The following is the forward to Martinkus' award winning book "Dirty Little war" which documents Indonesian oppression of Eas Timor and its people. This is now the same journalist wrting and producing documentaries about the recent crisis. He knows and understands the personalities involved in Timor politics. He has thus far been the only one to clearly show the hand of the militia figures like Nemesio Carvalho and Rui Lopes. Lets give Martinkus some benefit of doubt; after all he has high references for his works and achievements in journalism not only in Timor-Leste but in Iraq and Ache. He is no hack journalist like Liz Jackson.
"Foreword to Dirty Little War, Random House, 2001
By Xanana Gusmão
When reading this book it is important to try to understand what the effect of the violence catalogued here has had upon the East Timorese people today. Remember that the violent consequences of Indonesian military rule of East Timor in the period covered here were only the final stages of a 25 year brutal occupation. Far worse atrocities that those detailed here were carried out against the East Timorese people in the late seventies and eighties. Sadly for us, these were not well documented. The international media were largely silent because of foreign governments concern for their relations with Indonesia and the great impossibility of anyone gaining physical access to East Timor.
Until 1989, East Timor was barred to all outsiders and the internal conflict, which all Timorese knew very well, was largely unknown beyond our prison-island. In 1991 the brave Youth resistance led a massive demonstration that had an extraordinary political impact. The dramatic footage of Indonesian forces murdering unarmed East Timorese civilians opened the world’s eyes to the violence that until then had been kept hidden.
Despite the widespread international attention the footage aroused, only a very small number of journalists and politicians continued to pay close attention to, report and speak out about the continuing repression inside East Timor. Although I often said we were alone in our struggle we were not; there were people all over the world who worried about us and helped us.
The work of journalists, such as John Martinkus, in East Timor became increasingly important throughout the nineties. Comprehensive and impartial documentation of incidents of violence conducted against East Timorese people paved the way for the international pressure on the Indonesian government to allow the United Nations to conduct the ballot in August 1999.
When the Indonesian military and their militia proxies embarked on the campaign of killing, depopulation and the destruction and theft of property in East Timor in response to the independence result, it looked as though East Timor and the suffering of its people would once again be hidden from the outside world. It was only a handful of internationals who remained to try and document the final crimes of the Indonesian military that took place before international peacekeepers were allowed into the country. This book is one such document.
John Martinkus covered our conflict from inside East Timor through the period of armed struggle by our heroic Falintil guerillas, the years of brave youth and clandestine resistance, to the violence before and after the ballot as well as the eventual arrival of the peacekeepers and the departure of the Indonesian forces. The stories he wrote about the atrocities helped to bring international attention to the genocide the world was ignoring.
This book provides a first-hand account of some of the key events that led to the long awaited independence of East Timor. The violence that it documents illustrates the cruel and violent tactics so long applied to our people. We are still trying to recover from these manipulations to our society. Freedom has a sour taste for some trying to overcome all that has been perpetrated on them and cope with the huge social and economic problems that exist in our country. A complex political process awaits us over the next year: civil registration, civic education, setting up of an electoral system, nationwide elections, the drafting of a constitution and the setting up of democratic institutions. We want a harmonious transition and for that we need wise and thoughtful leadership and support.
I hope his book goes some way towards making people understand the very recent violent history of our homeland and the current and long-term effects this will have on our own society. I hope readers of the book will be better able to empathize with us in our continuing struggle to overcome our tragic past and create a peaceful, just and democratic society. We still need our friends to support and understand us in our new struggle."
.
segunda-feira, setembro 18, 2006
De um leitor
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
19 comentários:
HOW IRONIC
He is a freelance who has is to make a buck for crying out loud! A guy who has made comments to the effect of justifying the cold blooded murder of american and English civilians captured by the Iraqi insurgents does not deserve any respect. Those civilians taken hostage by the Iraqi insurgents had their heads hacked off and this guy Martinkus is of the opinion that their captors had a reason to do so.
That is an absolutely disgusting thing for Martinkus to say. Not even combatants deserve to die in such an inhumane manner let alone innocent civilians. But his statement just goes to show how radical his view can be when he believes in something.
Unfurtunately for him he is not infallible and this time he is dead wrong! But then again he has made his money from that article and that's all that matters. Right?
IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE A QUOTE FROM HIS BOOK DO IT WORD FOR WORD.....NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.
