email:

Oct 17, 2014

Prime Minister Gusmão to resign after settling CMATS and ConocoPhillips Tax case



PM Gusmao met President Taur Matan Ruak on Thursday. Photo: Presidencia da republica Facebook page
Renova Timor
 
 
Timor-Leste Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão has just made fresh declaration on his resignation on Thursday (16/10/2014). After meeting Timor-Leste President Taur Matan Ruak, Mr Gusmão told local media he would resign from his job after settling the CMATS arbitration (against Australia) and tax case (against ConocoPhillips). 
 
 
“I do not resign yet because I am leading two battles at the moment, one on the arbitration (CMATS) and the other one on the ConocoPhillips case (Tax) in Singapore, [because] I am responsible to those cases.”
 
 
Last month Mr Gusmão told the Associated Press (AP) saying resigning from his post would mean running away from the battle he has started.
 
 
Timor-Leste brought one of its closest neighbours, Australia, to the international arbitration on CMATS in April 2013 for spying Timorese official during the negotiation process. The Timorese government suffered further insult when Australian Intelligence Service, ASIO, raided the house of Lawyer Bernard Collaery in early December 2013 when Mr Collaery was defending the young nation’s case in Hague. However, in early September this year, international media run the news that the two neighbours wanted to settle the issues amicably among themselves.
 
 
While no definite time frame set for the CMATS and ICJ settlement, Timor-Leste’s battle with the US oil giant ConocoPhillips on tax-paying continues in Singapore court. Dili lost the first instance in the Dili District Court (TDD) but it hopes to win this time in the Singapore Arbitration Court.  
 
 
PM Gusmão announced his resignation in November 2013 to hand over power to the younger generation. While the resignation stimulated discussions over prospect new generation leader, political parties as well as veterans groups urged him to stay until 2017 election for the reason of national security, political stability and economic growth. He accepted public and his party’s appeal to stay on and promised to reshuffle his government for better service delivery.
 
 
On Wednesday (15/10), Gusmão appeared in the Timor-Leste National Parliament to submit next year’s state budget and asked the Member of Parliaments to amend article 8 of law number 2/2014 in order to liquefy over US$2 million from the Petroleum Fund to government treasury. With the amended law, Gusmão can lead the government comfortably until the end of 2014.
 
 
One thing for sure, Gusmão will stay on until 31 December this year.  

Oct 15, 2014

U.S Coffee giant Starbucks’ pushes Timor-Leste coffee


Photo: www.forbes.com
 
 
Independente October 16, 2014

 
Last month Starbucks Consumer Packaged Goods announced it would be adding coffee from Mount of Ramelau in Timor-Leste to be part of its “extraordinary

  New single-origin coffee” line sold exclusively in supermarkets.


The U.S coffee giant has said for a small nation the global branding power of sturbacks was potentially a huge boost for the fledging state’s economy, tourism and global market awareness.


Speaking to Forbes Media, Andrew Lineman, a 21-year partner at Sturbacks, painted a glowing picture for the new mount Ramelau coffee for both consumers and the people of Timor Leste. He described the coffee from around the mountainous and isolated region as “very different” with a “brighter flavor profile” atypical for Asian produced coffee.


Having first started sourcing coffee from Timor-Leste in 1997, Linneman said he was pleased that Starbucks could now showcase a single-origin coffee from the region.

Oct 14, 2014

SPEECH BY HIS EXCELENCY THE PRIME MINISTER

PM Xanana Gusmao and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

“Evolving Regional Democratic Architecture”
Bali, Indonesia

10 October 2014 2
Your Excellency, President of the Republic of Indonesia, Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

Your Majesty, Sultan of Brunei Darussalam, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah,

Your Excellency, President of the Republic of the Philippines, Benigno S. Aquino III

Excellency, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Marti Natalegawa

Distinguished Heads of Delegations

Distinguished Participants

Ladies and Gentlemen

The theme for this year, if it does not offer an answer to some of the important issues facing our region; will at least open more comprehensive perspectives on the challenges of today.

