Savage violence in East Timor and Indonesia’s stubborn refusal to accept international peacekeepers has left the United Nations facing one of its starkest dilemmas – and choices ranging from difficult to impossible.
In an eerie repeat of events surrounding the Angolan elections in 1992, the UN, having organised the referendum which produced an overwhelming vote for East Timorese independence, has proved unable to guarantee its result, and is now unable even to stay put.
Furious demands for intervention have highlighted its inability to act decisively and underlined the weakness of an organisation that can only ever do what its most powerful members want. UN Secretary General Kofi Annanhas urged Jakarta to crack down on militia violence in East Timor or face unspecified consequences. But he speaks for himself, not the Security Council which is dominated by its five powerful, veto-wielding permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France.
The UN has been accused in the past of following the do-nothing option. But in the case of East Timor it seems untenable. The international clamour for action has reached such a height, and the need to maintain the UN’s battered credibility is so great, that the main powers will be desperate for some action. But what action?
The first and most promising angle of approach is still to persuade Indonesia to meet its obligations under May’s agreement with Portugal, the former colonial power in East Timor, and maintain security until November, when the Parliament is due to vote on the referendum for independence.
Indonesia has repeatedly insisted it is doing exactly that, though this explanation is no longer credible. What pressure can be brought to bear to force it to comply? The UN itself has no loans it can threaten to suspend or cancel. Action of this kind would have to be taken by the International Monetary Fund and the wealthy countries which run it.
But they are reluctant because anything resembling sanctions could threaten Indonesia’s fragile recovery and trigger a new economic crisis or a military-led coup against President BJ Habibie.
Peacekeeping without Indonesian agreement would be a nightmare. None of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is prepared to support a resolution under chapter seven of the UN charter, which authorises action to safeguard international peace and security regardless of the views of the protagonists. Russia blocked the passing of such a resolution over Kosovo, leading to Nato’s controversial intervention.
As the crisis continues, there is deep gloom at UN headquarters. The organisation has been criticised for naivety and incompetence in failing to allow for the possibility of violence once the referendum was over. But diplomats insist there would have been no deal with Jakarta on the independence vote if a UN force had been given a role then.
But with the benefit of hindsight it now looks like another well-meaning failure.
Not exonerated
The speed with which the Minister of Correctional Services Ben Skosana appointed Auditor General Henry Kluever to investigate allegations of corruption and maladministration against his Director General, Khulekani Sitole, after they were first published in this newspaper 10 months ago was commendable. The even greater speed with which he moved to exonerate Sitole this week is less easy to credit.
After several months of investigation, Kluever found that Sitole had awarded himself two performance bonuses, called “merit” awards, totalling more than R200 000. One-third of Sitole’s soccer team, Spartak, were employed in his department.
Kluever also confirmed our reports that Sitole spent more than a quarter of his time on overseas trips (over a period of 18 months), which cost the taxpayer R54 646.
Furthermore, severance packages were granted to 44 black staff. This did not meet the criteria for redundant staff.
Responding to these findings, Skosana said Kluever’s findings “closed a chapter which was at times unfair and inaccurate”.
If there was any unfairness, it was that experienced by the official of the department who was fired by Sitole for blowing the whistle on these irregularities. Skosana preferred to put the blame on the former minister, Sipo Mzimela, an act that was suspiciously like pinning the crime on a dead man.
Why has Skosana never spoken to Mzimela to ask him whether Sitole misled him about the real reasons for his overseas trips? If Mzimela authorised the trips and the merit awards, then both men are guilty of colluding to sponsor Sitole’s lavish lifestyle.
Skosana has seemingly never read the Presidential Review Commission’s report about the management chaos that exists within the Department of Correctional Services. He has also not read the report by the Imibono Data Research into human relations in his department.
We agree with sentiments expressed by one member of the public accounts committee that Sitole’s unsatisfactory replies to the committee, his blatant disregard for public finances and his unbecoming attitude made him unfit for public office.
If Skosana fails to heed that warning, then President Thabo Mbeki should intervene and set a good example by firing Sitole.