XG: Speech on Handing Over of Final Report of the CAVR to the
National Parliament

Speech of His Excellency President Kay Rala Xanana Gusmão on the Occasion of the Handing Over of the Final Report of the CAVR to the National Parliament

28 November 2005[1]

Excellencies

Distinguished Guests

Ladies and Gentlemen

On 31 October last, the Chairman of the CAVR, Aniceto Guterres, handed over to me the Commission's Final Report, as pursuant to UNTAET Regulation No. 2001/10 and as amended by several laws passed in this National Parliament. Although the law allows me up to two months to submit the Report to the National Parliament and the Government, I decided to be here today to fulfill that obligation. I hope that the National Parliament will authorize me to travel to New York in January, where I will submit the Report to the UN Secretary-General.

Legislators often misuse words that betray their thoughts and concerns. In the laws relating to the activities of the CAVR, the word(s) "immediate" and "immediately" are present when they refer to the act of publicly disseminating the Report. I believe that it was not the intention of those who drafted the law to use these terms in a narrow sense, but in a broad one; one that would take into account the institutional and ethical process
that must govern relations between the organs of sovereignty. It is thus in this broad sense of the word that I have interpreted the law, so that we will not make he mistake of implementing the letter of the law, without understanding its spirit.

Public dissemination could not be "immediate", since the organs of sovereignty must first have access to the documents before this other step provided for in the law can be undertaken.

On 31 October, I stated that the State of Timor-Leste, in accordance with its principles, has respected the activities of the CAVR and it has provided it with all the support so that it could fulfill its mandate, which came to an end on that very same day. The CAVR will only be dissolved when it completes the auditing process and the necessary arrangements for the physical and formal hand over of its assets to the relevant institutions.

Now it is incumbent upon the organs of sovereignty of the State to make a political decision on the entire process. I am fully aware that, in view of the democratic values that we embrace in this Parliament and in society as a whole, we recognize and value the differences of opinion that exist regarding the stance to be taken on this issue.

A very important question that needs a clear definition is "to whom are these recommendations being made?" Is it to the State or to the general public? The answer is to both, because the public has the right to be informed, but the State will always be the one to bear the sole responsibility of considering and acting on them in the most appropriate manner.

Excellencies

Today, before our most illustrious guests and distinguished Members of Parliament, I must say that, upon learning about the contents of the Report, I concluded that both Minister Ramos-Horta and myself were right when we said that the best justice, the true justice, was the recognition by the international community of the right to self-determination and independence the People of Timor-Leste have!

And this is crucial for our analysis and conclusions!

Excellencies
Distinguished Members of Parliament

We all know what the CAVR stands for - Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation!

The following excerpt can be read in its Report: "The Commission is of the opinion that it is not possible to achieve long-lasting reconciliation without establishing the truth, obtaining justice, and providing compensation to the victims. Compensation is necessary in order to restore the dignity of victims and to amend the damaged relations within our society".

Even before the CAVR was established, on the basis of an UNTAET Regulation and subsequently endorsed by the Constituent Assembly, the CNRT, with the support of IOM, UNHCR and UNTAET, had already been engaged in meetings at the border involving victims and perpetrators, in an effort to pursue all the Timorese who had fled the country to West Timor to return back home. Those meetings were also aimed at fostering genuine reconciliation among the people. Some voices of the then representatives of the Constituent Assembly spoke out against my participation in such efforts from this Salão Nobre, claiming that I had no right to engage in them since I was not elected to undertake such initiatives.

I am reflecting on these passages only to alert to the need not to evaluate this CAVR Report solely from the narrow perspective of denouncing the truth. regarding the violations of International Law, the universal rights
of peoples applicable to peoples and human rights! I acknowledge that the assertion of truth as a mandate attributed to the CAVR was indeed the pivotal element leading to all other activities. And we all acknowledge the
merit that the CAVR has achieved in their search for truth.