The regional context can be both applied to ASEAN and beyond it. ASEAN is a well-known decades-old regional organisation, with a past of historical achievement and a present that demands response for greater challenges, taking in to account the current global issues. The future will depend on what, today we believe, we can do to ensure ASEAN is solid and vibrant, bearing in mind that this century is, as all say, Asia’s Century.

And it will be ASEAN, or those nations composing ASEAN, that is the subject of my analysis. It will therefore be within this social, political and economic framework that I will share my points of view in regard to the theme of this year: ‘Evolving Regional Democratic Architecture’.

Ladies and Gentlemen

As I have highlighted several times, in previous BDF’s, without development there can be no democracy - a healthy democracy, a responsible democracy, a democracy where there are rights for all as well as duties for all citizens.

In the current world juncture, western nations or the developed democracies demand the integral accomplishment of all the standards, imposed on us under the guise of all sorts of conventions, regardless of whether we are able or not to implement them.

Developed democracies are not able to understand that we follow, daily, their own problems, in regard to the violation of human rights and in regard to the unfortunate democratic answers they provide to their crises.

Today, the headlines in the western press, that influence civil society and the press in our countries, focus excessively on corruption in developing countries. We do not deny it exists.

Nonetheless, the BBC at the start of this year, revealed that Europe, currently in financial crisis, registers annually more than 12 billion euros in corruption. And what can we say about the crime of fraud and speculation, driven by greed for profits, of the most important banks in the world? A few months ago, the Bank of America itself handled fraud of about 16 billion dollars!

This follows a successive wave of declarations of fraud and of speculation by well-known banks in America and throughout Europe, while the standards of international financial organisations require us, in our own countries, to have banks with a ‘triple A’ rating! A week ago, the very curious news was that millions of customers of JP Morgan had their bank accounts hacked, adding to the scandal of recent years.

All of this only reveals the total inconsistency in the application of standards, for underdeveloped and developing nations, while, on the other hand, the violation of human rights in developed democracies is always justified by too often referring to the ‘internal security’ of such countries.

Ladies and Gentlemen

I had the privilege of presiding, for one year, at the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, based in Bangkok.

The problems we identified, are concerned with social and economic inequality in each and between the countries of the Asia Pacific.

While the reality of poverty, in our own region and in each of our own nations, is of concern to us, the world evaluates us through the lens of democracy and human rights ASEAN, as an organisation of cooperation, between 10 member nations, not only deals with the economic sector, but across others as well, including the political sector, in regard to the common perception and equal points of view, without prejudice to the political options of each one.

Mr. President

Distinguished Participants

Ladies and Gentlemen

It is, within this perspective that I would like to mention the role of ASEAN, in the frame of this year’s theme, at this VII BDF.

ASEAN has ensured its mechanism of mutual respect for the sovereignty of each nation, of non-interference in the internal affairs and of a collective policy in regards to important areas that all agree to be of common interest.

Following decades of existence, I am of the opinion that there should be a review of its mechanisms for cooperation, so that it becomes more efficient in responding to several questions that are posed individually and to all members.

In this globalised world that demands each country to respond, with better sense of duty, to the crucial issues facing humanity, we must consider how our region positions itself with regard to the demands of today’s world.

This necessity arises because we must be masters of our destiny and we must not continue to be startled by the evaluations that the powerful make of us. The international press is unstoppable in researching and revealing our weak points and to place us as countries, resistant to democracy and the standards that experts and journalists write about us in their reports.

Our region is still vulnerable in many aspects, particularly in the political environment. None of us can avoid external criticism, especially in regard to the government’s systems, which, we must acknowledge, are not homogeneous among us.

We must consider how we can avoid that powerful countries, as they are sophisticatedly organised and trained in this matter, from promoting or provoking an Asian spring to destabilise our economies, our processes and destroy our societies.