Yeah. When Martinkus was reporting about the militia attrocities in East Timor, he was everyone's hero and all his reports were taken in without without questioning. Suddenly Martinkus is infallible and is making mistakes. Mistakes? Yes. This is what I would like to hear, but not Martinkus' mistakes. Mistakes from people like Xanana who overestimated his own popularity to try to bring down the government by "peaceful people power." Mistake for trusting some of his advisers who went behind his back to plot a plan B that included violence and "some possible death." Mistakes made by the government for overestimating their own control over the situation while others plotted behind its back. Mistakes for not reading the situation and resolving the crisis when it started. These are some of the mistakes that I would like to hear and I hope they also have some shame to assume their responsibility and not just apologise to the people, but to respect the law and accept the punishment handed out to them.
There are just too may questions without answers and many people are beginning to question the "great" leaders.
Abilio Mesquita, one the heads of the SH martial group and former operational commander of the Dili police branch may or may not be telling the truth. But he is not the only person to speak of this involvement from the highest level to bring down the democratically elected government. People are beginning to ask questions whether claims like the ones made by Abilio Mesquita are founded or not. The people deserve to know the truth. The people would like to know why is Alkatiri not being charged or worse, why is the process against him stopped. Why is Lobato despite being charged, have not appeared before the court. Why is Rai Los who said he accepted weapons from Alkatiri and Lobato to kill their opponents have not been investigated and charged. Why is Rai Los continues to walk around with a pistol on his waist and not arrested while Reinado was and then imprisoned. Why did Alfredo just walked out of jail, which under East Timorese control prior to the crisis no one has ever escaped. Why haven't any of the escapees been recaptured. Many of them were former militia members who committed serious crimes. Why has it become difficult for anyone in Dili to express a different opinion, specially if one is critical of Xanana. Why has Xanana not spoken to the army chiefs for so long. Why has Xanana not visited the refugee camps which come under attack regularly. Why has Xanana become so silent at a time when the people really needs a unifying figure to bring everyone together. These are the whys the people are asking. And the most important question of all, what is the outlock for the next few months or year. Will there be a free and fair election? Will everyone be able to resume their normal lives again? It goes on.
I for one do not cling so tightly to one or the other, Fretilin nor Xanana nor Alkatiri. I am waiting for the UN investigation as are many other East Timorese. However many East Timorese are also affraid of the results of this investigation. They are affraid if the "leaders" won't accept the results and instead would try to spin the results or reject the results totally. The people are pessimistic, at least the ones that I know. They feel they are being played like pawns in an game that they don't even know what is or for what purpose. They expect another conflict to come about soon. They read the situation and try to make something out of it. Their biggest fear is why is that Xanana has sided with some people against others who are equally powerful and can bring about devastating violence when they want to.
And yes I blame Xanana for not doing his job right, for taking a political stance to side with one group over the other instead of being a unifying figure to mediate between groups. In the absence of this figure, East Timor's hopes for a resolution to this crisis is just too far out of reach.
I don't know what the solution is. In the meantime I am trying to take my relatives out of Timor for a while. I don't know when they will be able to return to a peaceful paradise it was once promissed to them.
Tradução:
De um leitor
O que está a seguir é o prefácio do livro de Martinkus, ganhador de prémios, "Dirty Little war" que documenta a opressão Indonésia contra Timor e contra o seu povo. Este é o mesmo jornalista que escreve e produz documentários sobre a crise recente. Ele conhece e compreende as personalidades envolvidas nas políticas de Timor. Até agora foi o único a mostrar a mão de figuras de milícia, como Nemesio Carvalho e Rui Lopes. Dêmos a Martinkus algum benefício da dúvida; pois que ele tem altas referência pelo seu trabalho e obras no jornalismo e não só em Timor-Leste mas também no Iraque e em Ache. Não é um jornalista alugado como a Liz Jackson.
"O Prefácio do (livro) Dirty Little War, Random House, 2001
Por Xanana Gusmão
Quando ler este livro é importante tentar compreender o efeito que a violência catalogada aqui teve nos Timorenses de hoje. Lembre-se que as consequências violentas do governo Indonésio sobre Timor-Leste no período coberto aqui foram só as cenas finais duma ocupação brutal de 25 anos. Muito piores atrocidades do que as detalhadas aqui foram cometidas contra os Timorenses nos finais dos anos 70 e nos anos 80. Infelizmente para nós, essas (atrocidades) não foram bem documentadas. Os media internacionais estiveram lagamente silenciadas por causa das preocupações dos governos estrangeiros com as suas relações com a Indonésia e (também) com a grande impossibilidade de alguém ter acesso físico ao Leste de Timor.