Reconciliation, however, has been a long-standing process enabling the People of Timor-Leste to endorse the principles of tolerance and forgiveness as the true basis for the coexistence of diverging opinions in society. The border meetings initiatives, within the framework of reconciliation, was stalled because it was irrelevant, whether from the social or political perspective to the Serious Crimes Unit, which was only interested in arresting any militias who dared to cross the border line. Hence, we then went to the other side of the border and continued to foster reconciliation and allowed people to decide if they wished to return to Timor-Leste, which they did.

It was also reconciliation that hindered the policy of persecution of persons in Timor-Leste from being practiced. And if today there are veterans who are dissatisfied, it is only the result of the fact that there were some who did not participate in our struggle but who took advantage of their skills so that today they could be a part of the state apparatus.

If the elections of August 2001 represented a grandiose moment of civic behaviour on the part of the citizens of Timor-Leste, and if the elections of April 2002 were held under a commendable climate free from violence, it
should be a reflection of the profound consciousness of our People to never, ever again, allow in Timor-Leste any space for political violence.

While participating in the struggle, the people, for it was they who made the resistance, grew firmer in their commitment not to allow the occurrence of more conflicts or wars in Timor-Leste. And this is what the CAVR
gathered from the people, including from the victims themselves.

Excellencies
Distinguished Members of Parliament

I addressed the National Parliament early last October. You may recall that I urged the distinguished Members of Parliament to take note of the difficulties arising from the Report of the CAVR. You may also recall that
I appealed you to treat the issues, which are the core political substance of the Report, with due sensitivity.

I cannot deceive you other than to say that I have not gone through all the 2,000 pages of the Report. However, I went through all the chapters and focused my attention on the Summary and the Recommendations.

Gathering from the comprehensive investigations conducted by the CAVR, we can group them into two main areas: the international scope, pertaining to the way the international community positioned itself in relation to the
question of Timor-Leste, and the internal scope, which dealt with the acts committed against the Timorese.

Allow me to elaborate in what concerns the responsibility of the international community.

Just like, amongst others, Ramos-Horta, Mari Alkatiri, Zelugo, Roque, and Abilio de Araujo, I also dealt, for more than 20 years, with the Resolutions of the United Nations on the question of Timor-Leste.

One pleasant morning of December 1982, most frustrating for the guerrillas, because we were listening to Radio Australia and BBC, amongst other radio stations, we became aware that we had lost yet more votes at the General Assembly of the United Nations, compared to the first resolutions which were adopted with a margin of 42 votes. The UNGA Resolution No. 37/30 of 23 November 1982, however, was adopted with a mere margin of four votes. Had Indonesia succeeded in securing three more votes against the Resolution, that Resolution would have favoured integration.

In 1983, I accepted to initiate direct contacts with the Indonesian Military Authorities as a means of finding a peaceful solution and of helping to shift the profile of the Resistance. Soon afterwards, with the departure of D. Martinho Lopes from Timor-Leste, with all the documentation pertaining to the negotiation process, the expectation was that it could influence the international community and its understanding that the Resistance was alive. The Peace Plan, which was the basis for the ceasefire, developed in response to UNGA Resolution No. 37/30, failed to create an impact. It showed us that all our efforts did not produce the expected outcome, leaving us as before, dependant on random political will of others.

Indeed, the waiting time was long, more than 15 years, from 1983 to 1998!

In his book entitled the "Unfinished Saga of East Timor", Ramos-Horta highlighted the deficit of moral stances on many diplomats in New York, especially those coming from developing countries, who supported Indonesia,
due to bribes or economic interests of their respective countries in Indonesia.

From the mountains of our Homeland at war, through our messages to the rest of the world, we denounced the complicity of a few important countries and the indifference shown by many members of the United Nations.

That was an acquired experience, which allowed me to save time, bearing in mind the short space of time I have accepted to be here today.

