As I said, the fact that Xanana accepted and disagreed with the decision is contradictory and ambiguous. It is another example of our President's ambiguous/contradictory approach to the crisis. It showed that the President was incapable of taking a clear stance on issues- ie a sign of weakness.
As the President was perceived to be weak or unable to take a clear stance, the rebels would have gained confidence that they could escalate their demands from having their grievances answered to demanding a change of government/resignation of a PM, which I think you would agree, they have no right to do so. The change in demands occurred before Reinado allegedly attacked the FFDTL soldiers and before foreign soldiers were called in. In my view, it got to that stage partly (there are other factors) because the President was ambiguous and weak.
At no stage did the President ever say "you can't make those demands. Demand that your grievances be met, but not for a change in governnment". When you have what is an armed coup taking place you need a very strong figure to help guide the country. The President, unfortunately, was everything but that and thats why I am bringing up his contradictory nature.
You are right, in the sense that the President could not have done anything about the decision ie he had no power to reverse it. I'll concede that point. However, the President's stance matters as he has moral authority. The fact that he was ambiguous is a sign of weakness and, as I said, would have emboldened the rebels to escalate their demands.
Don't get me wrong, Xanana is a resistance hero, and I love him for that. However, he is too soft to be the President of a young democracy.
As for Alkatiri, I already said that he has taken his responsibility by resigning (look at what I wrote at 2:23:36 PM). However, he is not the only person responsible for the crisis. Your inability to look at our President and realise that he flaws and has made major mistakes is frankly quite startling.
Also, as to your comment "As for he "video evidence" as the basis for the resignation demand you must not really believe in that, do you?"- maybe the Governor General in Australia should hand a video to Howard/Downer about the AWB scandal and ask for their resignation? It was simply another example of incompetence from the President.
.
sábado, agosto 19, 2006
Dos leitores
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
13 comentários:
I take it that your real answer and the closest anyway to my question is contained in your following statment:
"You are right, in the sense that the President could not have done anything about the decision ie he had no power to reverse it. I'll concede that point."
That is the reason why he accepted it. But he did not agree with it and he made very clear the reasons for his disagreement. He correctly argued that the petitioners issue should have been dealt with much more sensitivity and should not have been reduced to a disciplinary issue.
First because it was a very substancial number of soldiers involved.
Second because they all came from the West.
Thus, any disciplinary action that resulted in a mass sacking as it happened, although legally correct, it would always have been perceived by those people as further discrimination against the loromonu.
Although this was never the intention of the government that is exactly how they perceived it.
As such his stance was not ambiguos at all. Now, that by him disagreeing with it the petitioners may have felt vindicated in some way is very possible. Inversely, do you think that if he had publicly agreed with the decision (when infact he didn't) would have resulted in the petitioners dropping their claims and going home? Not only do I have serious doubts about that, but I could bet they would not.
On the other hand, if the president had not accepted the decision as you previously suggested ("As I said, if he didn't agree with the decion he should not have accepted it...") not only it would not reverse the decision but it would definitely boost the petitioner's confidence beyond him disagreeing but ACCEPTING the decision. Don't you think?
Now for the change of demands we must look at it in a fair way. The call for the PM's resignation came after the incident on April 28-29 at Tasitolo. Previous to that the petitioners were demanding that their grievances regarding discrimination be adressed. After the military intervention in Tasitolo they changed the demands to call the PM to stand down.
From their perspective, the government had proved its willingness to use military force do supress them so its is only logical that they would have changed their demands. Surely, others including political elements sought to take advantage of this unrest and score some political goals in their favour and there is no denying that.
However they would not have had that oportunity had the petitioner's case been resolved in a timely and more sensitivy manner.
To me this was a tactical error on the government's side as it had not considered all possible consequences of failing to efectively resolved the problem much earlier in time and the single biggest mistake was to send the troops in to deal with a internal security issue without satisfying all the legal procedures.
At one stage Alfredo said that the deaths in Tasitolo which ended up escalating the problem to a higher level of seriousness would not have happened if the government had called instead on the Military Police to go and deal with the petitioners. That however is something we'll never be able to know.
Tradução:
Dos leitores
Como disse, o facto de Xanana aceitar e discordar com a decisão é contraditório e ambíguo. É um outro exemplo da aproximação ambígua/contraditória do nosso Presidente a esta crise. Mostrou que o Presidente foi incapaz de ter uma posição clara na questão – i.e um sinal de fraqueza.
Quando o Presidente foi percebido ser fraco ou incapaz de ter uma posição clara, os rebeldes ganharam confiança que podiam escalar as suas exigências de terem as suas queixas respondidas a exigir uma mudança de governo/resignação de um PM, que penso concorda, não tinham o direito de o fazer. A mudança de exigência ocorreu antes de Reinado alegadamente ter atacado os soldados das F-FDTL e antes dos soldados estrangeiros serem chamados. Na minha opinião, chegou-se a este estado parcialmente (houve outros factores) por causa do Presidente ter sido ambíguo e fraco.
