Abstract
Weldemichael’s text aims to compare and contrast the experiences of the liberation and independence movements in Eritrea and East Timor (Timor-Leste), as cases of strategies against ‘Third world Colonialism’. His assessment aims to draw out the main similarities, differences and distinctions between the two case studies.
For the author, there are marked similarities between the two cases. Both are examples of what he terms ‘secondary colonialism’, that is, colonisation by governments of countries previously colonised by Europe. Both succeeded in defeating their colonisers. Additionally, their respective struggles were affected markedly by the Cold War and its unravelling. And finally, both the strategies and organisation of the movements in Eritrea and East Timor left substantial legacies for post-independence nation-building and political development.
Weldemichael’s main focus, however, is on the differences between the two cases, since he believes that analysing these can enhance our understanding of the two movements and their impact. His presentation of the differences focuses mostly on the strategies adopted – largely military in the case of Eritrea, and a combination of diplomatic and military in the East Timorese case, with the latter importantly coming to the fore in later years of the Indonesian occupation. Additionally, Weldemichael also analyses the two countries’ movements’ relations with regional governments and the governments of the industrialised countries (with the latter being more important in the East Timor case). He also outlines the degree of support from international institutions (the church, NGOs, and solidarity movements – this being more influential in the East Timorese case). Finally, he analyses the differences between the political systems emerging during the post-independence period (authoritarian in the case of Eritrea, and what he terms ‘factionalised party democracy’ in the case of East Timor).
In assessing the main differences and similarities, the author provides accounts of the two countries’ pre-secondary colonial history, the development of their anti-colonial movements, the strategies they adopted, the development of their struggles against colonialism and occupation, their successes in defeating colonial rule and the main political trends in the post-independence period. Weldemichael bases his analysis on primary written material, secondary texts and on interviews with participants in the independence movements.
With regard to the Eritrean case, Weldemichael has a detailed, comprehensive and extensive knowledge of the field, and produces a thorough analysis, relying on original documents and interviews with key actors and informants. Readers of South East Asia Research will be interested primarily in his analysis of the East Timor case, so this review will be concerned almost wholly with Weldemichael’s analysis of East Timor (Timor-Leste).
Much has already been written on the Indonesian occupation, the Timorese resistance movement, the Indonesian withdrawal and the subsequent post-independence period. These events have been assessed from many angles – historical, political, economic, anthropological and human rights. Consequently, the key question is the extent to which the author’s analysis adds to this existing body of knowledge.
For anyone unfamiliar with the history of the Indonesian occupation and the resistance to this by the East Timorese independence movement, Weldemichael’s text provides a detailed, comprehensive and reasonably accurate account of events. He has read extensively, his analysis is based on systematic research into existing documentation and he has conducted many interviews with participants involved in the independence movement. From the latter, he provides information from respondents, some of whom previously have not spoken much of their important roles in the struggle for independence.
However, there are several problems with his analysis, as follows.
In using the material from his interviews, Weldemichael often tends to rely somewhat uncritically on the accounts and interpretations given by his respondents, assuming that their interpretations are accurate accounts of what actually occurred. This at times makes his assessment somewhat unbalanced, since he does not always compare these interpretations with varying ones given elsewhere, in existing texts, documents and narratives. For example, analysing the early (1975–1981) work of the independence movement’s external front, he presents the views of some members of this front as accurate interpretations of events, although these interpretations – as we know from existing research – are highly debatable. This is the case both when the author is analysing factions within Fretilin, and when he is describing the very limited support given by governments to East Timor during this period. In relation to the former, for example, he relies heavily on a former leader of the external delegation, Abilio Araujo, without always comparing his accounts with differing descriptions, and without considering how his views might have been affected by his effectively going over to the Indonesian side from the late 1980s onwards. Similarly, Weldemichael tends to accept particular interpretations of conflicts within the independence movement in East Timor during the 1980s, without fully assessing alternative interpretations by other participants in events. He relies heavily, for example, on the descriptions of former Falintil ‘Special Forces’ commander Paulino Gama (Mauk Moruk), whose views of events have been questioned on many occasions by his colleagues in the independence movement. This tendency is also evidenced in his use of interviews of Portuguese officials and politicians, whose conclusions on the importance of the roles played by the Portuguese Government from 1975 to 199, are highly questionable, but whose interpretations are generally accepted by the author as accurate descriptions of events. Consequently, throughout the test he exaggerates the influence of the Portuguese Government on events, whether this be his claim that Portugal influenced substantially EU and Indonesian policy on East Timor, or that the Portuguese Government played a major role in laying the grounds for the emergence of the discussions on the agreements leading to the holding of the August 1999 autonomy referendum in East Timor. In general, Portugal did next-to-nothing to assist East Timor in the early brutal years of the Indonesian occupation, and subsequently largely reacted to events created elsewhere. Similarly, Weldemichael’s interviews with members of the solidarity movement which played an important role in East Timor’s independence are also partial. He overemphasises the role played by movements in Portugal, and largely ignores significant contributions made by movements in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, the solidarity movement in the UK in the 1970s was particularly important, disseminating information coming directly from East Timor, lobbying politicians in the UK and Europe and providing regular information in bulletins – the only others being provided during this period by movements in Australia and France.
There are also crucial omissions in Weldemichael’s analysis. For example, although he mentions the awarding of the Nobel Prize to the people of East Timor via its representatives, Bishop Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, he does not seem to fully appreciate the impact of this event in diplomatic and international terms. Following the Santa Cruz massacre, it was a major turning point, leading many governments to begin to reassess their policies. Weldemichael could have done more to analyse the reasons for the award at that particular historical moment. Again, an important issue for understanding events is to analyse exactly why Indonesia invaded, since this also enables an understanding of the changes in this situation that led to the Indonesian Government agreeing to the August 1999 autonomy referendum. More useful information could have been presented by the author on this issue.
As we know, there are many in East Timor (renamed Timor-Leste at independence) who have argued that conflicts between the various groups in the independence movement were the main cause of political instability after independence. This view is that of the author, supported by quotes from particular independence movement members and leaders. However, there are important alternative views. For example, that the UN Mission promoted some political groups over others, in the interests of facilitating its administration, and that this was a key factor in promoting resultant instability. A further crucial perspective is the widespread desire for justice felt by many East Timorese, which has led many to criticise the government’s reconciliation with Indonesia. Weldemichael describes this, but does not seem to understand fully the depth of its impact. A further reason for instability lies in the lack of involvement of independence members and guerrilla fighters in post-independence decision making. Weldemichael examines this, but primarily at the political elite level, thereby underestimating to a certain extent its full influence within Timor-Leste’s population. A further important issue to discuss – particularly in relation to the present political conjuncture – would be the degree to which East Timor was able to achieve its independence without resorting to acts of terrorism, despite its isolation and lack of international support during almost the entire 24-year period of its struggle against the Indonesian military occupation.
The case of how a nation of less than a million people, isolated internationally, managed to defeat the military might of Indonesia and construct a state that, in comparison with most other low-income, resource dependent countries, is remarkable. Furthermore, Timor-Leste has been relatively successful since its independence. Weldemichael’s text gives a detailed and systematic account of East Timor during this period, but it may be useful when reading his text to bear in mind the critical issues presented briefly in this review.