ASEAN is already a reference for tolerance within a multi-dimensional cultural diversity, but it lacks a greater synergy in economic terms, so we can truly be part of the so called ‘Asian Century’. The social and economic inequality in our region must always be a focus in our work agenda, reminding us that these are the preferred topics of external aid and intervention that always highlight, whenever possible, the problem of human rights, democracy and corruption.

ASEAN should or could have a political body, at the highest level, to exchange points of view and accommodate perspectives that would be of crucial importance for the integrity of the organisation, for its current credibility and its future vitality.

Ladies and Gentlemen

The interests of the world are evaluated by the great powers, according to their own values and their economic interests, as many reports produced by them can attest to it. For this, the great multinationals never, but never, wasted any opportunity to practice fraud, acting deliberately with dishonesty, in collusion with those rich and developed countries. Those western democracies preach transparency and international law, while supporting the multinationals undermining the society of developing nations, under the guise of freedom of the press, to create instability and, according to their plans, provoke changes in government, when and where the same multinationals can impose, by all means, for their own profit.

And when they are able to create instability, they classify the nation as a ‘risky country’ or the State as ‘heading towards becoming a failed State’, so that they can impose more favourable conditions for the exploitation of resources, always in collusion with rich and developed countries. Alternatively, as long as everything benefits their economic interests, the country is considered stable and a friendly nation meaning‘a pretty workable country’.

But if differences emerge, those multinationals activate their networks, also in collusion with their own governments, to undermine society and control the key institutions of the State, including the judicial sector, ordering their local agents, recruited to discredit the government and its agencies and, we believe, through financial mechanisms and bonuses. Such networks, set up in poor nations, act with extraordinary consistency, aware of the country’s weaknesses and exploiting them, in the same manner as colonial times, through ‘divide et impere’.

It is up to each nation’s society to create and enhance a patriotic spirit that defends first and foremost the national interests. There is currently a tendency to devalue and minimize everything achieved within the nation itself. And, in my humble opinion, this fact takes place because the intellectual component of society, in each of our nations, seeks power and incorrectly believes that, when in power, they can resolve all the problems of the nation.

The societies of developing countries do not understand that developed countries have already established everything over hundreds of years, by using the forced labour of slaves and by exploiting the wealth of their colonies (from infrastructure to State Institutions, from large sectors of the economy to human resources and technology) and that, nowadays, changes in power occurs only to respond to the immediate social and economic problems of the nation. In developing countries, poverty and social inequalities, the capacity building of State institutions and stability are, among others, the great challenges faced by governments.

If our societies are not able or do not want to understand these substantial differences, there will be no room for national cohesion, when faced with the threats of instability provoked by external influences. And, the more fragile and politically unstable our nations are, political subservience becomes, shall we say, the result which is translated into a dependency on those who can, to those who like to teach, and those that order. Societies in our nations must know that the ideal of ‘a disinterested support’ does not exist, and it is worse when there is a noted interest in offering ‘support’, as occurs on some occasions when they force it, even if the beneficiary country does not accept, or because it is not a priority or because it is not through the national system.

And many powerful nations prefer to provide financial support to some organisations from civil society to shout against corruption and violation of human rights, but these very same organisations of ours do not know how to be transparent about how much money they receive, from whom and how they use the money. Nowadays and in our countries, intellectuals and experts, politicians and activists have lost the notion of sovereignty, they have lost the notion of national interests, they have lost the notion of the superior interests of the people, as they have become enthralled by the heat of human rights, of democracy and of transparency, which they absorbed in a very conventional manner. These citizens of ours have lost an understanding of the complexity of the problems of the nation and they imagine that international organisations, which they venerate, and the rich nations, to which they submit, can come with a magic wand and resolve everything in a short period of time.

