---------------------------------------------------------- Visit Indonesia Daily News Online HomePage: http://www.indo-news.com/ Please Visit Our Sponsor http://www.indo-news.com/cgi-bin/ads1 ---------------------------------------------------------- Precedence: bulk The Nation (Bangkok) 4 October 1999 Editorial & Opinion COHEN: US IS NOT SEEKING TO BE GLOBAL POLICEMAN US Secretary of Defence William Cohen flew into Bangkok on Friday from Indonesia where he discussed the East Timor crisis with top political and military leaders. He sat down with The Nation editor-in-chief Suthichai Yoon to answer some of the controversial questions on Washington's stand on the dispatch of a multinational force to East Timor. This is the first of two excerpts from the exclusive interview. Q: Mr Secretary, a number of Thais are quite disappointed that the United States hasn't played a bigger role in East Timor. Instead, according to some reports, you have assigned Australia to act as your ''deputy'' in the multinational forces there. Why aren't you playing a more active role? A: First of all, that's a gross mischaracterisation of the United States' role. We are in fact providing a great deal of assistance to the peacekeeping mission. The mission could not be successful without the assistance that the United States is providing in terms of intelligence capability, communications capability, logistical support and sustainment of support -- apart from the heavy-lift capability coming in from Japan. Secondly, there are no ''deputies''. The US is not a policeman. We are not a global policeman. It is wrong to try to characterise Australia or Thailand as ''deputies'' of the US. We believe that it is important for countries in the region where there is a crisis -- and East Timor is in a crisis situation -- for those countries who are closest to that country, who have the greatest impact to bear from a continuation of that crisis, to take a leadership role and helping to resolve it. We will do whatever we can to resolve the crisis in a peaceful and stabilising way. Q: Why do you think Prime Minister John Howard of Australia indicated that his country was playing a ''deputy'' role in this case, then? Have you checked with him on what he actually said to the Bulletin magazine? A: I haven't had a chance to talk to Prime Minister Howard. I have had a conversation with the defence minister (of Australia). He and I agreed that there is no such thing as a ''deputy''. Nobody has been ''deputised''. We have had good relations with Australia and all the Asean countries. We want to have a better relationship with Indonesia on a military and diplomatic basis. And of course an economic one as well. We think that Indonesia's stabilisation and transformation to a true democratic society is very important to the future prosperity of the entire region. We play an important role and Thailand certainly plays a very important role. Q: Why haven't you sent armed troops to East Timor? A: Well, we have provided the kind of support that we can. Don't forget we have 100,000 troops committed to this region. And that's quite a contribution. We also have strong bilateral relations with Thailand, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines. We can't be everywhere with everything. We can in fact provide the kind of leadership that is needed and ask those countries that are directly impacted in the region to bear a major share of responsibility. And we can be supportive of that. But we are not in a position to be a global policeman. Q: Do you try to be a global policeman? A: No, we don't try to be a global policeman. We only try to be as helpful as we can to promote peace and prosperity and democracy wherever we can. But we don't seek the role of a world policeman. Q: But you are aware that certain important elements in Indonesia aren't too happy with the presence of Australian troops in East Timor, aren't you? A: I understand that the present government invited the international peace-keeping force. And we commend Australia for taking a leadership role. Frankly, I would like to see a greater contribution along the line of what Thailand has done. But it is important that the peace-keeping force be formed and be deployed to the extent that more contributions could come from the other Asean countries. I think that would be better and more helpful. Q: Whose idea was it that Australia would lead the multinational forces in East Timor? A: Australia is located in Asia. They are a Western-oriented country. They are very close to the situation. They would bear a significant burden. Q: But they don't like each other too much. Is it a good idea to have a multinational mission led by a country that isn't too friendly with the host country? A: It is up to the United Nations to make a determination in terms of how the force would be constructed. It's really the question of Australia being ready to come forward. If there were other nations who wished to take the primary role, that certainly could have occurred. If there was any hesitancy on the part of the Asean countries, then it seems to me that there would have been a void -- a vacuum. And the kind of atrocities that we have seen would continue. That simply is unacceptable. I am sure the Australians would have been satisfied to have others come forward to take a major role. But to the extent that they haven't and it has fallen on the Australians and we are satisfied that they are making a major effort and we support them. Q: Would you have been happier if the multinational forces were led by the Asean troops, and not the Australians? A: It is not a question of the United States being happy or not. We are pleased to see that there is a peace-keeping force that has been organised. We think it's important that all countries in the region participate in a peace-keeping force. If there were Asean members who wanted to take the leadership role, that certainly could have been done. Apparently, it was not done. And so, Australia, under the circumstances, in view of the fact that if