BACK
DOOR Newsletter on East Timor home
| timor oil
| search
Correspondence
with Mr Greg French, DFAT (Department of
Foreign Affairs & Trade), Government of Australia
Topic: Timor's Oil
Authors:
* Sister
Susan Connelly,
Spokesperson
on oil issues & Deputy
Director of MMIETS,
Member of TSJC, Sydney
* Sister Josephine
Mitchell,
Director of MMIETS,
Member of TSJC, Sydney
Mary
MacKillop
Institute for East Timorese Studies (MMIETS)
Phone: 02 9623
2847
Email: sc@mmiets.org.au
About the Mary
MacKillop Institute / Institutu Mary MacKillop:
http://www.pcug.org.au/~wildwood/mmiets.html
Timor Sea Justice
Coalition (TSJC) - Sydney
Home: http://www.TimorSeaJustice.org
The following details comments received from Mr Greg French, of the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, by Sisters Josephine Mitchell
and Susan Connelly in response to a letter they wrote on 25 April 2004
on the matter of the resources of the Timor Sea.
Their responses in normal print follow the points of the letter in
bold.
“Australia has long been at the
forefront of international assistance to East Timor.”
This is an astounding claim which cannot go
unchallenged. Australia has not long been in the forefront
of assistance to East Timor at all. Australia’s support for East
Timor was practically non-existent for 23 years, then reluctantly
cautious when Suharto collapsed. Mounting public opinion was the
moving force behind the assistance given by any Government.
No Australian Government of any complexion ever had the honesty or the
compassion or the courage to risk overriding “our most important
relationship”, that with Indonesia.
The tax revenue Australia has received from the Laminaria/Coralima oil
field, which is in one of the areas claimed by East Timor and therefore
in dispute has been one million dollars a day since 1999. That’s nearly
$2 billion which we have received, ten times the amount we have spent
on supporting East Timor.
“Our role in East Timor’s transition
to independence was crucial, including encouraging Indonesia to give
the East Timorese people an act of self-determination. Later we
brought together and led an international coalition –INTERFET – that
ended the violence and restored security in 1999.”
After the Asian financial collapse and as a result of the
internal upheaval in Indonesia occasioned by resistance to Suharto and
his final fall, Australia did play an important role, with our leaders
at long last heeding something of the anguish of many Australians whose
efforts had hitherto been treated as emotional trouble-making.
Australia did no more than its duty as the closest and richest
neighbour of East Timor, so complicit for decades in East Timor’s
problems. It must always be remembered, and continually stated, that
the people who achieved East Timor’s independence were the Timorese
people.
“Australia is committed to negotiating
a maritime boundary with East Timor, in good faith and in accordance
with International law.”
Why is it then, that on 25 March 2002, the then Attorney-General
Daryl Williams and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer
announced that while accepting the ICJ and the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea as venues for compulsory settlement under the
Law of the Sea Convention, it made the declaration that it would exclude the setting of maritime
boundaries from such compulsory resolution. (emphasis
ours). If good faith
and accord with International law
are Australia’s standard of conduct, why withdraw from such relevant
aspects of maritime jurisdiction?
The good faith which this
Government claims is not illustrated by this withdrawal, nor by the
underhanded way it is explained. DFAT has written to some members of
the public that Australia “remains a Party” to UNCLOS, a statement
designed to mislead. They don’t say clearly that whilst
officially a Party to the Convention and to the Court of Justice,
Australia has withdrawn from those elements of the ICJ and UNCLOS which
affect the dispute between East Timor and Australia. It is dishonest to
pretend adherence to the whole while omitting to mention self-imposed
exclusion from the only relevant part. Such a misleading
statement is quite serious.
Supposed good faith is also
not evident in the inordinate haste with which the Timor Sea Treaty was
rushed through Parliament on March 5, 2003. Members of Parliament
complained about the speed with which this Treaty was despatched and
that they were given only a matter of a few hours to peruse it and
respond. (Peter Andren, Member for Calare; Michael Organ, Member
for Cunningham)
“In International law in general, and
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in
particular, do not prescribe any single solution to questions of
maritime boundary delineation.”