As for the reporting of violations of human rights by the occupying forces, one of the activities of the guerilla cells was the gathering of information pertaining to violations of human rights against our people. In my reports on the situation in the country to our External Delegation, I denounced the violations of human rights ranging from persecutions to imprisonments and from tortures to massacres; so did the Church and the Clandestine Organizations.

That experience allowed me to visualize beforehand the substance of the CAVR Report in what concerns human rights abuses.

Regarding the responsibility of the acts committed by us, since 1986, in a message to the outside world, I acknowledged such acts of violation of human rights had taken place. Such acknowledgement helped me to sense beforehand that the Report of the CAVR could suffer from lack of impartiality and objectivity, unless the acts of human rights abuse committed by Timorese against Timorese were tackled.

As I stated before, all of us, more or less, are fully aware of what took place during the 24 years of our Resistance.

Excellencies

Being in politics does not necessarily mean playing politics to enhance acquired benefits. But politics was never a linear process. It is and it will always be a complex process rather than an easy one. Sensible politics
will certainly demand the adherence of principles with integrity, which always conformed to the current reality. This does not imply that we necessarily have to give in to the impositions of the conditions which impose one reality or another. Rather, it envisages that we must know how to overcome intelligently those constraints, either because they are barriers or they are overwhelmingly favourable.

German statesman Otto von Bismark, said that "politics is the art of the possible". I learned this definition when I was in the mountains with only a few hundred guerrillas. And the question that surfaced was: will it be possible to defeat the mighty enemy who was bringing in battalions to exterminate our forces? There was no doubt that the answer was a NO so emphatically enormous as were the sacrifices our people had committed themselves to undertaking!

If politics is the art of the possible, and if it was becoming clear that it would be impossible to defeat and expel the mighty enemy from our Homeland, the possible could only mean "surrendering", as many did in 1978
and 1979! "Not surrendering" only meant sheer stupidity or sheer intransigence or even an enormous utopia, to put it in a more graceful and sweet-sounding definition to our ears.

But I believed in the definition and understood better that war is an art and I sought to find all the formulas of the theory of the possible; and that in order to continue the war, I would firstly have to accept the continuous suffering of the entire people.

In October 1992 I came to Dili once again and from my underground shelter in Lahane, I appealed the youth to hold a second demonstration to mark the first anniversary of the events of 12 November. If one year earlier, when I had authorized the demonstration, I had not believed in the possibility of the massacre of 1992, what I intended to do was to challenge the occupying forces, knowing fully well that it would be even more difficult for them to
make a similar decision.

The youth, however, refused because they were traumatized!

Guerrilla fighters also undergo periods of psychological depression after a serious defeat has been inflicted by the enemy. But when the commander prepares them for a new operation, they are always ready and committed to fight to death.

Here another question must be asked: what was our guiding objective so that we would be able to accept that the people, the youth, and particularly the guerrilla fighters, would become victims of our political decisions, which
demanded from them suffering and even death? I must say that oftentimes I looked at myself in the mirror of morality; of the morality of the war (if such a thing does exist) and I would see the word "murderer" in clear letters, not because I had killed anyone with my own hands, but because I accepted the death of others. I would also see the words "causer of suffering" in clearly stamped letters because I was demanding others to make sacrifices, in every sense of the word.

The goal was to Liberate our Homeland because only with a liberated Homeland, could all the people enjoy better living conditions as the product of their rights. And this goal was much too important for us to consider individual sacrifices.

Distinguished Members of Parliament

The Report of the CAVR registers part of our history in that which regards violations of human rights, some of which were classified as crimes against humanity, a classification that surfaced in Rome only after the people had decided their destiny in August 1999. The international community is often very slow in dealing with such issues. During the course of 24 years, we were never given the capacity to denounce the crimes that were committed as crimes against humanity. Even when we spoke about "genocide", the United Nations did not understand its meaning. After the people started to march towards reconciliation, which enabled the foundations of a multi-party system to be laid, we all had to learn these innovations from the United Nations.

