Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (55034)	9/11/1999 11:11:00 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

It has been 20 years since I last opened an international law book so I hesitate to venture an opinion, but this is an informal place, so here goes. I believe you are correct about these issues: East Timor is under no obligation to honor treaties made by Indonesia. Unless it places itself under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, rulings of that court are not binding. I believe you incorrect about the legality of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. I do not think you will find any international bodies that have formally acknowledged Indonesia's claim of sovereignty. It should prove equally difficult to find more than one or two bilateral treaties where Indonesian sovereignty is acknowledged and accepted. In those rare instances, the naked self-interests of the parties to the agreement will undoubtedly lie exposed as these will doubtless prove to be nothing less than the division of the spoils of conquest and subjugation. I doubt even the ICJ would uphold treaties enacted during this period (if East Timor accepts jurisdiction). It may be that East Timor will be forced to accept these treaties in return for financial support from such nations as Australia. The world-wide bluster about democracy and self-determination in East Timor will probably fade away. The official protests of governments all over the world reflect the simple truth that few, if any, nations accept Indonesia's spurious claim to East Timor. This is not to say that any nation or group of nations actually plans to do anything about it. Then again, it has been a long time and I could be wrong.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (55034)	9/11/1999 11:17:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I believe that if ET does gain formal independence, it is under no obligation to honor treaties made by Indonesia. It can choose to do so, but doesn't have to by law, and the commitments of any individual made before independence is formally established are irrelevant. It may not be the Timorese who want to see the terms of the treaty changed. Look at a few items: The Australians and the Indonesians had a dispute over the Timor Gap Oil Field, which lies between Timor and North Australia. The Indonesians wanted the dividing line to be drawn at an equal distance between the countries, the Australians maintained that since the continental shelf of Australia extends farther out, and most of the field is on it, the line should give more of the field to Australia. The solution was to divide the field into 3 sections, an Indonesian sector, an Australian sector, and a larger co-operative sector between them. The third sector is believed to have the largest reserves. The field has not been exploited to any degree. Australian royalties were only $1.1 million last year, Indonesian presumably similar. Nowhere nearly enough to support an independent E. Timor with no other significant source of income. Australia is vigorously supporting independence for E. Timor, moving "peacekeeping" troops into deployment position and offering a $100 million annual aid package after independence. I'm not going to say that the Australians want to separate E. Timor from Indonesia, then use the leverage of that immediate aid package (opposed to oil which is generating negligible income at present) to renegotiate the treaty in a manner more favorable to them. But it does raise certain questions about motive. As does the tendency of both the media to report the events purely from the perspective of human rights. Not a negligible perspective by any means, but not the only operative factor, either.