Mr. President
Ladies and Gentlemen

Knowing that next year the ASEAN Community will be established, I believe ASEAN must take the necessary adjustments to its programmatic vision, so that it can present itself as a mature organisation facing the world’s paradigms. ASEAN must also review its work methodology, so that it can present itself as an organisation that produces sensible results for the benefit of their populations.

ASEAN must avoid copying the way of thinking of the big international organisations that occupy themselves producing enormous reports, so they have enough material for countless meetings, where experts have the opportunity to only reveal themselves out of contexts, inherent to a region and of each nation, by giving the same prescriptions for all ailments.

Last year, here at the VI BDF, I highlighted the need for greater consciousness of the citizens of each nation to put the interests of the nation above the interests of groups and individuals. Today, I am extending the same thought to the region.

The BDF has been a forum of extreme utility, a forum that allows all participants to express not only their yearnings but also their concerns, and raise themes of global relevance and issues concerning universal principles and values, in an environment of total openness. It was for me, a privilege and an honour to be able to participate in this forum of discussion, where freedom of thought and of expression has been the prerogative.

In regard to complementarities to this valuable initiative of the President of the Republic
of Indonesia, Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, on the occasion of his Excellency’s visit to Dili, my President of the Republic, General Taur Matan Ruak, announced the need to establish a Centre of Dialogue, Reconciliation and Peace, based in my country.

My government is committed to fulfilling this noble ideal of the President of the Republic. My President made this announcement, conscious that we will be able to count on the participation of SBY, a great friend of Timor-Leste, as well as with the participation of international and national distinguished members, such as Dr Jose Ramos-Horta and Dr Mari Alkatiri. Timor-Leste wishes to decisively contribute to this collective effort in the region, in the affirmation of tolerance in diversity and in the joint commitment for the development of the human person, as the basis for the democratic stability and the consolidation of our States.

To conclude, allow me, Ladies and Gentlemen, to express here the feeling of gratitude of the people of Timor-Leste to Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who even before and through both his mandates, played a crucial role in the development of relations between our two nations and our two States.

From Timor-Leste, we followed the democratic transition in Indonesia, while at the same time we began our own State building process. The democratic process in Indonesia will serve as a reference to many other processes that have not yet been able to break the ‘status quo’ for the situation of resilience. 7
In the first five years, President SBY faced two enormous challenges that required tough and consistent leadership on his part: the natural disasters, starting in Aceh, and the stability of the nation, starting with the bombings in Bali. The extremism that was spreading through the country required measures of an active and resolute leader, resulting in stability across the entire Archipelago.

The second mandate was fulfilled with an effort of consolidation of the institutions of the State, in particular of the judicial sector, allowing therefore an extraordinary progress in the system of ‘checks and balances’ and I affirm this with total respect for the opposite views. Beyond this, President SBY projected Indonesia onto the world stage, with great advances in the economic sector that, we can say, is a complex area where inequalities, across the entire Indonesian territory, cannot demand equal and immediate answers.

Democracy is not an immediate solution to the problems of the nation. The economic and financial system of the world is rigged, at the mercy of the rich and powerful. We must search for new ways of sustainable development, that respond to the potential and capacity of each nation, without losing sight of universal values because, we all agree, these values can ensure human dignity.

In our humble analysis, President SBY’s two mandates were of crucial importance for the process of democratic transition in Indonesia, placing Indonesia as the world’s third largest democracy, with a tolerant society, and with the potential of becoming an economic heavy weight, in the region and in the world.

Congratulations Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, for your enormous effort in the consolidation of values and principles, which even the more developed nations are depressing with a new notion of ‘pragmatism’ to defend their interests of economic hegemony, through armed interventions, directly or indirectly.

On behalf of my Government and of the People of Timor-Leste, I sincerely express our best wishes for great success for the next President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, to his team and above all to our brothers and sisters in Indonesia.

Thank you very much.

