---------------------------------------------------------- Visit Indonesia Daily News Online HomePage: http://www.indo-news.com/ Please Visit Our Sponsor http://www.indo-news.com/cgi-bin/ads1 ++ Pemilu Online: http://www.indo-news.com/pemilu/ ++ ---------------------------------------------------------- The Jakarta Post, 06 July 1999 Attack in Maliana Looking over the news with respect to an attack recently on a UN post in Maliana, East Timor, it is important to review some of the statements that were put forward by certain people who are connected with that matter. Two contentious statements are identified in this case. They are (1) a statement from the foreign side, and (2) a statement by the Indonesian side. Which one of those is correct needs further study. Apart from which one of them is true, it can be considered that the statement from the foreign side is more tendentious and provocative. For example, U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin said that "we are not satisfied with the fact that the Indonesian Military has not taken steps to bring under control these militias. We're not satisfied with the position of the Indonesian Military and its government." The next example, a statement made by UNAMET: "the post was attacked by about 100 militias members. A witness said a member of the local military command was involved in the attack". Based on these two statements, it is clear that foreign sides have reacted tendentiously. They already understood that the two conflicting parties (pro and anti integrationists) were involved in that incident. Therefore, they must condemn the militias only. But in reality, they merely believed that the militias and the Indonesian Military were the troublemakers. They did not consider the anti-integration group as the other side, which is also responsible for the incident. In my opinion, those statements are very tendentious and discredit Indonesia's position in the eye of the international community. The foreign statements are also provocative in nature. The UN's special envoy for East Timor, Jamsheed Marker, said:"There was no need for the development of peacekeeping forces to take over from the unarmed UN civilian police". Is it a warning of provocation? I do not think it was necessary for Marker to make such a statement. It is too premature. Although the statement does not explicitly indicate the will of the United Nations Assistance Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) to deploy a peacekeeping force in East Timor, it implies an arrogant attitude. So far as I know, the incident was a reflection of a negative attitude UNAMET has shown to prointegration East Timorese. So it is understandable that their attack on the UN post in Maliana is but a reflection of their disappointment. I hope all related parties have the good will to create a conducive climate to make the forthcoming poll a success. ARIRIS MIFTACHURRAHMAN Bekasi, West Java ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Didistribusikan tgl. 8 Jul 1999 jam 11:10:57 GMT+1 oleh: Indonesia Daily News Online <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.Indo-News.com/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
