Thursday, September 2, 1999 -- HONG KONG -- If the United Nations was ever in doubt about the need for a multi-national 'rapid reaction force' -- well, that situation is unfolding in East Timor. After virtually ignoring the genocide against the East Timorese people since the Indonesian invasion in 1975 -- it took the massive upheavals that finally forced Suharto from office to give the UN the 'courage' to push through a referendum on the territory's future.

I suppose that given the various factors of the situation, an unarmed UN police presence to monitor the referendum process was the best option of a belated and bad job. Despite the lack of international protection, credit must be given to the people of East Timor for having the courage to turn out in such massive numbers to vote in the poll. All indications so far suggest an overwhelming rejection of the autonomy offer made by Suharto clone B.J. Habibie and his co-thugs in Jakarta.

But the Indonesian backed militia groups are now back on the streets - armed with automatic weapons. They are at the gates of the UN compound in Dili. What is the United Nations going to do about it? Well, if history is anything to go by, they'll wring their blood-stained hands while making heartfelt statements about the rights of individuals to that most basic of human rights -- life. And then they'll do nothing, probably.

From Srebrenica to Krajina, from Kosovo to Sudan, from Rwanda to East Timor, the United Nations has distinguished itself with its complete inability to protect civilians. So many considerations. Peacekeepers can't deploy unless the host country -- usually the one doing the killing - invites them in. Got to be something a bit wrong there, don't you think? And even if peacekeepers are deployed -- they follow the UN doctrine of 'when the going gets tough -- we get going, on the first transport outta here'.

What, exactly, are the criteria required before the United Nations will act to protect the rights and even the lives of innocent civilians? Under what circumstances will an individual nation or 'bloc' of nations act to protect the lives of people who can't protect themselves against an aggressor? And before anyone quotes the Kosovo intervention by NATO -- don't. But let's not get into that right now.

If, let's say, a force of Australian commandos zip-lined into Dili to secure the perimeter of the UN compound and shot any armed thugs who approached within a 100 meters, what would happen? If a couple of governments acted to seize any and all private assets of Indonesian politicians until they ordered their military to do what they are supposed to do, what would happen? What if a few administrations in the 'free world' decided to declare Indonesian military attaches 'persona non grata' and gave them 24 hours to leave? What would happen?

Sure, there'd be all sorts of protests. The United Nations might even go so far as to issue a resolution condemning a government that took such unilateral action. Obviously this is something that no government wants to risk. Hey, look what happened to Indonesia after it was condemned for its invasion of East Timor in 1975 and the subsequent genocide. Yes, take a good long look.

The former Conservative administration in Britain was reviled by Tony Blair's 'new' Labour for its contacts with the Suharto regime and the sale of military hardware to thugs who used it against civilians. A cornerstone of Blair's election campaign was a new 'moral' foreign policy. You might be surprised to learn that fewer applications to sell military hardware to Indonesia have been turned down since Blair took office than was the norm before. Moral foreign policy? The Brits might as well go into East Timor and shoot civilians themselves -- more efficient and cuts out the middleman. And it is not just the Brits.

There has to be some fundamental changes in the way the world as a whole and the United Nations in particular deals with the most obvious cases of government sponsored terrorism against its citizens. But since governments are notorious for their self interest and ambassadors to the United Nations are appointed by their respective governments, I ain't terribly optimistic.

---

I filed the above late Wednesday, probably at about the same time that BBC correspondent Jonathan Head was being kicked in the head and attacked with a rifle butt by pro-Jakarta thugs -- just twenty metres away from where an East Timorese man was hacked to death. All of this in colour, broadcast to our living rooms.

And where were the Indonesian police and military? Good question. 

But today, Thursday, UN spokesman Fred Ekhardt says at this time, the world body has no plans to send peacekeepers to East Timor. He says the conditions of the referendum agreement between Indonesia and Portugal - thrashed out under UN auspices -- give Indonesia sole responsibility for security.

Well, Indonesia are obviously keeping up their end of the bargain. Not.

Notwithstanding, Ekhardt says there are no plans at this time to ask Jakarta for a change to the terms of the agreement. Rather, Ekhardt says, the United Nations is 'pressing' Indonesia to 'work harder' to secure the environment. 

Meanwhile, UN special envoy Jamsheed Marker is in Jakarta. He's just received an assurance from military supremo, General Wiranto, that the Indonesian Army will deal with the violence. Phew, well, that's certainly a relief. Not.

Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says their ambassador to Jakarta is now in Dili. The diplomat has told the military commanders on the ground that they 'can' and indeed 'must' stop the violence. I bet those army types were quaking in their boots. Er, not. 

Downer also told Parliament, quote: "There are some who say that a peace enforcement operation should be sent into East Timor. A peace enforcement operation sent into East Timor against the wishes of Indonesia would be tantamount to a military attack on Indonesia. And that is not something that this country is even going to contemplate." 

What a man! Yeah, let's not upset the Indonesians! Y'know, as Jonathan Head mentioned in one of his reports, they're the folks who "at the drop of a hat will shoot unarmed students on the streets of Jakarta." Heaven forbid we upset them. Emphatic Not!

And here in Hong Kong we have honour to host a visit by the Canadian Secretary of State for Asia Pacific, Raymond Chan. He reckons it is not yet time to send peacekeepers to the troubled island. He says it is premature to send peacekeepers because -- get this -- East Timor is still under Indonesian sovereignty. Sovereignty? If air and seaborne invasion followed by genocide gives one the right to sovereignty, then I guess I have to bow to the Secretary's superior knowledge of these things. Not.

The Secretary is obviously well suited to his job and will go far in government and as a politician. 

As I finished the original draft of this column I expressed my lack of optimism. Well, today's events have deepened my pessimism.