violence continues, it will have a great impact on their country. And they stepped forward. They should be commended for that. So, it's not the question of whether I or anybody else likes the fact. This was reality on the ground. People were being slaughtered. They were being intimidated. And here was the country who said ''we would help''. And others have now supported that. I commend Thailand for being the second largest contributor to this peace-keeping force. It is very important to have more Asean countries participate at a greater levels. Q: What did you tell Gen Wiranto of Indonesia when you met him a few days ago about allegations that his soldiers were in fact supporting the militias who were killing East Timorese? A: There is evidence that elements of the military were either supportive or actually participants in some of the violence. And they must be held accountable. There must an internal inquiry. It must be conducted in a fair, open and responsible fashion. Those officers or enlisted individuals must be held accountable. That's true and consistent with the Indonesian people. They have demanded and voted for democracy. And a key element of any democratic society is the subordination of the military to civilian control. The civilians must be in control of the military. The military must be accountable to civilian officials and ultimately to the people who are demanding democracy. Q: Do you think the civilians can control the military in Indonesia today? A: If there is a lack of control of the military by civilian authorities meaning a lack of control by the people, then the dreams and promise of democracy certainly cannot be realised. Q: How long would the multinational forces have to be in East Timor? A: That remains to be determined. It is our hope that peace and stability can be established quickly and that the United Nations, what they call Phase 3, can be implemented within a matter of a few months. The sooner that takes place, the better. The more quickly the displaced persons can return home and the more quickly there can be construction of the shelters and other types of infrastructure, and the more quickly the institutions for self-governance can be established, then the peace-keeping mission can be called certainly a success. We hope that can happen soon but much will depend upon the role that Indonesia itself adopts towards East Timor. Q: Some analysts say the mission may take five to six years. Is that a fair assessment? A: I don't think anyone can determine a time-frame. But the sooner it can be done, the better. Q: Some critics say the United States was more concerned about Kosovo than East Timor. What, in Washington's viewpoint, is the difference between the two? A: Let me first point out that we are very concerned about Asia-Pacific. I don't know of any other country that has 100,000 troops contributed to the stability and maintaining peace throughout this region. To say that the US doesn't have an interest in this region is again an error. What we try to do is to be as constructive and as helpful as we can. We have just completed a major peace-making operation in Kosovo at a substantial cost in terms of our military operations. We are also engaged in this part of the world. South Korea is where we have some 37,000 troops on the ground. And again around 100,000 troops in Asia Pacific. We are spread quite thin in many parts of the world. Q: Are you overstretched? A: We are very seriously stretched. Q: Does that mean that if there was a new hotspot in Asia, you wouldn't be able to send more troops here, then? A: It depends on the nature of the hotspot itself. We are trying to be as responsible to our men and women in uniform as far as possible. We are finding that we have a smaller force than we had during the height of the Cold War. And we find that we are deploying them on a much more intense and higher level of operations. That's creating great stress upon them and their families. As a result, we are having some difficulties now in our recruitment and or retention. Therefore, we have to take into account how much stress we can place upon this force so that we won't overstress them. Because that ultimately will only contribute to a reduction in our ability to maintain what we believe is the best military force in the world. So, we try to be as responsible in the allocation of our troops as we can, taking advantage of where we can make a significant contribution, where we expect other nations who have a major role and responsibility to contribute and not simply to turn to the United States every time and say: You do it. We think everyone in the region has his own responsibility. Peace and stability in East Timor is our responsibility to the extent that the United States can be helpful. That would be great. But you cannot expect the United States to be bearing the full load each and every time. Q: What are your criteria then to decide what is important to the United States? A: The US will make a determination in terms of each case on what has an impact upon our security interest? Q: So, it's YOUR security interests that come first? A: No, don't mischaracterise us. What is important to, let's say Thailand, is very important to us as well. That's why we have had such a long, over 160 years of close relations. That's because we value very much the security of Thailand. So, in a global economy, in a world that has been reduced by technology, what will have an impact on one part of the globe can have a very significant impact on ours. So, we try to make judgements in terms of how we can in fact contribute to stabilising or securing an area that will have an impact not only on our friends but also upon us. [The Nation] ---------- SiaR WEBSITE: http://apchr.murdoch.edu.au/minihub/siarlist/maillist.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Didistribusikan tgl. 6 Oct 1999 jam 04:48:55 GMT+1 oleh: Indonesia Daily News Online <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.Indo-News.com/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