There will be those who will want to write the history of Timor-Leste in order to talk about the unmatched bravery and unshakable determination of our People to defend their universal and fundamental right to self-determination and independence. Even our children knew how to take part in the struggle, and, taking that as a clear example, one can say that it should be inconceivable to refer to that participation of our children as if it was a type of violation of any convention regarding the rights of children, part of the annual agenda in Geneva.

Excellencies

I am departing from the point of view that we all witnessed what took place during 24 years in Timor-Leste, ranging from the heroism of our People to the acts which, by virtue of violating the fundamental rights of the
Timorese whilst individuals as well as a people, nurtured the collective determination to continue to struggle . to free the Homeland!

I am also of the opinion that the idealism must live on in our deeds and thoughts, guiding our lives. In today's modern and civilized world, idealism has become philanthropy. People, because they are filthy rich, give a few crumbs to charitable organizations, which these days, have gained a better name once they started to call themselves "humanitarian organizations" to assist the poor, the sick and the hungry. Some do not do
it by conviction; they do so because it is trendy; others do so only to secure a reduction in their taxes.

But the ideal and sublime aspiration that things may go according to our desires and aspirations is nowadays classified as ambition, in the positive sense, or as lack of the sense of reality, when you want to fly higher than
you actually can.

Without denying the facts of the past, I would like to subscribe to a remark the Prime Minister made at the public hearing: "We must never move away from the overall context and from the specific circumstances that influenced and determined the entire process. that led to the independence of Timor-Leste".

And, Excellencies, what concerns me is not the revelation of the truth, which is already common knowledge. What really concerns me is the recommendations made by the CAVR, which could be used to manipulate our people's state of mind.

The Report makes recommendations that, in the eyes of pragmatic policies, would not be considered as being absurdly utopian, but they are realistically very ambitious. I hold the efforts of the Commissioners with profound appreciation for their commitment to thoroughly develop the recommendations. The grandiose idealism that they possess is well manifested to the point that it goes beyond conventional political boundaries.

One very obvious recommendation is that on Justice.

What is, after all, the objective of Justice? Essentially, it is about punishing those who act outside the rule of law. In that sense, based on the range of variations that we can find from country to country, we may say that Justice has fulfilled such a mission: to punish! But if we see Justice as having the objective of stopping the recurrence of crimes, then in some countries, even those that have the death penalty for certain types of crimes, and the law still has not become redundant or irrelevant because executions are still taking place, nevertheless, there is still recurrence of the same types of crimes.

The CAVR Report also states that "the absence of justice. is a fundamental obstacle in the process of building a democratic society".

My reply to that would be "not necessarily" and I would say that the building of a democratic society is very much dependent upon the context where we apply this concept.

Over the last years, Indonesia has invested considerable effort in the democratization of the country. Today's Indonesia knows that the "core obstacle to the building of a democratic society" is how badly derailed the
fundamentals of justice has become in society and Indonesia is now paying special attention to the "control" on the courts, which they attribute the statute of "sovereign and independent organ." Nevertheless, they know how
to distinguish between the independence of the courts in the decision-making process, demanding that the courts act with due professional ethics, integrity and impartiality, obeying the values of transparency and responsibility. The recent case of the dismantling of the network of corruption that gained root within the highest levels of the
Indonesian courts rests as a clear example of the intelligent and firm way the State of Indonesia is committed to erect the foundations for the building of a fair and democratic society.

In this context, correctly, I also hold the view that Justice is vital for the building of a democratic society. In one of the Indonesian television stations, there is a program known as "Ombudsman", that allows Indonesian citizens to publicly report cases of bribes from the agents of the State. Now and then, when at home I have the chance to watch the program, it makes me feel even more convinced that the Indonesian society is indeed commitment to put an end to the use and abuse of power the agents of the State.

