causes for the problem. What ideas did the authorities of Indonesia paid attention to while implementing the genocide and the associated violent actions?

The President of Indonesia Suharto was ruled in his actions by the idea to unite all the territories of Indonesia under his control because the population of many islands was inclined to fight for a kind of autonomy or even independence from Jakarta, and the example of East Timor could be discussed as negative for preserving the control over the other islands.

Kiernan supports the opinion that along with the intention to preserve his control over the territories in the sphere of politics Suharto was also oriented to gaining the economic benefits from ruling East Timor⁹.

From this point, it is possible to explain the actions of Suharto in relation to the forced annexation of the territories, but the actual problem of the genocide’s causes at the territories requires its further discussion and analysis. Why was it necessary to kill thousands of people because of their ethnicity? Were all the genocide’s victims killed only because of the ethnical factor?

It is important to start the examination of the problem stating that the researchers have no single vision of the situation in East Timor as an example of a democide or genocide¹⁰.

In his work, Rummel concentrates on comparing and contrasting the notions of ‘democide’ and ‘genocide’. Democide is discussed as the mass murders of people with relation to their political views which are realised by the definite government or regime¹¹. Genocides differ from democides in the presence of the ethnical factor for killing people under the influence of the political forces.

To consider the actions as genocide or not, it is necessary to refer to the definition presented in the Convention. In spite of the fact the features of the violent actions against the population of East Timor are related to those significant points mentioned in the Convention, the main factor of discussing the mass killings as basing on the ethnical ground becomes arguable.

Saul focuses on the fact that the usage of the term ‘genocide’ in relation to the situation in East Timor is a controversial question because of the definite drawbacks which can be observed in the used formulation of the genocide problem¹².

Silove pays attention to the ‘intent’ as the basic concept depending on which the genocide in East Timor was realised¹³. From this point, the actions of the Indonesian government in relation to killing the thousands of people because of their opposition to the authorities and ethnicity can be discussed as intended. The problem is in the fact the population of East Timor could not be considered as belonging to one ethnicity.

The historic aspects of the territories’ development made the population rather diverse according to its ethnical origin. However, it is possible to examine the situation from the point that the Indonesian government with the help of militia realised discriminated and violent actions against all the representatives of the population at the definite territories¹⁴.

The genocide in East Timor was developed in association with such issues as the political opposition of the forces in relation to their ideological grounds. The majority of the population in East Timor oriented to Fretilin which activities were organised basing on the socialist’s ideas.

The Indonesian government supported the violent actions against the representatives of this socialist’s movement because its development was the threat for the authorities in Jakarta. Moreover, the genocide depended on the opposition of the religions. The Indonesians imposed the ideas of Islam as well as the other language upon the population which was predominately Catholic and spoke Portuguese. Thus, the elements of the ethnical genocide were combined with the religious and cultural discrimination of the Timorese people¹⁵.

The development of the genocide against the population of East Timor was a result of Suharto’s intent to preserve all the territories of Indonesia under his control and gain the definite economic benefits from the annexation of the territories. From this point, the genocide can be discussed only as the brutal method used by the Indonesian government to decrease the opposition of the population which differs in ethnicity, ideology, and religion and can be perceived as the threat for the regime¹⁶.

How Was the Genocide Undertaken?

The genocide can be implemented with the help of different techniques and methods the main result of which is the mass murders of those people who belong to the definite ethnical group. The genocide as the method of the group destruction can be realised not only by the hands of the militia or government’s forces but also with the help of the locally-raised forces and those people who are loyal to the regime or ideas of the authorities¹⁷.

According to the Convention, it is possible to determine the aspects of the physical genocide in relation to which researchers discuss the methods of the genocide. The Indonesian military forces intended to kill the Timorese people in spite of their gender or age, and thousands of persons suffered from the cruel tortures in the concentration camps¹⁸.

Proposing the notion of ‘gendercide’ to determine the peculiarities of the process, Jones focuses on killing men as the threat of the opposition to the authorities and on raping women as the way to demonstrate the absence of the rights for these people¹⁹. Moreover, women were sterilised or forced to use the chemical contraception.

The next point presented in the Convention is the fact of transferring children to another group. Thus, the Indonesian authorities organised the transferring of a lot of children to Indonesia in order to make them work as servants²⁰.

The perpetrators were successful in their actions because of the absence of limits of their cruelty and the silent position of the international organisations²¹. Moreover, Kiernan states that the USA provided the definite support for the forces of Indonesia²². Thus, the position of the perpetrators was more advantageous. The military forces contributed to executing thousands of men every year during the period of 1975-1999, firing their houses and bombing the streets, raping their wives and daughters.

