A travesty of omissions

John Pilger

Published 20 August 2009

It is ten years since East Timor’s referendum on freedom from Indonesia – but, as the gaps in a new film show, the western cover-up continues

General Suharto's resignation. Credit: Getty Images

On 30 August it will be a decade since the people of East Timor defied the genocidal occupiers of their country to take part in a United Nations referendum and vote for their freedom and independence. A "scorched earth" campaign by the Indonesian dictatorship followed, adding to a toll of carnage that had begun 24 years earlier when Indonesia invaded tiny East Timor with the secret support of Australia, Britain and the United States. According to a committee of the Australian parliament, "at least 200,000" died under the occupation, a third of the population.

Filming undercover in 1993, I found crosses almost everywhere: great black crosses etched against the sky, crosses on peaks, crosses in tiers on the hillsides, crosses beside the road. They littered the earth and crowded the eye. A holocaust happened in East Timor, and it tells us more about rapacious western power, its propaganda and true aims, than even current colonial adventures. The historical record is unambiguous that the US, Britain and Australia conspired to accept such a scale of bloodshed as the price of securing south-east Asia's "greatest prize" with its "hoard of natural resources".

Philip Liechty, the CIA operations officer in Jakarta at the time of the invasion, told me: “I saw the intelligence. There were people being herded into school buildings by Indonesian soldiers and the buildings set on fire. The place was a free fire zone . . . We sent them everything that you need to fight a major war against somebody who doesn't have any guns. None of that got out . . . [The Indonesian dictator] Suharto was given the green light to do what he did."

Britain supplied Suharto with machine-guns and Hawk fighter-bombers, which, regardless of fake "assurances", were used against defenceless East Timorese villages. The critical role was played by Australia: this was Australia's region. During the Second World War, the people of East Timor had fought heroically to stop a Japanese invasion of Australia. Their betrayal was spelled out in a series of leaked cables sent by the then Australian ambassador in Jakarta, Richard Woolcott, prior to and during the Indonesian invasion in 1975.

Echoing Henry Kissinger, he urged "a pragmatic rather than a principled stand", reminding his government that it would "more readily" exploit the oil and gas wealth beneath the Timor Sea with Indonesia than with its rightful owners, the East Timorese. "What Indonesia now looks to from Australia", he wrote, as Suharto's special forces slaughtered their way across East Timor, "is some understanding of their attitude and possible action to assist public understanding in Australia".

Two months earlier, Indonesian troops had murdered five newsmen from Australian TV near the East Timorese town of Balibo. On the day the capital, Dili, was seized, they shot dead a sixth journalist, Roger East, throwing his body into the sea. Australian intelligence had known 12 hours in advance that the journalists in Balibo faced imminent death, and the government did nothing. Intercepted at the Australian spy base Defence Signals Directorate near Darwin, which supplies US and British intelligence, the warning was suppressed so that it would not expose the western governments' part in the conspiracy to invade, or the official lie that the journalists had been killed in "crossfire".

The then secretary of the Australian defence department, Arthur Tange, a notorious cold warrior, demanded that the government should not even inform the journalists' families of their murders. No minister protested to the Indonesians. This criminal connivance is documented in Death in Balibo, Lies in Canberra, by Desmond Ball, a renowned intelligence specialist, and Hamish McDonald.

The Australian government's complicity in the journalists' murder and, above all, in a bloodbath greater proportionally than that perpetrated by Pol Pot in Cambodia has been cut from a major new film, Balibo, which has begun its international release in Australia. Claiming to be a "true story", it is a travesty of omissions. In eight of 16 drafts of his screenplay, David Williamson, the distinguished Australian playwright, graphically depicted the chain of true events that began with the original radio intercepts by Australian intelligence and went all the way to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who believed East Timor should be "integrated" into Indonesia. This is reduced in the film to a fleeting image of Whitlam and Suharto in a newspaper wrapped around fish and chips.

Williamson's original script described the effect of the cover-up on the families of the murdered journalists, their anger and frustration at being denied information and their despair at Canberra's scandalous decision to have the journalists' ashes buried in Jakarta with Ambassador Woolcott, the arch-apologist, reading the oration. What the government feared if the ashes came home was public outrage, directed at the west's client in Jakarta. All this was cut.

The "true story" is largely fictitious. Finely dramatised, acted and located, the film is reminiscent of the genre of Vietnam movies, such as The Deer Hunter (1978), which artistically airbrushed the truth of that atrocious war from popular history. Not surprisingly, Balibo has mostly been lauded in the Australian media, which took minimal interest in East Timor's suffering during the long years of Indonesian occupation. So enamoured of General Suharto was the country's only national daily, the Australian, owned by Rupert Murdoch, that its editor-in-chief Paul Kelly led Australia's principal newspaper editors to Jakarta to shake the tyrant's hand.

