Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999)


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999)
I've recently finished writing this article and I plan to take it to FAC soon. (Without trying to be immodest, I think it's fairly close already.) approved it as a Good Article and suggested I bring it here. So I'm bringing it here. Thanks in advance for your suggestions and feedback. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. The "see also" section should be removed, though. Carom (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Will do. Thanks. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason why it should be removed?
 * I don’t actually mind the portal removal but the other two links provide a clear link (ie, highly visible for someone skimming) to broad but very related overall coverage. In fact, their broad nature is what makes them useful and actually befitting of the “See also” format compared most more specific articles that can be worked into the text – ie, the links go higher in generality rather than more specific which is why "see also" doesn't usually work so well. --Merbabu (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)--Merbabu (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they're superfluous. History of East Timor is the very first main template link, and the Indonesian history page is very quickly found by folks who click links in the article itself. Besides, there's an East Timor history template which deprecates that link in "See Also". (And the Indonesia portal was merely moved up under the East Timor history template.) – Scartol  •  Tok  02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with comments...I think it's better to combine footnotes at the end of a sentence instead of having a footnote mid-sentence. Also, I believe the license for the torture photo may be problematic.  There needs to be a link in the image file to justification for why it isn't copyrighted.  One more thing, did Indonesia do anything good for East Timor during the occupation?  Did they improve the infrastructure, build roads or schools, anything at all besides killing and torturing?  Does Indonesia claim publicly anywhere that they helped improve the lives of East Timorese during the occupation?  A paragraph giving Indonesia's side of the occupation years, if Indonesia has a side, would help the neutrality of the article.  Otherwise this is really an excellent article, well-researched and written, and very informative. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I generally only put citations mid-sentence if it was requested during a review, or cited a particularly contentious fact. If there are specific areas where you think citations need to be trimmed, I'd be happy to take a look. As for the torture photo, it seems to me that it's ineligible for copyright, like the Abu Ghraib photos. Perhaps I should use the PD-IDGov tag? A discussion of Indonesia's positive contributions to East Timor are found in the Demography and economy section. Thanks again for your review! – Scartol  •  Tok  13:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support This is a good article, but has some POV problems and seems to give undue weight to the role Australia and the US played. I've just removed a very dubious claim that governments around the world failed to pressure Indonesia to accept peacekeepers in 1999 and a quote which suggests that the US opposed intervention. I recall intense lobbying from Australia, Europe and the US to allow peacekeepers in, and INTERFET was the result. The US provided key logistical support for INTERFET and stationed marines and aircraft carriers off East Timor during the first stage of the peacekeeping deployment. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. I've devoted an intense amount of effort to this article, and I've worked very hard to keep it NPOV, while discussing the most important points usually made in my full survey of the English-language literature available on the subject.


 * Okay, full disclosure time (so you know how important this is to me): I've been paying very close attention to East Timor since 1995, when I became involved with the East Timor Action Network/US. I was a coordinator for the International Federation for East Timor's Observer Project in 1999. My eyes were glued to the television screen every single day during what the East Timorese call "Black September", and I remember coming close to smashing my set every time a US official took to the podium and talked about how "concerned" they were. I was receiving phone calls and emails from people in East Timor explaining how the paramilitary groups were roaming around on the streets, among dead bodies and burning buildings. I could hear the gunshots in the background. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger was ridiculing the notion of sending in peacekeepers.


 * I've provided numerous citations to the discussion of US unwillingness to push for peacekeepers in 1999. Joe Nevins (in his book A Not-So-Distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor – one of a handful of books available on the subject) points out on pp. 107–108 that only on the weekend of 11 September (a full week after the paramilitary groups had begun killing civilians, attacking church buildings, and attacking journalists) did the US and Britain push for peacekeepers. This slow response mirrored the reluctance shown by the US throughout 1999, as evidence piled up that the TNI-supported paramilitary groups were intent on making their "sea of fire" prophecy a reality.


 * On p. 123, Nevins writes:


 * Even as violence grew in the immediate aftermath of the vote and in anticipation of the announcement of the results, Core Group members ["an informal body put together by Secretary-General Kofi Annan", p. 116 -scartol] still did not make strong statements that might have pressured the TNI to abide by its obligations. On September 3, for example, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh ruled out the possibility of some sort of international security force entering East Timor in the short term, calling it "not a practical suggestion." Instead, he explained, the United States was "counting on the Indonesian authorities ... to create a situation of peace and security throughout East Timor." Between the date of the ballot and Burleigh's statement (a five-day period), pro-Indonesia forces had killed at least four local U.N. staff members and three civilians, in addition to burning houses throughout the territory, attacking the UNAMET compound, driving most journalists out of the country, and forcing international observers to evacuate from a majority of the areas outside Dili.
 * Another relevant paragraph (p. 124):
 * The New York Times wrote that the Clinton administration had "made the calculation that the U.S. must put its relationship with Indonesia, a mineral-rich nation of more than 200 million people, ahead of its concern over the political fate of East Timor, a tiny,impoverished territory of 800,000 people that is seeking independence."


 * If you've got a source for your claim that the US engaged in "intense lobbying" to force Indonesia to accept a peacekeeping force, I'd be happy to have a look. Every source I've seen analyzing the events of September 1999 in close detail have suggested the exact opposite (at least until 11 September).


 * With regard to Australia: In his book Reluctant Saviour: Autralia, Indonesia and the independence of East Timor, Clinton Fernandes devotes an entire chapter to "The Jakarta Lobby" which stood by the Indonesian military while it carried out its violent atrocities in East Timor. He also spends a chapter discussing the Howard government and how it "tried to foil any chance of East-Timorese independence". (p. 46.)


 * As for the rest of the article: I suppose we can trim the discussion of foreign powers' support for Indonesia, but I think those details are instructive to explain the nature of the occupation, why it went on for so long, and how extraordinary the willingness of the East Timorese people to resist in a nonviolent manner. I'm dedicated to telling this story because as a human being I am profoundly moved by the will of the East Timorese to peacefully struggle against oppression, and I believe Wikipedia needs to accurately represent the full picture of how the occupation took place. Thanks again for your attention to detail on this article. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support One question though: is there any way to shorten the article without sacraficing quality? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.