Em altura alguma disse alguma vez o Presidente "não podem fazer estas exigências. Peçam que as vossas queixas sejam atendidas, mas não uma mudança no governo". Quando se tem o que é um golpe armado em processo precisa-se duma figura muito forte para ajudar a guiar o país. O Presidente, infelizmente, foi tudo menos isso e é por isso que eu invoco a sua natureza contraditória.
Tem razão, no sentido em que o Presidente não podia fazer nada sobre a decisão i.e. ele não tinha poder para a reverter. Concedo-lhe esse ponto. Contudo, a posição do Presidente interessa porque ele tem autoridade moral. O facto de ter sido ambíguo é um sinal de fraqueza e, como disse, encorajou os rebeldes a escalarem as suas exigências.
Não me entenda mal, Xanana é um herói da resistência, e gosto dele por isso. Contudo, é demasiado fraco para ser o Presidente duma jovem democracia.
Quanto a Alkatiri, já disse que ele assumiu a sua responsabilidade ao resignar (repare no que escrevi às 2:23:36 PM). Contudo, não é a única pessoa responsável pela crise. A sua incapacidade de de olhar para o nosso Presidente e perceber que ele tem falhas e cometeu erros capitais é francamente bastante impressionante.
Também, quanto ao seu comentário "quanto à "video evidência" como a base para a exigência da resignação não acredita nisso, pois não?"- talvez o Governador Geral na Austrália devesse entregar um video a Howard/Downer sobre o escândalo do AWB e pedir a resignação deles? Foi simplesmente um outro exemplo de incompetência do Presidente.
Anónimo das 1:27:03 AM: Diz que “a exigência para a resignação do PM veio depois do incidente de Abril 28-29 em Tasitolo. Antes disso os peticionários exigiam resposta às suas queixas relacionadas com a discriminação. Depois da intervenção militar em Tasitolo eles mudaram para exigir que o PM saísse”.
Então repare s.f.f. nestas notícias do site da UNOTIL:
1 - Daily Media Review
Saturday & Monday, 22-24 April 2006
(...)
Regional Media Reports
East Timor troops stage protest
Tensions are high in the East Timorese capital, Dili, amid mass protests by former soldiers.
Thousands are marching on the Presidential Palace to protest the sacking of 591 soldiers in February after they deserted complaining of discrimination.
The former soldiers, mainly from the country's west, claim favoured treatment is being given to soldiers from the east, a key centre of resistance to the Indonesian occupation of East Timor from the mid-1970s until 1999.
Many are also calling on President Xanana Gusmão to dismiss his Fretilin-led government.
A similar protest last month turned into a rampage with shops looted and a policeman stabbed.
Our correspondent in Dili, Eric Campbell, says riot police are out in force, but so far the protest has been peaceful. (ABC)
http://www.unotil.org/UNMISETWebSite.nsf/cce478c23e97627349256f0a003ee127/60755e2ad03258b14925715b0007d018?OpenDocument
2 - Daily Media Review
Friday 28 April 2006
Regional Media Reports
Violence erupts at E Timor rally
At least two people have been killed and others hurt after a rally by sacked soldiers in East Timor turned violent.
Police fired tear gas to try and disperse hundreds of soldiers and their supporters, who attacked shops and burned cars in the capital Dili. At least 20 people were reported to have been injured, some seriously. The protest was the most volatile of several staged this week against the sacking of 600 soldiers who went on strike claiming discrimination. They went absent without leave last month to protest against their working conditions and what they called favouritism in promotions. The government sacked all 600 of them - more than a third of the total defence force.
Promotion dispute
The target for Friday's violence appeared to be the office of Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri.
Windows of the building were smashed and cars outside set alight. Some nearby residents fled to try to seek refuge at the US embassy, the AFP news agency reported. Theresa Soares, 21, said she and five of her relatives fled because "the situation is no longer safe". "I came here for help but I am disappointed they did not let me in," she said outside the embassy.
At a previous rally on Wednesday police had to suppress a demonstration by the soldiers, when dozens of them started throwing stones at buildings and attacking market stalls with sticks. Some of the demonstrators invaded houses, it was reported.
The soldiers - many of them from western districts of the country - originally left their posts because they believed they were missing out on promotion to colleagues from the east, according to protest leader Gastao Salsinha.
