This week, East Timor independence.
Can the tiny state survive on its own?
Joe Schlesinger on disorder in the New World Order.
And an election full of hope in war-torn Sierra Leone.
Hi I'm Ian Hanumansing in Vancouver.
Welcome to Foreign Assignment.
On this edition, coverage of world events this week that share a common link, the United
Nations.
We'll look at some of the UN's successes, failures, and compromises in East Timor and
Sierra Leone.
Plus, our own Joe Schlesinger will have his thoughts on one key part of the UN that isn't
exactly operating as originally planned.
Joe?
That's right Ian.
I'll be along a little later to talk about the UN Human Rights Commission and how it's
become a refuge for some of the world's worst human rights violators.
And I'll look at why this has been allowed to happen.
Thanks Joe.
Now on to our first story.
It has been a weekend of independence celebrations in East Timor.
The tiny territory north of Australia is becoming a full-fledged nation.
East Timor voted to break away from its Indonesian occupiers back in 1999.
But an orgy of violence followed as pro-Indonesian militia tried to prevent secession.
The UN was forced to move in to protect and administer the region, preparing it for independence.
But East Timor, the poorest state in Asia, could be in for a letdown.
Its economy has become dependent on and distorted by UN agencies and programs, crutches that
will now be removed.
The CBC's Patrick Brown is in Dili, the capital.
Here's his special report for foreign assignment on the problems facing East Timor.
Half an island with a population the size of Winnipeg's East Timor is the world's
newest country.
Incomes and life expectancy are among the lowest in the world.
Rates of illiteracy and disease among the highest.
Tiny, poor, but independent at last, East Timor hopes to rise from the ashes of a violent
past.
When East Timor was a Portuguese colony, this was the governor's palace, the symbol of
colonial authority.
It was burned down two years ago in the orgy of destruction and killing as Indonesia ended
its occupation.
Hundreds of years under Portugal and 24 years of harsh Indonesian rule have done little
to prepare East Timor for self-government.
For the past two years, East Timor has been governed by the United Nations.
A UN administrator, Sergio de Mello, has played the role of the last colonial governor, presiding
over the transition to democracy and independence.
While East Timorese struggle to survive, thousands of UN employees live in a world of air-conditioned
vehicles, generous allowances, and restaurants where lunch costs what the average Timorese
earns in a week.
That always happens when the first world intervenes in the third world, says de Mello, but the
United Nations, he says, did learn from the excesses of a previous effort at running a
government in Cambodia in the early 90s.
We have not witnessed phenomena such as prostitution as we did in Cambodia, and I'm proud of that,
because things could have gone wrong here, and they didn't.
So if the only harmful effect, which incidentally has provided employment to many Timorese,
where the services that you find in Delhi today, restaurants and hotels essentially,
and a few supermarkets here and there, well, I don't think we should be too concerned with
that.
One of those supermarkets is run by Canadian Kirk McManus.
A veteran of commercial ventures in other troubled spots, McManus says providing services
to wealthy foreigners also provides employment for local people.
He says the UN as a government has done little to encourage foreign investment.
Unfortunately, I can't recommend Timor as a good place to invest at the moment.
There's too much change, too much volatility.
As long as the UN are here putting so much restriction on foreign business, it's not
going to be the place to be.
I'm hoping in the future, the new East Timorese government will have a more realistic look
at business.
Michael Francino, who used to work for the Treasury Board in Canada, has been serving
as East Timor's finance minister.
He's concerned that the economy will suffer as the UN's international staff and their
international salaries disappear.
Because the country is so small, the internationals represent, we have what I would call a very
large economic and social footprint.
And inevitably, there are going to be negative effects as that presence is wound down.
But East Timor does have an economic ace in the hole.
Another Canadian, Catherine McKenna, has been part of the team negotiating a deal on offshore
oil and gas reserves.
There's potentially $200 million a year for the next 20 years.
That's a lot of money.
I think the current budget is $60 million to $80 million.
So you can imagine that this would not only cover its operating expenses, but would create
possibly a trust fund that they could, extra money that they could use to put towards education
and health care and the basic necessities.
And East Timor has a political ace in the hole as well.
Shannon Gussma, a resistance leader who says he'd rather be a photographer or a watermelon
farmer, reluctantly won an election to become East Timor's first charismatic and thoughtful
president.
He says 24 years under Indonesia has taught valuable lessons in what not to do.
What helped us was being colonized by Indonesia.
It is the biggest example of corruption, repression, everything.
Breaking free of Indonesia cost East Timor many lives and left it in ruins.
The international effort to give the Timorese a fresh start cost about $2 billion.
There's still an enormous amount of international goodwill and willingness to help, but East
Timor is independent now and will have to learn to go it alone.
For Foreign Assignment, I'm Patrick Brown in Dilley.
Now onto another former trouble spot, Sierra Leone.
In recent years, the name of that West African nation became synonymous with civil war, child
soldiers and atrocities.
But this past week, Sierra Leone took a major step forward.
Under the watchful eyes of UN peacekeepers, its citizens went to the polls.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the peaceful election a milestone, a victory for
democracy and the United Nations.
But the victory was a long time coming.
For 10 years, Sierra Leone was in the grip of a barbarous civil war.
Two military coups and ethnic strife had led to political destabilization.
Rebels in the countryside, the Revolutionary United Front, tried to grab control of the
nation and its valuable diamond mines.
Those rebels developed tactics of terror and intimidation, leaving corpses in the streets,
burning alive families in their homes and in what became their trademark, hacking off
the limbs of innocent civilians.
They took us outside, they said we should form a line, we form a line, then took a big
axe, then they started to cut our hands, one after the other.
In 1998, neighboring African nations tried to step in.
The Nigerian-led West African Intervention Force, ECOMOG, stormed the capital of Freetown,
and the deposed president, Ahmed Tijan Kaba, was returned to power.
But the civil war merely escalated, reaching its most brutal stage in 1999.
Faced with TV news images of the growing atrocities, the world finally intervened.
The UN and Britain sent troops, halting the rebel advance.
But there were problems with the United Nations presence.
500 UN troops were briefly held hostage by rebels, and there was infighting within the
UN force itself.
A year and a half ago, the rebels finally agreed to a ceasefire.
A short time later, their leader was captured and jailed.
The United Nations then introduced a disarmament program, and the war was officially declared
over in January.
The UN now has more than 17,000 troops in Sierra Leone, the world's largest peacekeeping
force.
The peace it keeps cleared the way for the presidential and parliamentary elections held
this past week.
We see the elections as really a milestone in the peace process in Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leoneans have gone through a terrible period of war, and by being able to participate
in choosing their leaders to lead them into the future, it's the next step in the process.
It's a consolidation of the peace process, and we hope it's the beginning of a peaceful
future for this country.
President Kaba appears to have retained power, defeating the main opposition party and candidates
of the revolutionary United Front, the former rebel movement.
CBC reporter Azab Walde-Giorgis covered the Sierra Leone Civil War when she was stationed
in Africa.
She's been watching the election from her current base in London.
Welcome Azab.
Hi Ian.
Let's begin with the impact that this election will have on the people of Sierra Leone.
Well Ian, it means a lot for the people of Sierra Leone.
As you know, they've been through a terrible war.
50,000 people have been killed.
More than 10,000 have been mutilated.
I don't know, you must remember those terrible images of the people who had their hands hacked
off by rebels in their villages.
So it means a lot to them.
At the end now, it's like a dream coming true.
I remember when I was in Sierra Leone, people were very pessimistic.
They've seen horror for about 10 years, and they didn't really believe in democracy.
And now to witness this election, to see that actually most of the people went to the polling
station and voted and still believe in democracy, I think this is quite good news.
The incumbent president, Ahmed Tijan Kaba, has been re-elected.
Given that, what can we expect in the future?
Well, for the people there, they expect a lot from Tijan Kaba because they voted for
him in 1996.
But as you know, there was a coup and he had to leave the country.
And he didn't really have a chance to fulfill his promises.
So of course, people will want to give him a second chance.
And I think they expect a lot from him.
They expect, of course, democracy, peace, and of course, prosperity.
And hopefully he will be able to fulfill those promises.
You've spoken a little bit about your time in Sierra Leone.
And I think for many viewers, the indelible images of that time include stories about
the child soldiers.
What will come of them?
Well, of course, there's a whole generation who has been, I don't want to say sacrificed
because it's a bit pessimistic to say that, but who's been marked for life.
I remember this boy who was 14 and his job was to actually amputate people.
And he was only 14 when I met him.
And he said he's done that for two years and he started doing that when he was 10.
And he said basically, you know, he didn't have a choice.
They threatened to kill his parents.
They threatened him.
And he had to do it.
And he said, you know, I remember the first person I did, I amputated.
It was an old man.
And he said after that, I didn't remember anything.
I was just pretty much obeying the orders and doing the job.
But still, he said, it was in May 2000, he said, well, now, you know, I look back and
I feel terrible about what I've done, but I'm hoping to be an engineer.
So he was still hopeful and, of course, he's being monitored by UN people, by UNICEF people
who are trying to save those children who have been used during this war.
Well, as we mentioned, the UN peacekeeping mission is the largest peacekeeping force
deployed in the world right now.
It has had problems over the last few years.
Now that peace has been secured, albeit a fragile peace, would this UN mission be declared
a success?
Well, I think so.
I mean, I think the challenge maybe now will be, well, will this peace last?
And I think the international community must remain vigilant and also for the people of
Sierra Leone, because they've seen that in the past.
They were promised that peace will last.
And suddenly there was either a rebellion or something would happen that would threaten
their peace.
And they're still there.
They're always there.
And they're always paying the consequences.
So I think maybe the lesson that the international community should learn from the past experiences
is that, well, it's important that we still keep a very close eye on Sierra Leone and
that it's not the end.
The peacekeepers shouldn't leave soon because there's a threat.
Liberia is not stable.
The whole region is not stable yet.
So to answer your question, yes, it's been a success, but we still have to remain vigilant.
Because the valuable diamond mines in Sierra Leone drove much of the violence and clearly
the fate of those mines is wrapped up in the fate of the country.
Who will control the mines in the future?
Well, exactly, Ian.
I mean, the challenge of the new government will be, well, who's going to control the
diamond?
Because some people were telling us when we were there, well, Sierra Leoneans were saying,
it's unfortunate that we have this diamond because we're fighting for this diamond and
we don't want it, basically.
It's like a poisoned gift they had in their country.
So we'll have to see how the government will be able to handle and control this diamond
mine.
As have Walde Giorgis in London.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Next, why are countries that abuse human rights being invited to join the UN Human Rights
Commission?
And my colleague, Joe Schlesinger, ponders that question.
Welcome back to Foreign Assignment.
As we mentioned at the beginning of the program, the UN has been a common thread running through
our coverage this week.
And my colleague, Joe Schlesinger, continues that theme.
Looking at a recent controversial move by a United Nations commission, a move that some
critics claim has created a rose gallery of human rights abusers sitting in judgment of
all nations.
Here's Joe to explain.
You know, Ian, for as long as I can remember, many of the smaller nations in the UN have
been complaining about the strangleholds the big boys, the five permanent members of the
Security Council have on the organization.
If only the little guys had more say, so the argument went.
The UN would be a more democratic and effective organization.
Well, that argument has been shot to bits recently by, of all people, the UN Human Rights
Commission.
I ask the Secretariat to open the voting machine.
The commission will take action on the L29.
The commission, whose members are chosen to represent all regions of the world, has not
only turned a blind eye to many flagrant rights violations, it has become the preferred club
of some of the world's most repressive regimes.
So it came as no surprise that the commission failed to rebuke Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe for
the reign of violence he unleashed on his country.
Mugabe rigged his reelection as president last March, arresting, among others, the leader
of the opposition.
Gangs of his supporters staged violent raids on farms owned by whites, and with his backing,
occupied them.
Several farmers were murdered.
From the group of African states, we have two candidates.
Not only did the UN not rebuke the Mugabe regime, Zimbabwe's peers in the General Assembly
actually rewarded Mugabe three weeks ago by electing his country to the Human Rights Commission.
I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
Mugabe's representatives should feel right at home on the commission, among its 53 members,
some of the world's most notorious human rights violators.
You could say the abusers, most of them from developing countries, form a bloc that dominates
the commission.
The list is long.
It goes from A for Algeria to Z for Zimbabwe.
The repression in these countries varies from persecuting anyone critical of the government,
as in Cuba, or depriving segments of the population, such as women in Saudi Arabia, of their most
basic personal rights, to Sudan, whose regime is waging an all-out war against much of its
own people.
To avoid condemnation of their own behavior, these countries work together to protect each
other.
Investigations are short-circuited and motions to censure defeated.
On the other hand, Western democracies such as Canada come in for regular criticism.
Canada has been chastised for treatment of its minorities, both of aboriginals and of
newcomers such as refugees.
But unlike some of its accusers who stonewall investigations of their actions, Ottawa has
agreed to cooperate with the UN Commission.
All this is about more than just undemocratic regimes of impoverished countries cocking
a snoot at what they see as the hypocrisy of smug, rich Western democracies.
It's part of the unfinished reshuffling of post-Cold War international relations, or
if you will, the disorder of the New World Order.
During the Cold War, for all its cost and suffering, everyone knew where they stood.
It was on one side or on the other.
All superpowers had their spheres of influence, their allies, and client states.
While they clashed around the fringes of their bailiwigs in Southeast Asia, in Southern Africa,
and Central America, they also made sure that by keeping troublesome allies in line, they
never had to confront each other directly.
Human rights were not an issue, certainly not for the Kremlin.
I expressed our admiration for them.
Or for that matter, all that much, in Washington.
For all their preaching about human rights when it came to their Cold War allies, U.S.
presidents were not that fussy.
They simply followed an old American diplomatic adage.
He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the old rules went out the window.
Freed from the Cold War's constraints, the world was awash with local conflicts, such
as the murderous ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, wars that the Cold War superpowers
would have stopped before they got out of hand and dragged them into a confrontation.
With no threat to its national security in sight, the only superpower left was in no
hurry to get involved overseas.
When the Americans did intervene, as they did in Bosnia and Kosovo, it was only after
things got out of hand and the atrocities became too horrible to be allowed to continue.
Human rights, whether in the Balkans or in the Caucasus, came to be seen as justifying
outside intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, something that had
always been a diplomatic no-no.
Sometimes it meant nothing more than a rap on the knuckles.
At other times, as in Sierra Leone, it was direct military intervention, or as in the
case of the Indonesian army pullout from East Timor, the outcome of intense diplomatic pressure.
That ascendancy of human rights and international affairs led to the rush by transgressors to
protect themselves by joining the UN Human Rights Commission.
They really needn't have worried.
Right now, no one is going to bother much going after Zimbabwe, and certainly not after
Russia for its atrocities in Chechnya, or for that matter after Pakistan and other countries
for being dictatorships.
Since September 11th, after all, the world has a new priority, the war against terrorism.
And that means that the test of friendship is once again what it was during the Cold
War.
And that is, Ian, it's okay to be an SOB, as long as he is our SOB.
Thanks, Joe.
You're welcome, Ian.
And that is Foreign Assignment for this week.
If you're interested in learning more about the stories covered on this edition, or in
contacting us, our website and email addresses will be on the screen in just a moment.
I'm Ian Hanamansing in Vancouver.
On behalf of Joe Schlessinger in Toronto, and all of us here at Foreign Assignment,
thanks for watching.