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