Até 1989, o Leste de Timor estava proibido a todos os estrangeiros e o conflito interno, que todos os Timorenses conheceram muito bem, era largamente desconhecido para lá da nossa ilha-prisão.Em 1991 a corajosa resistência dos jovens liderou uma manifestação de massas que teve um extraordinário impacto político. A filmagem dramática de forces Indonésias a matarem civis Timorenses desarmados abriu os olhos do mundo para a violência que até lá estivera escondida.
Apesar da alargada atenção internacional que a filmagem provocou, somente ummuito pequeno número de jornalistas e de políticos continuaram a prestar atenção próxima, a falar e a relatar sobre a continuada repressão dentro do Leste de Timor. Apesar de ter dito muitas vezes que estávamos sozinhos na nossa luta, não estávamos; havia gente em todo o mundo que se preocupavam connosco e que nos ajudaram.
O trabalho de jornalistas, como John Martinkus, no Leste de Timor tornou-se crescentemente importante nos anos 90. Documentação compreensiva e imparcial de violência contra os Timorenses construíram o caminho para a pressão internacional sobre o governo Indonésio que permitiram que a ONU dirigisse a votação em Agosto de 1999.
Quando os militares Indonésios e as suas milícias próximas embarcaram na campanha de assassinatos, deslocação da população, destruição e roubo de propriedades no Leste de Timor em resposta ao resultado pela independência, parecia que outra vez o Leste de Timor e o sofrimento do seu povo seria outra vez escondida do mundo exterior. Foram somente uma mão cheia de internacionais que permaneceram para tentar e documentar os crimes finais dos militares Indonésios cometidos antes dos capacetes azuis serem autorizados a entrar no país. Este livro é um desses documentos.
John Martinkus cobriu o nosso conflito do interior de Timor-Leste desde o período de luta armada da nossa heróica guerrilha Falinti, os anos dos jovens corajosos e da resistência clandestina, a violência antes e depois da votação bem como (no período) da chegada eventual dos capacetes azuis e a partida das forças Indonésias. As histórias que ele escreveu sobre as atrocidades ajudaram a chamar a atenção internacional para o genocídio que o mundo estava a ignorar.
Este livro conta em primeira-mão alguns dos eventos chave que levaram à muito esperada independência de Timor-Leste. A violência que documenta ilustra as tácticas cruéis e violentas usadas durante tanto tempo contra o nosso povo. Estamos ainda a tentar recuperar dessas manipulações na nossa sociedade. A liberdade tem um gosto amargo para alguns que tentam superar tudo o que foi perpetrado contra eles e lidar com os enormes problemas sociais e económicos que existem no nosso país. Um processo politico complexo espera por nós nos próximos anos: registo civil, educação cívica, instalação de um sistema eleitoral, eleições nacionais, a feitura duma constituição e a instalação de instituições democráticas. Queremos uma transição harmoniosa e para isso precisamos de liderança sábia e pensada e de apoio.
Tenho esperança que este livro leve as pessoas a compreender a história violenta muito recente da nossa pátria e os efeitos correntes e a longo termo que isto terá na nossa sociedade. Tenho esperança que os leitores do livro serão capazes de melhor se identificarem connosco na nossa luta continuada para ultrapassar o nosso passado trágico e criar uma sociedade pacífica, justa e democrática. Ainda precisamos dos nossos amigos para nos apoiarem e compreenderem na nossa nova luta."
To anonymous of Segunda-feira, Setembro 18, 2006 6:49:04 PM
There are also people who asked, why is it that the president Xanana has said that the Fretilin congress in may was illegal and the election method used was illegal therefore its leaders are illegal, but the Caludio Ximenes says it's legal and the leadership is legal. These people think Xanana was right and Caludio was wrong.
There another question regarding the Court of Appeal decision. That is why did the Court make such and extensive analysis of the complaint submitted by the "reformist Fretilin" group when in fact the decision was to dismiss the complaint given that the time limit for its submission had long expired?
So the complaint was dismissed but nevertheless the the Court proceeded to make detailed judgements on every single point of the complaint. This is absolutely amazing unless there was a political statement to be made by the court.
There another question regarding the Court of Appeal's decision. i.e why did the Court make such and extensive analysis of the complaint submitted by the "reformist Fretilin" group when in fact the decision was to dismiss the complaint given that the time limit for its submission had long expired?
So the complaint was dismissed but nevertheless the the Court proceeded to make detailed judgements on every single point of the complaint. This is absolutely amazing unless there was a political statement to be made by the court. Why did they do it???
Exactly because the Court Judges wanted to make a political statement.
... e assim deixou os oportunistas descalços. Well done!