Excellencies
Distinguished Members of Parliament
Ladies and Gentlemen

Any social and political process always demands a long process of consistency in enshrined principles, systematic efforts and participation of the entire society and people; a long battle indeed. If the people and
society loose sight of this and prefer to blindly believe in the politicians, we may have the prisons filled up with as many people as we like, but we cannot stop the system from slowly becoming infested gradually leading only to a small elite, which the party in power regardless of which party it is, prefers to promote to be the beneficiaries of the wealth of the country, but the living conditions of the people will continue to be poor as a result of only a handful of people being awarded the capacity to reap the benefits of independence that was conquered with blood and suffering of us all.

Excellencies
Distinguished Members of Parliament

Back in December 1999, I took part in the first Conference of Donors for Timor-Leste held in Tokyo. After that conference, which registered the commitment of the international community to support the reconstruction of
Timor-Leste and building of our State, similar conferences have been held in Dili over the last six years, and which have come to be called Development Partners' Meetings.

As I do not have much time to discriminate what each country gave as their contribution, the overall support received from the Development Partners from 1999 until April 2005, is registered as a total of US$ 1,347 890 093. And this does not including the expenditures incurred by the United Nations itself, from UNAMET to UNOTIL. And I know that our State institutions and our people have been receiving assistance from various places that are not included in the Report from the Ministry of Planning and Finance, published in April this year, and without talking about the 2005-2006 Budget, which only started in July last.

The Prime Minister likes to say that Timor-Leste is the only country in the world without a an external debt. But we all know that this is not a product of our capacity to pay off any debts that we might have incurred. It is merely because we have no external debt and the donor community has accepted to provide us with grants instead of loans.

What truly concerns me are the recommendations pertaining to reparations to the victims! The CAVR Report has asked the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, the Governments that sold weapons
to Indonesia and that supported Indonesia's policy, as well as the Portuguese and Indonesian Governments, to pay reparations to the victims.

While I was in Cipinang, I used to follow a television program where some very old and skinny ladies denounced to the Indonesian people their experiences as sex slaves to the Japanese during the Second World War. This
documentary was aimed at attracting the attention of the public to the demands that were being made of the Japanese Government to compensate those victims.

I was sad and moved for two reasons:

One, with so many rich businessmen exploiting the wealth of Indonesia since the country became independent, and with so much corruption transforming almost all civil servants into nouveaux riches, the documentary should
demand the attention of the Indonesian Government to look after those distressed ladies who gave their best so that their country could become independent.

Two, one should not use those frail old ladies so that only less than half of the monetary compensation would likely reach them.

With all of this in mind, I recalled what was published in our newspapers some time ago about whether the mortal remains of some members of the resistance from Liquiçá will be buried in the currently being built cemetery of the heroes or whether this should be left to the responsibility of their families. The father of one of them said that if the State decides that they should be buried in the cemetery of the heroes, he would comply; however, another father was of the opposing view and, as far as I can recall, these were more or less his words: "if the State has paid my son to fight, the State has the right to his mortal remains; the truth is that my son gave his life for his Homeland out of his own volition and not because he was forced to do so. For this reason, my son is mine and his mortal
remains are my responsibility".

What a magnificent lesson of patriotism and citizenship we can derive from this, at a time when we all want to be heroes or project ourselves as victims.

Excellencies
Distinguished Members of Parliament

The most important recommendation of this Report related to the Serious Crimes Unit and the Special Panels for Serious Crimes, suggests that the contracts of the international judges be renewed and that the resources
allocated for the investigation and trial of all crimes committed between 1975 and 1999 be enhanced. And because they do not believe in the State of Timor-Leste, they recommend that the Serious Crimes Unit and the Special Panels for Serious Crimes be directly dependent on the United Nations.

