by Nick Everett
"The international community continues to miss the point in the case of East Timor. To the capitalist governors, Timor's petroleum smells better than Timorese blood and tears." — A Portuguese priest, Kraras, in East Timor.
From Whitlam to Keating, a desire to reap profits from the massive oil reserves of the Timor Sea has been a guiding force in determining ALP policy on East Timor.
In September 1974, Gough Whitlam met with Suharto in Jakarta. According to journalists briefed by Australian officials, Whitlam and Suharto "agreed that the best and most realistic future for Timor was association with Indonesia", and Whitlam had made clear that "an independent Timor would be an unviable state and a potential threat to the area".
In July, 1975, as Indonesia prepared to intervene to destroy a growing independence movement, Richard Woolcott, Australia's ambassador in Jakarta, summed up the Whitlam government's position in a cable to Canberra: "[We should] act in a way which would be designed to minimise the public impact in Australia and show private understanding to Indonesia of their problems".
A treaty on the oil and gas-rich seabed "could be more readily negotiated with Indonesia than with Portugal or independent Portuguese Timor", he said. "I know I am recommending a pragmatic rather than a principled stand but that is what national foreign policy is all about."
At the ALP National Conference in Hobart last month, pragmatism won out over principle once again. The strongest motion put on East Timor was a desire to "reduce Indonesian troop levels" in the occupied territory. No mention of self-determination was made.
The unwillingness of the Keating government to recognise East Timorese demands for self-determination reflects its desire to legitimate an arrangement with the Suharto regime whereby Australian oil companies will be able to engage in massive oil drilling while paying no royalties to the East Timorese people.
This arrangement came into being with the signing of the Timor Gap Treaty on December 11, 1989. The treaty was hailed by foreign affairs minister Gareth Evans as the most substantial agreement between Australia and Indonesia.
It amounts to the annexation of some 61,000 square kilometres of seabed that has been in dispute since Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975. In defence of this treaty and Australia's recognition of Indonesia's claim to East Timor, Evans told the Senate: "There is no legal obligation not to recognise acquisition of territory that was acquired by force". Australia is one of only two countries in the world that give legal recognition to the occupation.
Australian oil companies are poised to benefit enormously from this violation of international law: seismic survey work has indicated that as much as 7 billion barrels of oil could be pumped from the Timor seabed. Among the players are BHP Petroleum, Petroz NL, Woodside Petroleum and Santos.
In February and March, significant finds by Petroz caused its share price to double. Viable wells operated by the Brisbane-based oil company, in conjunction with BHP Petroleum, are expected to come on line in the next year. While Petroz is not new to exploration in the Timor Sea, its latest venture will be the first to exploit the oil reserves: traded for with the blood of the people of East Timor.
"Petroz' gross exploration interests in this region cover over 13,000 square kilometres (amounting to approximately 20% of the 55,000 square kilometres of seismic operations conducted in this area) and represent a major asset of the company", boasts Greg Swindon, chairperson of Petroz, in the company's prospectus. "The prospects which this work has delineated are large, some of them are very large, with potential for up to 1000 million barrels of oil-in-place."
While the company looks poised to reap mega-profits by trading blood for oil, the company is prepared to acknowledge "international government relations" could be a "risk factor".
"The continuation of good relations between the Australian and Indonesian governments is important", notes the prospectus. "Adverse relationships could impact negatively on the administration of the co-operative agreement governing this exploration program."
With drilling soon to begin, the company has good reason to be nervous — not from the possibility of a breakdown in relations between the Australian and Indonesian governments (which have never been better) but from a court challenge in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and from a campaign against the company which has spread nationally.
In February 1991, Portugal instituted proceedings at the ICJ against Australia, claiming that the Timor Gap Treaty is in violation of international law. Because Indonesia does not accept ICJ jurisdiction, Australia is the sole defendant.
The Australian government looks set to prolong this case, and even if it is defeated, there is a possibility Australia could disregard the ruling and pay whatever fines are imposed (out of royalties derived from enormous oil company profits).