Ja ficaram sem os spatos e agora com a denuncia do Abilio Mesquita 'Mausoko'devem ficar tambem sem a s calcas!
In response to Setembro 19, 2006 1:54:46 AM and Setembro 19, 2006 12:56:28 AM
The Court of Appeal recognised the sensitivity of the issue and sought to explain that even if the challenge to the vote had come in time, it would not have succeeded anyway. The Court's decision was important, not only because it clarified the position in relation to the voting by show of hands, but also because it rejected the use of judicial power by the President (ie it reinforced the separation of powers). The court's interpretation was purely legal, but unfortunately you see it as a political statement because it may not serve your interests.
Accept the decision and get on with your lives. And by the way, Guterres and de Jesus did not even nominate themselves for a leadership challenge because they couldn't get 20% of the delegates to support their nomination. On one argument, there was no need to even have a vote because there was only one leadership package put forward by the Congress, that of Alkatiri and Lu-Olo. It is so painful to hear the truth isn't it?
Response to: Terça-feira, Setembro 19, 2006 12:56:28 AM
They did it because they were dealing lay people who if the Court had not have touched on every point would have said "Oh but the court avoided looking at this point or that one, or just looked at this or that". It was something the court was entitle to do, and talk to any jurist who will tell you it was the most thoroug decision to ensure that the claimants/appellants were afforded justice in every respect, seeing as it was thrwoing it our for being out of time. It could have stopped there but wanted to ensure they understood it properly. it was in the name of transparency. It was funadamentally in the interests of justice. As a European jourist myself I say good on the Court of Appeal. You were dealing with a sensitive issue and you put it beyond doubt with sensitivity and propriety.
"... e assim deixou os oportunistas descalços. Well done!"
E lá se vai a independência de um tribunal quando se mete em política.
Mas desde que sirva a causa... que importa a independência do tribunal?
"It was something the court was entitle to do, and talk to any jurist who will tell you it was the most thoroug decision to ensure that the claimants/appellants were afforded justice in every respect, seeing as it was thrwoing it our for being out of time. It could have stopped there but wanted to ensure they understood it properly. it was in the name of transparency."
Claro que nunca saberemos se foi de facto no interesse do esclarecimento nem da transparência.
Para isso seria necessário um acórdão no sentido contrário.
Imagine-se que o tribunal declarava não poder tomar conhecimento da impugnação por estar fora do prazo, mas que, no interesse do esclarecimento e da transparência declarava que considerava o voto de braço no ar ilegal face à Lei.
E não era difícil, bastava terem-se socorrido de pareceres doutrinários de outros constitucionalistas em vez do Gomes Canotilho.
E agora? Será que nesta situação também iriam pronunciar-se sobre o que declararam não poder tomar conhecimento?
Não seria isso dar razão sem vínculo de Lei ao protesto?
E politicamente como teria sido percebido?
E que consequências teria tal acórdão?
Face a estes constrangimentos, o esclarecimento e a transparência continuariam a prevalecer?
Sabendo que acenderiam um rastilho de consequências imprevisíveis?
Nunca o saberemos, mas não me parece que corressem esse risco.
Concluímos que a justiça só é cega e imparcial quando convém?
Pois é!
Não vale a pena especular sobre o que teria acontecido se...
O Tribunal decidiu contra os requerentes, ponto final.
De resto, o Tribunal é soberano para se pronunciar sobre aquilo que quiser. O Tribunal é terreno e julga coisas terrenas. Como tal, não se pode abstrair da complexidade do universo humano que rodeia as questões legais. O Tribunal tem uma função importantíssima na sociedade e não pode ignorá-la, julgando do alto de um qualquer Olimpo. A pronúncia do Tribunal não foi sobre o caso concreto, porque não reunia os requisitos processuais para ser apreciado, mas sobre o caso abstracto, fazendo assim jurisprudência e um aviso à navegação, que diz que não vale a pena repetir a acção em casos análogos futuros, mesmo dentro do prazo legal.
Neste aspecto, o Tribunal até fez um favor aos potenciais impugnadores, poupando-lhes o trabalho e a despesa em vão. Se eles fossem gente educada até deveriam ter agradecido este serviço extra, que não lhes custou nada...
Hahaha... Sr c correia esse seu paleio eh muito bonito mas pouco convincente das razoes pelas quais um tribunal deve, no seu ponto de vista, fazer declaracoes politicas.
h correia
Não poss concordar consigo, quando diz que não vale a pena especular.
Porque a avaliação da intenção do tribunal, reside justamente ao especularmos o que teria sido se...