Many of the troops, who are veterans of the 25-year fight for independence from Indonesia, feel they have not been given the recognition they deserve for their past sacrifices, say analysts. East Timor's government has said it will review some of the soldiers' complaints on a case-by-case basis. (BBC)
Timor-Leste: Incidents during the demonstration, shots on the street
Dili, 28 April 2006 (Lusa) – Serious incidents near the Government Palace occurred today at around 13:30 hours local time in the framework of the demonstration taking place in Dili since Monday last. The incidents coincided with the end of a meeting of businessmen at the main hotel of Timor-Leste where a luncheon was scheduled with the participation of the President of the Republic, Xanana Gusmão, and the Prime Minister, Mari Alkatiri, in addition to other government members.
At around 13:30 hours (local time), a vehicle of the Police passed near the hotel and, using a megaphone, informed without entering into detail that the demonstrators had “attacked” the Government Palace. While shots were being heard on the street, Xanana Gusmão and Mari Alkatiri were immediately removed from the hotel. There are no reports of victims from the incidents and no further details are available.
The Office of the Prime Minister had earlier today distributed a note in which it stated that, from now on the demonstration by the soldiers is illegal “in the light of the Law in force in Timor-Leste”. “The Government, in coordination with other organs of sovereignty, will therefore assert the authority of the democratic rule of law. It [the Government] is left with no other solution to reinstate the legality and the respect for the institutions and the public order”, the note stresses. (LUSA)
East Timor: Protesting soldiers dismiss Government’s inquiry initiative
Dili, April 27 (Lusa) - Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri, pressured by demonstrations by disgruntled troops, announced the creation Thursday of a top-level commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of regional discrimination that have divided East Timor's tiny army for months. Although negotiated with the army dissidents, the government's move appeared, however, to have failed to demobilize hundreds of demonstrators, including many sacked soldiers, who have camped out in protest in Dili since Monday. The protest leader, Lt. Gastão Salsinha, reacting to Alkatiri's inquiry initiative, said the demonstrations would continue beyond the original Friday cut-off date.
The goal of the demonstrations, which have involved as many as 2,000 people, was "not for the creation of a commission, but to get answers to demands", Lt. Salsinha told journalists after Alkatiri's announcement. Given the demonstrators' hard-line reaction, it was not immediately clear if a previously agreed meeting would take place later Thursday between Salsinha and President Xanana Gusmão, Alkatiri and Foreign Minister José Ramos Horta.
The meeting was set to formalize agreement on creation of the commission of inquiry and on the government's commitment to pay salaries through June to nearly 600 soldiers dismissed from the army two months ago over earlier protests. The prime minister, flanked by Gusmão, announced the creation of the commission at the presidential palace, saying the body would include representatives of the presidency, the government, parliament and the high court.
The influential Catholic Church and civil society organizations would also participate in the commission with "consultative members", Alkatiri said. The crisis broke out in early February with demonstrations by mostly "loromonu" soldiers from western parts of the country denouncing what they claimed was systematic regional discrimination within the 1,600-strong Defense Force. Alkatiri's announcement followed intense negotiations Tuesday with the army dissidents that were brokered by the foreign minister. (LUSA)
http://www.unotil.org/UNMISETWebSite.nsf/cce478c23e97627349256f0a003ee127/def4e5bb3e9f3d7b4925715e003b6b72?OpenDocument
PS: Ainda mantém o que acima disse? E ainda mantém que “na perspectiva (deles), o governo demonstrou a sus disposição para usar força militar para os suprimir, portanto é lógico que tenham mudado de exigências”?
In response to 1:27:03 AM
"As such his stance was not ambiguous"- You have got to be in absolute dream land. The President's position in relation to the soldiers was one of many examples where he was demonstrated to be weak and ambiguous(as I said in my response). I am not looking it as an isolated event, as you are.
If my answer to your question is not satisfactory, then thats fine by me, but I will maintain the same argument and am not afraid to criticise the President for his role in the crisis.
As for your statement- "Now for the change of demands we must look at it in a fair way."- you have got be kidding me right? How can such a change of demand be looked in a fair way? The soldiers have no absolutely no right to demand a change of government. Perhaps an investigation into the incident, but not a change of government. What a pathetic argument.
Dear 8:11:35 AM anonymous,
Your conclusion, ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE (the sacking of the soldiers), that the President was ambiguous stems from the fact that you cannot understand how one can accept something without necessarily agreeing with it. I find that most amazing as life is full of examples to demonstrate this principle. The concept of democracy is a compelling example and is in itself based on that premise. The premise that a majority has more say over something than a minority and even though such minority disagrees it must accept the will of the majority.
As you can see they DISAGREE BUT ACCEPT.
In the case of the President/goverment over the issue of the petitioners this principle of precedence that a majority has over a minority is expressed through their respective legal jurisdictions over the matter.
Since the issue of the petitioners was of the government's competence (majority if you like) it had the legal right to decide on the matter as it did.
The President (minority if you like) did not agree with the decision but had to accept the government's decision. i.e. Government/majority decided and the President/minority disagreed but accepted.