It is impossible to state that the Indonesian military forces concentrated only on killing the representatives of the definite or concrete ethnical group. The whole population of East Timor even with references to its ethical and cultural diversity suffered from the genocide provided by the Indonesian authorities.

The key factor for determining the victims was the fact of living at the territories and the possible loyalty to the ideas of independence. The opposition was not comparable with the forces of the perpetrators because those people who were not killed died from the intensive labour and starvation in the concentration camps²³²⁴.

The Impact of the External Agencies in Stopping the Genocide

When the problem of East Timor became extremely influential, the United Nations declared their disapproval of the actions provided by the Indonesian authorities, but they did not propose any alternative decision in order to support the Timorese population during the period of 1975-1999. The United Nations supported the idea of plebiscite in 1999, but they enabled the Indonesian forces to provide the security during the process, indirectly protecting the perpetrators of the genocide at the territories²⁵.

In this situation, the drastic consequences of the plebiscite were not responded to by the United Nations, and their role can be discussed as rather controversial in the process of regulating the problem. Thus, the idea of the plebiscite developed depending on the negative reaction of the international communities and the threat of the political and economic crisis²⁶.

It is also important to pay attention to the roles of the USA, Great Britain, and Australia in developing the situation as the influential actors. Kiernan focuses on the fact that the Indonesian perpetrators “enjoyed diplomatic support from the United States, which continued after the genocides, including training and arming the Indonesian military.

Until the 1990s, Washington supported Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor”²⁷. Great Britain and Australia were not so active in supporting the regime in Indonesia as the USA, but the absence of the open condemnation was also significant for developing the problem.

The Long-Term Consequences of the Genocide

It is possible to concentrate on such long-term consequence of the genocide in East Timor as the economic and social instability in the new independent state influenced by the decades of the genocide. The fact that the general amount of victims of the genocide is more than 200,000 people is one of the most depressing points which are influential for the further development of the state and its nation²⁸.

The controversial issue of the refugees’ adaptation in the society and the problem of the ethnic group’s destruction in relation to its culture and language are also important to be solved effectively. Moreover, the problem of the responsibility for the genocide is not solved, and it requires the proper investigation of all the issues with references to the position of the international organisations.

The Role of the International Law in Dealing with the Perpetrators of the Genocide

The problem is in the fact the regulations and methods of the international law were rather ineffective for controlling the situation in East Timor when the Indonesian forces began their violent actions and developed the genocide against the Timorese population.

In spite of the fact the Indonesian authorities broke the rights of the nations to their self-determination, their actions were not openly discussed as illegal or breaking the norms of morality and international law because the main idea according to which Suharto provide his actions was the opposition to the threat of Socialism and Communism.

The fears of Communism were extremely intensive in the western society, and this situation was successfully used by the Indonesian government for realising its plan in relation to the annexation and further genocide²⁹.

The obvious international reaction to the activities of the Indonesian authorities was observed only after the Santa Cruz massacre when the soldiers were condemned, but amounts of the other soldiers and authorities were not condemned in relation to another murders of the civil population. Thus, it was impossible to rely on the international representatives in regulating the problem according to the principles of the international law³⁰.

Conclusion

The population of East Timor became the victims of the genocide realised by the Indonesian authorities because the Timorese people were opposed to the idea of integration to Indonesia. The orientation of the Timorese people to the ideals of independence resulted in the brutal killings of thousands of people who were suspected in supporting the opposite forces or belonged to the ethnical group of the Timorese people.

Thus, all the elements of genocide were realised in the actions of the Indonesian military forces. A lot of people were killed physically, and their culture and language were also prohibited and humiliated. Being discriminated by the invaders, the Timorese people had to suffer from tortures in the concentration camps.

The paradox of the situation was in the fact the international forces were unwilling to participate in the conflict or prevent the actions of the Indonesian authorities because of the extreme fear of Communism’s expansion, and Suharto justified the actions of his militia with references to the idea of opposing the socialist’s movement which developed in East Timor.

Bibliography

Alvarez, A., Militias and genocide, Psu, 2006. Web.

Bartu, P., ‘The militia, the military, and the people of Bobonaro district’, in D Kingsbury (ed.), Guns and ballot boxes. East Timor’s vote for independence, Monash Asia Institute, Clayton, 2000, pp. 81-98.

Charny, I., Encyclopedia of genocide, ABC-CLIO, USA, 1999.

Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Hrweb, 1997. Web.

Cribb, R., The Indonesian killings, Clayton, Monash Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Australia, 1990.

Davidson, L., Cultural genocide, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2012.

Dunn, J., ‘East Timor: a case of cultural genocide?’, in GJ Andreopoulos (ed.), Genocide: conceptual and historical dimensions, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 171-87.