This recommendation does not take into account the situation of political anarchy and social chaos that could easily erupt if we decided to bring to court every crime committed since 1975 or even 1974. In order to alert our
people to the dangers of such an undertaking, I have always stated that if we are to depose about others and ourselves in the Court, political anarchy and chaos might be unleashed. The Commission is concerned about the safety and physical integrity of the witnesses but it does not acknowledge that there would be a need for witnesses to testify in the trials and these are not so few. And we would put on trial only a few cases and leave behind thousands of others. Let us also imagine the culture of political persecution that we would be sowing into Timor-Leste! I said before that we do not demand justice from others if we cannot even practice it amongst
ourselves or with our own selves.

Should we pursue that path, the magistrates and lawyers at the United Nations in New York would be extremely happy because they succeeded in making the Timorese rise up against each other, and this would create more
Courts and bring more money! And we would be condemned as a brutal, violent and bloodthirsty people! When in 2000 and 2001 some cases of violence emerged, and while we tried to overcome them on the spot, many statements were made to the effect that "this is the character of this people". And those words strengthened our desire to keep on sowing the seeds of forgiveness in the hearts and minds of our people.

In a meeting in Bali with the then President Megawati, General Sutarto, the Chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces, took the floor and said "today's Indonesia is now embarked in the process of democratizing the country,
which we know will be a long one. We are just entering the phase of the first direct elections for the President of the Republic. We owe this to the political reforms that President Megawati instigated with the revision of our Constitution. Many candidates will stand for the elections and we do not know who will win. All we ask from Timor-Leste is to understand our effort and not to disturb the democratic political environment that we are trying to consolidate".

The differences of opinions of Non-Government Organisations, or an independent Commission, and the decisions that a Government and a State has to make, reside in the fact that Non-Government Organisations, or an independent Commission, are not obliged to deal with responsibilities of other magnitude, as these are outside of their jurisdiction, whereas Governments and States in their relations with the wider world do.

The CAVR Report also deals with the Commission of Truth and Friendship.

The State has the duty to protect its citizens and safeguard the stability of the nation. The State manages the present to create the conditions that will enable the betterment of the future and ensure the safety of citizens
in all aspects.

We all know that in a few years time, with the revenues coming from the oil and gas exploration, we will be a rich country. The State must already start thinking about the mechanisms for cooperation, which will allow Timor-Leste to assist neighbouring Indonesian provinces so that our own wealth may be used to lessen the suffering of other populations. In July of this year, in Medan, I had a meeting with the Governor of Jakarta, Mr. Sutyoso and we agreed that, someday, our Government would invite the governors of Indonesian provinces closest to Timor-Leste to talk about types of cooperation that would be mutually beneficial for our populations.

This is the meaning we want to reflect in the decision-making on the pillars of sovereignty of our State. This is the meaning of the State, one that is more global and turned towards the future, which our State intends to imprint in its policies. The State does not manage the past. The State manages the present and adapts for the future.

The establishment of the Commission of Truth and Friendship was an undertaking of the State. The State of Timor-Leste assumes the principle that the revelation of truth is a way of achieving justice, which, under
the current circumstances, is the best approach towards the development of the country.

What should be the true lesson learned from this Report?

There are many valuable recommendations that deserve to be studied in-depth by the Timorese society and, particularly, by the political forces of our Nation.

The commitment that we should all undertake is not to allow, under any circumstances, recurrence of political violence in our beloved Homeland.

In order to achieve this goal, I appeal to the political parties in all of their activities to consider restricting the language they use in a way that creates or nurtures a climate of contention among the communities. I
also appeal to the Non-Government Organizations to continue educating the people about the values of democracy and rejecting all forms of violence as a way of overcoming differences.

Institutions such as the Police and FDTL must remain non-partisan, obeying only the law and the Constitution. Court officials must be even more conscious that an ill-practiced justice in this country would undermine the
basis of a State based on the rule of law.

Once we all adhere to these principles, we can then be certain that we will never have to face again the nightmares and sacrifices of the 24 years of struggle we have had to endure.