I asked Balibo's director, Robert Connolly, why he had cut the original script and omitted all government complicity. He replied that the film had "generated huge discussion in the media and the Australian government" and in that way "Australia would be best held accountable". Milan Kundera's truism comes to mind: "The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

www.johnpilger.com

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

Hist
23 August 2009 at 03:35

Well, check out this site after you’ve seen the film and

see what you reckon:

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/hass/Timor/

JP: During the second world war, the people of East

Timor had fought heroically to stop a Japanese

invasion of Australia.

CF: Not exactly. In fact Japan had no forces in

Portuguese Timor, as Australian policymakers knew at

the time. What is more, Japan had no intention of

deploying forces to Portuguese Timor, which was a

colony of Portugal – a neutral power during World War

II. In its march through Asia, Japan had refrained from

violating this neutrality in the other Portuguese colony

of Macau. It was only after Australian, Dutch and

British troops had deployed to Portuguese Timor and

violated Portuguese neutrality that Japan decided to

send its own forces there.

JP: On the day the capital, Dili, was seized, they shot

dead a sixth journalist, Roger East...

CF: It was the day after.

JP: Australian intelligence had known 12 hours in

advance that the journalists in Balibo faced imminent

death, and the government did nothing.

CF: No evidence of this has ever surfaced.

JP: This criminal connivance is documented in Death

in Balibo, Lies in Canberra, by Desmond Ball, a

renowned intelligence specialist, and Hamish

McDonald.

CF: Discredited at the 2007 Coronial Inquest.

JP: In eight of sixteen drafts of his screenplay, David

Williamson, the distinguished Australian playwright

CF: Can't say anything about this.

Jonathan B
24 August 2009 at 05:15

Could not agree more JP. One should never forget the main purpose of any film of this genre is not to tell the truth but to make money for its makers. Good luck to them but I wouldn't want to be drawing any thoughtful conclusions about the events all those years ago just from this movie. This one may be a bit futher along the continuum but here is another truism for you: "nice - but it is only a MOVIE!!!!" Regards Jonathan B

Hist
22 September 2009 at 10:51

Here's what the Coroner had to say about Pilger's claim that "Australian intelligence had known 12 hours in advance that the journalists in Balibo faced imminent death, and the government did nothing.":

"None of the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest about sigint material they saw from 1975 onwards saw any material in terms of the alleged Murdani-Dading intercept. In summary, therefore,

a) there is no extant intercept or report referring to it;

b) no witness has ever seen such an intercept or report; and

c) those nominated as being able to validate its existence, namely, Messrs. Brownbill, Cunliffe and Cameron have specifically given evidence to the contrary.

Hence, there is nothing before the inquest to indicate that such a document ever existed."

mohammedmassoudmorsi
09 October 2009 at 08:31

I believe it is very clear that Australian intelligence knew that the journalists faced immininent death. Tony maniaty's story 'shooting balibo' states not just one but several telegrams were sent to the australian foreign department. Then we have Desmond Ball's documenting , discredited by a coronial inquest more resembling the 911 omission team than anything else.

Regardless, if being on the top of a hill, on the most strategic position in a place just about to be invaded, and having told your government that you are there, doesn't qualify as 'intelligence knowing'; then what would qualify?

As far as I know it was quite clear that both the Australian and American government had met with Suharto just days before the invasion. As far as I know the American administration hasn't exactly tried to hide that it was an 'ok-go ahead' visit. As far as I know the journalists died - and not to forget the 200.000 or more civilian.

Maybe we spare a minute for them and the many more hundreds of thousands that have died in playing the game of the interests of western led and western controlled governements.

vhearman
16 October 2009 at 06:49

John Pilger clearly missed the point of the film Balibo.

Director Robert Connolly is right. The film Balibo has ignited a lot of discussion, including among the younger generation in Australia who were not aware of the dreadful machinations of successive Australian governments. But that's not all Connolly has said. Connolly has gone to some length to explain why the film focused so much on East Timor and less on the corridors of power in Canberra. Pilger's selective quoting of Connolly doesn't convey this to readers.

There is room for different kinds of film-making when portraying historical events and not confined to only documentaries. The filmmakers have opted to focus their story on East Timor and the Timorese, their dream for an end to Portuguese rule, and how the newsmen's deaths are intertwined with the fate of the country on the eve of Indonesian invasion.

Pilger suggests there is a conspiracy in the shelving of David Williamson's more critical versions of the script. Connolly has stated that there has been no Australian government interference or obstruction in the making of the film.

Pilger's comments on the 'consulting historian' for Balibo, Dr Clinton Fernandes are misleading. Fernandes is an academic at the Australian Defence Force Academy who has written two books about the Interfet operation and about West Papua. Again suggesting a conspiracy, Fernandes was once a military intelligence analyst says Pilger. He has not worked in that capacity for many years and since obtaining his doctorate, has been an academic. I wonder if Pilger has cared to check the historical website that Fernandes curates, attached to the Balibo film site, which is very educational, careful and thorough. The filmmakers acknowledge that by virtue of their medium, there are limitations and any Balibo viewer who was interested in knowing more about the issue could go to the historical site. See this film for yourself. You don't need a sledgehammer to get the point across.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

John Pilger

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker