[Peace-discuss] Fw: Ramos-Horta: War for Peace?

[Margaret E. Kosal]

 From NY Times ... if i recall correctly, Ramos-Horta was in exhile for the 
majority of the bombings ...
hmmm ....
thoughts?  comments? deconstructions?

War for Peace? It Worked in My Country
February 25, 2003
By JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA

DILI, East Timor
I often find myself counting how many of us are left in
this world. One recent morning my two surviving brothers
and I had coffee together. And I found myself counting
again. We were seven brothers and five sisters, another
large family in this tiny Catholic country.
One brother died when he was a baby. Antonio, our oldest
brother, died in 1992 of lack of medical care. Three other
siblings were murdered in our country's long conflict with
Indonesia. One, a younger sister, Maria Ortencia, died on
Dec. 19, 1978, killed by a rocket fired from a OV-10 Bronco
aircraft, which the United States had sold to Indonesia.
She was buried on a majestic mountaintop and her grave was
tended by the humble people of the area for 20 years.
Early in September of last year, I went through the
heart-wrenching process of unearthing the improvised grave
of our sister, whom I last saw when she was 18. As her body
was exhumed, I noticed that the back of her head and one
side of her face had been blown off. She must have died
instantly. We reburied our sister in the cemetery in the
capital, Dili. Two other siblings who were killed, our
brothers Nuno and Guilherme, were executed by Indonesian
soldiers in 1977. With little information on the area where
they were killed and disposed of, we have no hope of
recovering their bodies for a dignified burial.
There is hardly a family in my country that has not lost a
loved one. Many families were entirely wiped out during the
decades of occupation by Indonesia and the war of
resistance against it. The United States and other Western
nations contributed to this tragedy. Some bear a direct
responsibility because they helped Indonesia by providing
military aid. Others were accomplices through indifference
and silence. But all redeemed themselves. In 1999, a global
peacekeeping force helped East Timor secure its
independence and protect its people. It is now a free
nation.
But I still acutely remember the suffering and misery
brought about by war. It would certainly be a better world
if war were not necessary. Yet I also remember the
desperation and anger I felt when the rest of the world
chose to ignore the tragedy that was drowning my people. We
begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force
if necessary.
So I follow with some consternation the debate on Iraq in
the United Nations Security Council and in NATO. I am
unimpressed by the grandstanding of certain European
leaders. Their actions undermine the only truly effective
means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the
use of force.
Critics of the United States give no credit to the Bush
administration's aggressive strategy, even though it is the
real reason that Iraq has allowed weapons inspectors to
return and why Baghdad is cooperating a bit more, if it
indeed is at all.
The antiwar demonstrations are truly noble. I know that
differences of opinion and public debate over issues like
war and peace are vital. We enjoy the right to demonstrate
and express opinions today because East Timor is an
independent democracy - something we didn't have during a
25-year reign of terror. Fortunately for all of us, the age
of globalization has meant that citizens have a greater say
in almost every major issue.
But if the antiwar movement dissuades the United States and
its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have
contributed to the peace of the dead. Saddam Hussein will
emerge victorious and ever more defiant. What has been
accomplished so far will unravel. Containment is doomed to
fail. We cannot forget that despots protected by their own
elaborate security apparatus are still able to make
decisions.
Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two
wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed
hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed
countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations,
did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling
for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of
the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish
people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure,
shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal
of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction
and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of
simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating
the true debate on war and peace.
I agree that the Bush administration must give more time to
the weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate. The United
States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its
enemies. It can afford to be a little more patient. Kofi
Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, has
proved himself to be a strong mediator and no friend of
dictators. He and a group of world leaders should use this
time to persuade Saddam Hussein to resign and go into
exile. In turn, Saddam Hussein could be credited with
preventing another war and sparing his people. But even
this approach will not work without the continued threat of
force.
Abandoning such a threat would be perilous. Yes, the
antiwar movement would be able to claim its own victory in
preventing a war. But it would have to accept that it also
helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself
to the tens of thousands of his victims.
History has shown that the use of force is often the
necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar
intellectual once told me how he felt when the world
finally interceded in his country: "I am a pacifist. But I
was happy, I felt liberated, when I saw NATO bombs
falling."
José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs
and cooperation, shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25HORT.html?ex=1047317386&ei=1&en=472b688b6ce61488

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company