Kay Rala Xanana Gusmão
Bali, 10th October 2014

MS prepared to fight against Ebola


EBOLA Virus Symptoms
 

Independente, October 14, 2014
 

 Ebola virus has been spreading all over the world and it has caused many deaths in Africa, therefore, the Ministry of Health (MS) of Timor-Leste has been well prepared to prevent this virus from entering Timor-Leste.

 

 Minister for Health, Sergio Lobo said MS had made standard preparations to fight against Ebola Virus.

 

 “We have people and protocols that wait at the Airport, so that if there is any case that seems to be caused by Ebola Virus, they are ready to resolve the problem,” Lobo said at Presidential Palace on Friday 10.

International court suspends CMATS and spy scandal cases


Minister Alfredo Pires. Photo: Google.com
 
Radio Timor-Leste, October 14, 2014 

 
The International Court has suspended the Certain Maritime Arrangement on the Timor Sea (CMATS) and spy scandal cases.

Minister for Natural Resources and Petroleum, Alfredo Pires affirmed that the suspension was made based on the request made by Australia asking Timor-Leste to resolve the cases through negotiations.

Mr. Pires said the International court had set 6 months for Australia and Timor-Leste to resolve these cases.

“The Australian PM and his foreign affairs minister approached PM Xanana, asking to resolve the cases through negotiations. And we are ready for that, but need to set the date for the process,” he said.

Oct 13, 2014

Gusmao snubbed by Portuguese

October 12 2014                         

Caption: Murade Isaac Miguigy Murargty

By Ted McDonnell
MANY East Timor observers were left shocked, and somewhat bemused, when Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao recently announced he would see out his full term and not retire until 2017.

Late last year, East Timor’s two-term Prime Minister declared he would retire in September just two years into his second term.

In announcing his pre-mature retirement Gusmao declared it was time to would hand over the country to East Timor’s younger leaders and set up a Council of Elders to guide the fledgling nation into its future.

However, at the recent CNRT conference Gusmao announced that he would not retire early and would lead his East Timor until 2017.

But the true reason behind Gusmoa's backflip was not his willingness to continue as PM, but a major snub from the CPLP, Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa -- the nine nations that make up the Commonwealth of Portuguese Speaking Countries.

Back in August, East Timor spent millions hosting the 10th Conference of the Heads of State and Government of the CPLP. So keen was Gusmao to impress his fellow heads of state that he also ordered dozens of brand new Toyota’s worth in excess of $1 million.

It can now be revealed Gusmao was promised the job as Executive Secretariat of the CPLP on the proviso he resign from the Prime Ministership of East Timor. This Gusmao was happy to do for the lucrative job of heading up the nine nation CPLP -- Portugal, Brazil, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Equitorail Guinea, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe.

East Timor’s government has spent a lot of time since gaining its independence ‘cow-towing’ to its former colonial ruler. It has spent millions of East Timor’s oil money on ‘cosying' up to the nine nations. Many government jobs that should have gone to East Timorese have been given to Portuguese 'consultants'.

Just recently, East Timor spent millions on paying the monthly salaries of government employees of Guinea-Bissau.

Mozambique’s Murade Isaac Miguigy Murargy, the current Executive Secretariate, was to step down from his two year term, which would have allowed Gusmao to assume the ‘prestigious’ role, however, the member States changed their mind as late as August to keep Murade Isaac Miguigy Murargy on for a further two year term.

Gusmao was furious at the snub, which was the real reason behind him committing to his full term as East Timor’s PM.

Many believe the rebuke of Gusmao was due to the level of corruption, the continued high unemployment rate, poor health care, and the extent of poverty and malnutrition that continues to exist in East Timor despite the nation’s $16 billion petroleum fund.