Correct; it must be done taking into consideration all the
circumstances. That is why justice is better served if one party
does not withdraw from international bodies which deal best with such
matters.
“The assertion that a number of oil
and gas fields, over which Australia has exercised sovereignty for a
long period of time, actually belong to East Timor is incorrect. These
deposits do in fact lie closer to Indonesia than to East Timor and were
the subject of negotiations that led to the 1972 Australia-Indonesia
Seabed Boundary Agreement. It is pursuant to this agreement that
the relevant deposits fall under exclusive Australian seabed
jurisdiction.”
The point of the argument is that these areas are in dispute. Saying
that disputed areas belong to Australia is just as incorrect as saying
they belong to East Timor. The circumstances have changed with East
Timor’s independence. As a new player in the field Timor has rights as
an equal and sovereign nation to claim fair boundaries.
Australia’s claim to “sovereignty” over these areas does not have a
firm foundation in law, because deals were done and boundaries were set
with the illegal occupying power, Indonesia. These deals between
an invading force and the only Western nation to recognise Indonesia
officially, Australia, suffer from such a flimsy basis. The decision as
to who now owns what can only be taken under complete and transparent
international oversight. Australia’s present jurisdiction has
been compromised by its recognition of the illegal occupation of Timor
by Indonesia. The consequences of folly should be borne by the
foolish.
“Until final maritime boundaries are
established Australia and East Timor have negotiated interim measures
in order to ensure East Timor’s economic independence. Under the Timor
Sea Treaty, Australia and East Timor agreed to a very generous
arrangement that split petroleum resources within the “Joint Petroleum
Development Area” 90:10 in East Timor’s favour, pending a final
settlement. This compares favourably with the 50:50 split under
previous arrangements for the same area with Indonesia.”
If the internationally accepted median line were the boundary,
East Timor would own 100% of the JPDA, so in effect, the Timorese are
giving us 10% of this area. The 90:10 split is not “generous” at
all; Indonesia was the illegal occupier of East Timor when that
agreement took place, therefore, it was an illegal arrangement and
should not be used by Australia as a yardstick of generosity.
“In addition, the two countries also
negotiated an International Unitisation Agreement for the Greater
Sunrise field.”
If Australia had recognised the complete change in relationships
occasioned by East Timor’s independence and set its shoulder to the
wheel to get fair seabed boundaries according to International Law, the
ownership of Greater Sunrise would be seen for what it is, an area to
which East Timor has a very strong claim. Transparent and honest
dealings may have been able to determine ownership quickly, perhaps
relieving everyone of the need of an IUA.
Using our significant clout in “negotiating” with East Timor without
the constraints of the ICJ or ITLOS, the IUA is a very handy agreement
indeed, ensuring Australia retains the lion’s share of an area which is
in dispute.
“Australia has done all that is
necessary to being this agreement into force also.”
Australia is not doing all that is necessary to bring about a
just solution to both players in this dispute. The Timorese have asked
for more frequent meetings than the twice a year which Australia is
prepared to attend. But it has been reported that the Australian
Government has made the extraordinary claim that it does not have the
resources to meet more than twice a year. Australian officials are
quoted as saying: “Canberra is
busy with other sea boundary talks and its resources [are] so stretched
that the discussions could take decades.” The Financial
Times, 27th November 2003
When the boundary was set between Australia and Indonesia in 1972, it
took less than three years to decide on it. The decisions
involved two treaties, and the area considered was larger than the one
presently under discussion. Australia was also able undertake the
momentous task of excising parts of its territory for migration
purposes, and this was done in in one Parliamentary sitting. For
justice to be served it is necessary that the boundary be decided as a
matter of priority which could be within three to five years if the
parties so chose.
“Unfortunately, East Timor has not yet
honoured its commitment to that agreement.”
Could it be that East Timor is now quite conversant with the way
Australia does business?