I cannot make it any simpler that this without running the risk of being patronising.
As for your second point, in a democracy people have a right to demonstrate and they can voice as many demands as they please. It's part of the so called freedom of speech. Whether their demands are reasonable or not/met or not that is a different matter alltogether.
I sincerely don't see how this can be construed as a "pathetic argument."
In relation to the President: You have your views and I have mine.
In relation to the soldiers' demands: It is a pathetic argument because in any democracy citizens need to exercise their rights responsibly- is that so diffcult to understand? In developed democracies, if a bunch of armed rebels pointed a gun at the government and said resign- you would call that a coup. What kind of democracy do you want for Timor Leste?
Lets take your example, "in a democracy people have a right to demonstrate and they can voice as many demands as they please. It's part of the so called freedom of speech". That statement is not correct. Democracy grants certain rights to individuals, but those individuals have an obligation to exercise those rights responsibly, particularly in respect to how the exercise of those rights impacts on the broader community. For example, freedom of speech is not an unqualified right. Freedom of speech does not allow one to incite racial hatred, make religiously discriminatory comments etc. Again, I have to question the kind of democracy you want for Timor Leste.
First let me make something clear. When I refer to the petitioners having a right to demonstrate and voice as many demands as they please it does not extend all the way to the point where violent acts are committed.
The manner in which individual are allowed or disallowed to exercise their rights is regulated by law. One such law that imposes restrictions on the freedom of speech is the defammation law. The only other instances that may impact upon that freedom are those when speech results in negating others the same right or results in a crime.
To make racial discrimination comments is not in itself a crime and inciting racial hatred becomes a crime when is associated or is proven to be associated or have caused the comission of crimes.
In the same manner religiously descriminatory comments are not a crime in itself unless they are associated with discriminatory practices.
This will probably vary from country to country but I certainly don't want a democracy for Timor-Leste where a person could spend many years in jail for making a comment considered to be dafamatory of someone else's reputation or honor as proposed by the previous government.
The law cannot regulate on every aspect of the exercise of basic rights. Part of the onus is on individuals to exercise their rights responsibly. The soldiers' demands for a government to be dismissed may not have breached any law per se, but they go against the principle of the rule of law and democracy as they advocate a change of government by undemocratic means. The fact that you have stated that the soldiers are allowed to make those demands and it is fair for them to do so, given the circumstances you pointed out, is very disturbing. That is why I question the kind of democracy you want to have in Timor Leste.
As I said, democracy requires individuals to exercise their rights responsibly. Take for example Australia, a country that does not have freedom of speech guaranteed in its Constitution. There is only a limited right to political expression and this, as i understand it, has been interpreted into the Australian Constitution by the High Court. When the Australian Constitution was passed, there was a reliance on democratic institutions, the rule of law and Acts of Parliament to protect the basic rights of individuals. That is why there is no Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution. (we could go into a debate on whether the Australian Constitution should have a Bill of Rights or not, but this is something that is difficult to do on a blogspot).
Contrast this with the USA, which has a Bill of Rights enshrined in its Constitution. In the USA, the courts have grappled for years on the scope and limitation of these basic rights ie on issues such as inciting racial violence, religious discrimination, defamation etc. (Take for example, inflammatory speeches made by the Ku Klux Klan in the US which influenced white people to kill african-americans).
As you can see, the Constitutions of Australia and the USA have taken different approaches to protecting basic rights. However, despite the different approaches the courts and the lawmakers in both countries have recogonised that it is difficult to set out in the Constitution and the legislation all the possible limitations on the exercise of basic rights, and recognise that in any democracy there is a need for individuals to exercise their rights responsibly. In my view, this is something the soldiers did not do when they began to demand for a government/PM to be dismissed.
As to your argument that "To make racial discrimination comments is not in itself a crime" - well even if it is not a crime does that mean that people should be making those comments? Does it mean that I can go on to the streets of Dili and starting abusing people? Nothing stops me from doing that, but I have a duty, as a citizen of a democracy, not to do those things. Comprendo?
I have been reading the comments of two "fuck know all".
In response to 6:59:28 AM
"I have been reading the comments of two "fuck know all"." Obviously, a description of yourself- if you don't want to join in the debate go somewhere else- or even better, give yourself an uppercut in the head you idiot.
Segunda-feira, Agosto 21, 2006 6:59:28 AM Anonymous
They dont know all....its just you know nothing. GROW A BRAIN
Did I upset you guys? Sorry I was just complimenting you both, did not mean any hurt, so fuck off!
In response to 10:38:19 PM
It obviously shows that you got the brains of a peanut. I love how you demonstrate your awesome intellectual capacities. Keep going mate, you will get far in life, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you are still living with your mother. So grow up.
Enviar um comentário