East Timor (Hansard, 14 January 1992)

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, Her Majesty's ambassador in Jakarta made immediate representations to the Indonesian authorities on 12th November following reports that two British journalists had been detained. He later received assurances that they were not being held. My noble friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also raised the matter with the Indonesian ambassador on 13th November.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a British photographer, Stephen Cox, was not only arrested but beaten by the Indonesian police on 12th November? Is this not a case in which Her Majesty's Government should take action to protect a British citizen? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that, according to first-hand eye witness accounts by journalists on the spot, British machines were being used by the police and army during that massacre on 12th November? Does the noble Lord agree that the British Government should not supply any military equipment to a state that was declared an aggressor by the United Nations 15 years ago?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, we became aware that Mr. Cox had been detained and beaten by Indonesian soldiers when the matter was reported by a colleague, by which time Mr. Cox had already left East Timor. We are deeply disturbed by those events, although a commission of inquiry has been set up by the Indonesian Government to look into the matter and we have evidence that it has a fairly earnest intent.
110 As regards the question of arms, I believe that the machines to which the noble Lord referred may have been Land Rovers which are about 23 years old. I do not think that that amounts to us aiding the arms situation in that part of the world.

The Viscount of Oxfuird
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the current inquiry—I gather that it has not as yet been concluded—has been supported by the United States Secretary of State's department, the Australian ambassador and the European Commission as an inquiry which is being held with integrity and that they do not regard it as a whitewash?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, my noble friend is well-informed on this matter. The commission of inquiry appears to be a serious body with integrity. I believe that two officers involved in the incident at Dili have already been dismissed, as have others, and there is evidence of charges outstanding.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the instance that we are discussing—the shooting of unarmed civilians in East Timor—is only one of a series of such incidents in East Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia since 1965 when there were truly grotesque events in Indonesia in which 500,000 people died and from which the present government emerged? Is it defensible to continue to provide aid and particularly to sell arms to such a regime, given that aid to newly emergent nations—for instance, the republics of the former Soviet Union—is dependent on their progress towards democracy and their reputation for human rights?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I share the noble Lord's view about the situation over a period of years and the violence and deterioration of human rights. Of course, there is a political dimension to the matter. We do what we can with our friends and partners to influence the Indonesian authorities. Our paramount concern is that those incidents are not repeated and we are currently in discussion with our European partners in the hope of trying to move the issue forward. With regard to arms, all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations charter to secure the means of their own defence and this country is no exception.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, is it possible to take stronger action at the United Nations to halt the mass genocide carried out by the Indonesian authorities in East Timor? It is far worse than what is happening to the Kurds.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I do not think that I can add to what I have said on the matter. We are doing all we can with our partners and I do not believe that there is a further role for the United Nations.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, perhaps I may return to that point. Bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Government have never recognised the right of Indonesia to occupy East Timor, is it not precisely to 111 the United Nations Security Council that the issue should now be referred? Secondly, on the noble Lord's reply on arms, he will recall that on 25th November when the issue was raised in the House, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, at col. 1149: we do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used for repressive purposes against civil populations". Now that we know that British arms have been used for that purpose, will the noble Lord review the point that I made in that debate; namely, that we should now consider stopping the supply of arms to Indonesia altogether while that situation continues?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, we must pursue the line that we are taking at present with our European partners, because a European partner is involved here. On the noble Lord's second point, I do not accept that arms are being used for the purpose of repressing the local population. Arms sales are selected on the basis that they cannot be used for those purposes.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that there is profound misgiving about the danger of British arms being used in the repressive massacres that repeatedly occur in Indonesia? Is it not high time that there was a new drive for a settlement on the basis of UN Resolutions 384 and 389? Do not the Government feel able to raise the matter as one of profound urgency at the special summit meeting of the Security Council on 31st January? There is a difficulty here because the Government are winning support for their stand on democracy and human rights in their aid relationships, but they appear to be being rather selective by not including Indonesia in that thrust.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, the resolutions to which the noble Lord referred are not included under Chapter 7 and are therefore not mandatory. We continue to take an interest and we believe that the course that we are taking will be the best possible way in which to advance the issue.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the noble Lord said that those resolutions are not mandatory. In the light of what has happened and what is now known throughout the world to have happened, is it not the task of the British Government to go to the Security Council and make them mandatory, or at least to give a lead in making them mandatory? Does he agree with the new Secretary-General of the United Nations that the United Nations should now set up an international investigation into the massacre?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, as I said, there has been an investigation into the massacre. However, as regards our attitude to the resolutions, we went along with the majority of members of the European Community and abstained on all the UN resolutions passed in subsequent debates because we felt that that would help the process of reconciliation in the search for a diplomatic solution between Indonesia and Portugal. That point should not be underestimated.