Jones, A., Case study: East Timor (1975-99), Gendercide, 2002. Web.

Kiernan, B., Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2007.

Kiernan, B., War, genocide and resistance in East Timor, 1975-99: comparative reflections on Cambodia, Yale.edu, 2003. Web.

Linton, S., New approaches to international justice in Cambodia and East Timor, ICRC. Web.

Melson, R., Purify and destroy: the political uses of massacre and genocide, Oxford University Press, UK, 2009.

Nevins, J., A not-so-distant horror: mass violence in East Timor, Cornell University Press, USA, 2005.

Rummel, R., Democide versus genocide: which is what? Hawaii, 1998. Web.

Rummel, R., Genocide, Hawaii. Web.

Samuel, M., The slaughter of a nation: an investigation into the causation of Genocide, Rutgers. Web.

Santoso, A., How what of truth commission for East Timor? Yale, 2005. Web.

Saul, B., ‘Was the conflict in East Timor “genocide” and why does it matter?’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 2, 2004, pp. 477-522.

Silove, D., ‘Conflict in East Timor: genocide or expansionist occupation?’, Human Rights Review, vol. 3, no. 3, 2000, pp. 63-79.

Stanton, G. How We Can Prevent Genocide. Hawaii, 2003. Web.

Staub, E., The origins and prevention of genocide, mass killing, and other collective violence. Umass. Web.

Straus, S., The order of genocide, Syr. Web.

Timor-Leste: patterns of violence in a post-conflict society, Cdu. Web.

Trotter, P., Like lambs to the slaughter: the scope of and liability for international crimes in East Timor and the need for an international criminal tribunal, Nesl, 2001. Web.

Wright, H., Crimes that go unpunished: expanding the definition of genocide, Miami. Web.

Footnotes

I. Charny, Encyclopedia of genocide, ABC-CLIO, USA, 1999.
B. Kiernan, Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2007.
A. Santoso, How what of truth commission for East Timor? Yale, 2005.
G. Stanton. How We Can Prevent Genocide. Hawaii, 2003.
Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Hrweb, 1997.
A. Jones, Case study: East Timor (1975-99), Gendercide, 2002.
L. Davidson, Cultural genocide, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2012.
A. Jones, Case study: East Timor (1975-99).
B. Kiernan, War, genocide and resistance in East Timor, 1975-99: comparative reflections on Cambodia, Yale.
M. Samuel, The slaughter of a nation: an investigation into the causation of Genocide, Rutgers.
R. Rummel, Democide versus genocide: which is what? Hawaii, 1998.
B. Saul, ‘Was the conflict in East Timor “genocide” and why does it matter?’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 2, 2004, pp. 477-522.
D. Silove, ‘Conflict in East Timor: genocide or expansionist occupation?’, Human Rights Review, vol. 3, no. 3, 2000, pp. 63-79.
A. Alvarez, Militias and genocide, Psu, 2006.
J. Dunn, ‘East Timor: a case of cultural genocide?’, in GJ Andreopoulos (ed.), Genocide: conceptual and historical dimensions, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1994, pp. 171-87.
R. Cribb, The Indonesian killings, Clayton, Monash Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Australia, 1990.
P. Bartu, ‘The militia, the military, and the people of Bobonaro district’, in D Kingsbury (ed.), Guns and ballot boxes. East Timor’s vote for independence, Monash Asia Institute, Clayton, 2000, pp. 81-98.
R. Melson, Purify and destroy: the political uses of massacre and genocide, Oxford University Press, UK, 2009.
A. Jones, Case study: East Timor (1975-99), Gendercide, 2002.
P. Trotter, Like lambs to the slaughter: the scope of and liability for international crimes in East Timor and the need for an international criminal tribunal, Nesl, 2001.
S. Straus, The order of genocide, Syr.
B. Kiernan, War, genocide and resistance in East Timor, 1975-99: comparative reflections on Cambodia.
E. Staub, The origins and prevention of genocide, mass killing, and other collective violence, Umass.
Timor-Leste: patterns of violence in a post-conflict society, Cdu.
A. Jones, Case study: East Timor (1975-99), Gendercide.
R. Rummel, Genocide, Hawaii.
B. Kiernan, War, genocide and resistance in East Timor, 1975-99: comparative reflections on Cambodia, p. 225
J. Nevins, A not-so-distant horror: mass violence in East Timor, Cornell University Press, USA, 2005.
S. Linton, New approaches to international justice in Cambodia and East Timor, ICRC.
H. Wright, Crimes that go unpunished: expanding the definition of genocide, Miami.

Click Here To Order Now!