The requirements given by Prime Minister, Mr Mari Alkatiri for his
Government’s ratification of the Unitization Agreement is that
Australia
* agrees to set a timetable for border negotiations,
* stops issuing petroleum exploration licenses in areas of overlapping
claims,
* takes the dispute to an independent arbitrator if bilateral
negotiations fail.
These expectations seem quite fair and would surely be the minimum
which any nation, including Australia, would require in similar
circumstances.
“It is clearly within Australia’s
national interest that East Timor be a stable and economically
self-sufficient neighbour.”
On Four Corners ABC TV 26.05.04 Alexander Downer said: “If there is an issue of economic
disparity between Australia and East Timor that should be addressed
through aid, which it is. It should not be addressed
through shifting boundaries and changing International Law.”
The aid given by Australia to East Timor since 1999 is one tenth the
amount which Australia receives in tax revenue from the
Laminaria/Corallima oil field which is being exploited even though it
is in a disputed area. We think this Government would prefer to see a
dependent East Timor, one more likely to be controlled by aid and debt,
than a free and self-sufficient small neighbour. It seems that
shifting boundaries and changing international law are only fair game
when it benefits Australia.
“Australia will continue to assist and
cooperate closely with East Timor in the longer-term.”
We will continue to hope and to work for this outcome
About MMIETS (the Mary MacKillop Institute for East Timorese
Studies)
This info last updated: 12 Aug 2004
MMIETS is a Sydney and Dili based charitable institute established in
1994 by
the
Religious of St. Joseph (the order of the Blessed Mary MacKillop -
Australia's first and only saint officially recognised by the Roman
Catholic church) in
response to an appeal for help by Bishop Belo (Diocese of Dili) and in
consultation with the East Timorese community. It was created to assist
in meeting the cultural, educational, health and material needs of the
people of East Timor. MMIETS is safeguarding East Timorese culture by
promoting the use of the language Tetum within the Church and general
education and is developing a Tetum literacy program to this end.
Director:
Sister Josephine Mitchell, RSJ (Religious of St. Joseph - "Brown Jo's")
email: josem@mmiets.org.au
Spokesperson
on oil issues, Deputy
Director of MMIETS:
Sister Susan Connelly, RSJ
email: sc@mmiets.org.au
Reception / Secretarial:
Noreen Nicoara
email: noreen@mmiets.org.au
Editor and Supervisor
of Linguistics (based in Dili):
Father Leão da Costa, Director of Catholic Education,
Fundação São Paulo
Linguist,
Educator (based in Dili):
Sister Teresa (Tess) A. Ward, FDNSC (Daughters of Our Lady of the
Sacred Heart)
email: tess@mmiets.org.au
Timorese Tetun language expertise
(based in Sydney):
Luisa da Cunha Marques
Filomena de Oliveira
Health worker/educator, nurse:
Sister Joan Westblade, LCM (Little Company of Mary)
email: joanw@mmiets.org.au
MMIETS - Sydney, Australia:
20 Mamre Rd, St Marys
PO Box 299, St Marys NSW 1790 AUSTRALIA
Phone: 02 9623
2847
Fax: 02 9623 1573
Institutu Mary MacKillop - Bekora,
Dili Timur, Timor Lorosae:
New larger premises now located in Bekora.
PO Box 427, Dili, East Timor (via Darwin)
Home: http://www.mmiets.org.au
Timor Sea Justice Issues: http://www.mmiets.org.au/projects4.html
Receive
FREE email Web-updates: email wildwood@pcug.org.au
and include the words "Subscribe BACK DOOR" in the message
header.
To add items related to Timor Oil send to BACK
DOOR's email:
wildwood@pcug.org.au
Petitions, Reports
& Position statements are especially welcomed.
Postal address: BACK DOOR PO Box 5
Lyneham
ACT 2602 AUSTRALIA
BACK
DOOR Newsletter on East Timor home
| timor oil
| search
Website: http://www.pcug.org.au/~wildwood
Email: wildwood@pcug.org.au