While little has been revealed about the discussions during the first formal round of negotiations between the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) and Australia on the future of the Timor Gap Treaty, the Australian government has made its position clear: it does not think that the terms of the treaty should change significantly (if at all) and it thinks that the most important issue regarding the oil- and gas-rich Timor Sea is "the maintenance of investor confidence".
According to statements from UNTAET and East Timorese negotiator Mari Alkatiri, each side presented their "point of view" at the talks, which were held in Dili, October 9-11. Alkatiri indicated that the main issue raised by East Timor was the delineation of the maritime boundary, while the Australian proposals centered on the question of royalties. Head of the Australian delegation Michael Potts commented that the talks "clarified themes and positions".
As present, the treaty is not considered legal or binding by either UNTAET or representatives of the East Timorese. They argue that the treaty is in contravention of international norms and laws relating to maritime boundaries (specifically, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) and that, consequently, East Timor is entitled to all the territory north of the half-way point between East Timor and Australia (the southern most boundary of the "zone of cooperation" represents this median line).
Unequal divide
The Australian government is remaining tight-lipped about the talks and what it might propose before the next round of negotiations. However, before and during the first round, government ministers re-stated their opposition to any changes to the treaty that would transfer a greater share of royalties to East Timor and categorically ruled out the adjustment of the maritime boundary.
On October 4, Democrat Senator Vicki Bourne asked industry, science and resources minister Nick Minchin what position the government would take into the negotiations and about the implications in regard to international law. She said: "The usual way to divide resources in cases such as the Timor Gap is via a dividing line half-way between the two coastlines".
Minchin replied that the negotiations are "not a matter for public discourse" and that "there are assertions about what international law may now say in relation to these beds [oil and gas fields], but I am not going to engage in speculation about what may or may not be the position we take in those negotiations".
He also trumpeted a two-year, $700,000 per annum funding project to train East Timorese in "administration and policy development in relation to the Timor Gap". This is chicken-feed compared to the anticipated tens of millions of dollars worth of royalties from the oil and gas reserves that the Australian state has illegally secured access to. These resources rightfully belong entirely to the East Timorese.
Australia has already received close to $6 million in royalties from the Timor Gap. This money should be returned immediately to East Timor, as a small step towards a much larger compensation package from the government and Australian-based companies that profited from a special relationship with the Suharto dictatorship, the cornerstone of which was successive Australian governments' formal recognition of Indonesia's illegal occupation of East Timor.
Blackmail
Minchin's refusal to answer directly Bourne's question is not surprising. He knows full well that the government's position is legally weak and morally bankrupt.
The Coalition government wants this dispute resolved with as little public scrutiny as possible because it fears a public backlash against its position; a reasonable fear given the strong sympathy amongst Australia's people for the plight of devastated East Timor.
Comments made by foreign minister Alexander Downer on October 9 implied that if negotiations result in a reduction of royalties to Australia from oil and gas exploration in the zone of cooperation, the government would reconsider its overall aid package to East Timor. Downer told reporters, "The extent to which East Timor itself is able to get the royalties, or a share of the royalties, the size of its share, plays into the overall size of the aid program in East Timor".
Another theme running through the government's argument has been the bogey of reduced investor confidence in the Timor Sea due to uncertainty over the future of the Timor Gap Treaty. East Timorese representatives, however, have publicly stated on numerous occasions — including at forums and meetings involving representatives of oil and gas companies — that they support current and proposed developments in the Timor Sea and do not envisage imposing higher taxes or implementing statuary requirements other than those presently in place.
By pursuing its own interests in relation to the Timor Gap, the Howard government is denying East Timor access to resources that will play a vital role in the future development of East Timor. In doing so, Australia is undermining the East Timorese people's ability to exercise fully their right to self-determination.
BY JON LAND