Summary: Ethnic tensions flared up because the UN pulled out too soon, and people thought that once they were independent, they'd be rich. The present uprising is that of local militias causing trouble. In most countries, you need a stablizing force for at least 10 years in order to allow democratic institutions to take hold, and the UN failed to do this. (Indeed, the UN Just pulled out their peacekeepers). In absense of the UN, a "coalition of the willing" composed of Australia/NZ/Portugual have sent in troops to quell the violence....
Zhu Xian, who directs World Bank operations in East Timor. (said) many new nations lapse into violence five years after independence as an early surge of optimism fades and deeply rooted tensions overwhelm weak, untested institutions.
So far, 100 000 have fled, in a country of less than one million...
Sound familiar? Andrew Bolt sees the parallels to Iraq...and notes that those who criticize Iraq's struggling democracy ignore the pains of democratic birth in other countries, from Russia to South AFrica to East Timor...
"...with East Timor we are endlessly patient. We trust them with freedom, even though there is actually far less hope of it sticking there than there is in Iraq. Still, the East Timorese aren't Muslims, are they? And their liberators weren't Americans. Big difference."
The Bangkok post notes the same thing:In answer to Australian critics of the rescue mission, Nelson said: "If we didn't think that East Timor had a viable future you would have to ask yourself why would we be committing so much political, military, economic and diplomatic support to the country? It's in the interests of Australia, and I would argue the region, to see that we have an independent, viable, democratic East Timor."
No comments:
Post a Comment