E a doutrina que o tribunal estabeleceu é passível de criticismo, porquanto se baseou num parecer de um constitucionalista português. Sabendo nós que esta mesma questão foi debatida pelo Tribunal Constitucional de Portugal, e com resultado inverso, porque atinou a partir de pareceres de vários constitucionalistas e não de um só.
Curiosamente, e para o direito é importante atender à sua fonte, apenas Gomes Canotilho e Vital Moreira consideraram legal o voto por braço no ar. Vá-se lá saber porquê.
Tanto Jorge de Miranda como Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa e outros, com algumas diferenças quanto ao âmbito da votação, entendem que desde que a votação seja para eleger pessoas, deve ser sempre por voto secreto.
Independentemente deste caso concreto, o que o Tribunal de Recurso fez, foi legitimar para o futuro uma forma de votação que não é verdadeiramente livre, em especial num país de democracia embrionária, em que o nepotismo e a corrupção atinge proporções dramáticas.
Foi mais uma oportunidade perdida por Timor.
Nos idos de 75 e 76, quando vim estudar para Portugal, havia a moda das RGAs. Por tudo e por nada, lá íamos para o ginásio do Liceu para mais uma.
E as votações eram de braço no ar.
Eram sempre dirigidas por uns barbudos de óculos redondos que pertenciam a organizações com acrónimos compridíssimos, tipo PCP-MLMTP, ou FUP ou UEC, ou coisas assim.
E ai de quem levantasse o braço para votar contra a moção proposta. Era logo um coro democrático de assobios e gritos de fascista e reaccionário. E as ameaças físicas seguiam-se logo se os votantes mantivessem o braço no ar.
Ora em Timor é ainda mais fácil calar as vozes discordantes. Com o desemprego que reina, basta a ameaça de perder o tacho. É assim que as direcções controlam os filiados e os respectivos delegados.
A votação secreta retira-lhes essa capacidade de controlo. Por isso não gostam. Não lhes convém. E apoiar essa forma pouco livre de eleição de pessoas é reconhecer que aos líderes cabe o direito de controlarem os votantes. Em nome de um superior interesse partidário que só aos líderes cabe decidir qual é.
Foi mais uma oportunidade perdida por Timor e por culpa do Tribunal de Recurso. e que seria válido não só para a FRETILIN mas para todos os partidos.
Aliás, se a actual direcção da FRETILIN estivesse tão segura do resultado da votação nunca teria deixado ir para votação de sovaco ao ar. Até porque, no último congresso da FRETILIN a votação foi secreta. Explique-se a necessidade desta ter sido assim.
E não me venham com cantigas que foram os delegados que assim quiseram. a que propósito é que se pôs a questão?
Era a primeira vez que se elegia uma direcção para o partido?
Porque havia esta de ser diferente?
Só existe uma explicação plausível. A actual direcção sentiu-se ameaçada e recorreu às velhas tácticas ML. Pelos vistos o apoio dos delegados não era assim tão seguro.
Ora bem anonimo assim eh que se fala! Pois esta na cara que o que voce acabou de dizer nao pode ser refutado. Se nao fossem essas razoes nao haveria qualquer necessidade de existir o voto secreto seja para o que fosse.
O voto secreto eh um conceito universalmente aceite como a melhor forma de proteger a liberdade de escolha. So nao eh aceite por aqueles que sentem a necessidade de controlar o resultado dos votos. Esta na cara!!
A blogger posted Segunda-feira, Setembro 18, 2006 5:39:38 PM: "He is a freelance who has is to make a buck for crying out loud! A guy who has made comments to the effect of justifying the cold blooded murder of american and English civilians captured by the Iraqi insurgents does not deserve any respect. Those civilians taken hostage by the Iraqi insurgents had their heads hacked off and this guy Martinkus is of the opinion that their captors had a reason to do so. That is an absolutely disgusting thing for Martinkus to say. Not even combatants deserve to die in such an inhumane manner let alone innocent civilians. But his statement just goes to show how radical his view can be when he believes in something.
Unfurtunately for him he is not infallible and this time he is dead wrong! But then again he has made his money from that article and that's all that matters. Right?"
Response to above: This is a Australian DFAT person who lodged this, no doubt about it. This is the story that DFAT was falsely putting out to Alan Jones (radio show host) and others as a smear campaign against John Martinkus. I think the sponsors of this blog site should be somewhat proud DFAT are paying attention to this site. Good work people. But sad for John. They also tried this with an ex Lt Col who wrote the book "Axis of Deceit". Thats how they do things in some liberal democracies!!!!!
Enviar um comentário