Aug 25, 2014

The Gap is Getting Bigger: It’s Time to Draw the Line - Tempo Semanal#.U_jFTI-ZWqw.facebook#.U_jFTI-ZWqw.facebook

The Gap is Getting Bigger: It’s Time to Draw the Line - Tempo Semanal#.U_jFTI-ZWqw.facebook#.U_jFTI-ZWqw.facebook

From:

The Gap is Getting Bigger: It’s Time to Draw the Line


Agio Pereira is The Minister of State and of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and Official Spokesperson for the Government of Timor-Leste Agio Pereira is The Minister of State and of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and Official Spokesperson for the Government of Timor-Leste
Agio Pereira
In recent weeks we witnessed leaders of various countries, including Australia, iterating or promoting the need to resort to international law to ensure countries act sensibly and with moral authority when approaching disagreements with neighbors. In doing so, reference has expressly been made to the United Nations Convention for the Law on the Sea (UNCLOS), in the context of international maritime issues. To give one example, the Australian Defence Minister David Johnston stated in his speech “Managing Strategic Tensions” at the Shangri-La Dialogue that all parties must exercise restraint, “refrain from actions that could increase tensions, to clarify and pursue claims in accordance with international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” Prime Minister Tony Abbot repeated the same call in an ABC radio interview on June 3rd, when he affirmed the need for disputes to be settled within the confines of international law. In addition, the U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in the same Shangri-La Dialogue meeting, also expressed concern that fundamental principles on the international order are being challenged. These calls to abide by international law, including UNCLOS, for the settlement of maritime boundary disputes, should bode well for Timor-Leste and its desire to close the Timor Gap in accordance with UNCLOS.
The Timor Gap was created by the 1972 Australia-Indonesia boundary agreement and still exists today. At the time the 1972 Australia-Indonesia maritime boundary was being negotiated, Timor was occupied by Portugal, and hence Australia and Indonesia could not establish a maritime boundary to the south of Timor as Timor's territory did not belong to Australia or Indonesia. However, Indonesia did (and still does), have territory to the east and west of Timor so a 'gap' in the boundary was left and marked by points in the Timor Sea known as A16 (in the east) and A17 (in the west). Despite global opinion denouncing Indonesia's subsequent occupation of Timor (1975 - 1999), Australia recognized Indonesian sovereignty over Timor so it could 'close' the Timor Gap. Australia hoped to simply link up A16 and A17 with a more-or-less straight line and (wrongly) believed it was 'legal' to do so as Timor was now Indonesian territory. By the mid-1970s though, Indonesia had 'wised-up' to being "taken to the cleaners" in the 1972 boundary agreement with Australia (as the boundary was closer to Indonesia than Australia), so Australia had to settle for a petroleum sharing zone under the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty. This petroleum sharing zone has now been inherited by Timor-Leste, following a treaty entered into on Timor-Leste's first day of independence (20th May 2002). As a result, the Timor Gap has not been 'closed' as there is no permanent maritime boundary in the area, only a petroleum sharing arrangement.
On 20th March 2002, the Australian Government opportunistically and in what could be characterised as an act of bad-faith, withdrew from the maritime boundary dispute settling jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). This brazen withdrawal came just months before Timor-Leste became a sovereign state on the day of its Restoration of Independence (20th May 2002). Australia’s carve-out of jurisdiction came amidst months of tense negotiations on the Timor Sea Treaty, regarding the maritime area between the northwest region of Australia and the south coast of Timor-Leste. It was a cowardly act of retreat because the then Australian Government was certainly concerned that, if Australia was to conform to the current calls of its leaders to act in accordance with international law, it would ‘lose–out’ in a maritime boundary delimitation with the newly sovereign and independent Nation-State of Timor-Leste. Despite the positive influence of the Australian military in helping restore peace in Timor-Leste, such a gesture of bad faith marked the beginning of difficult relations regarding maritime boundaries. It also heavily influenced the subsequent negotiations pertaining to the Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea or (CMATS) and the International Unitisation Agreement (IUA). These arrangements/agreements concern the Sunrise and Troubadour gas fields, which collectively are known as Greater Sunrise.
The difficulties of such a process led to the current complex legal situation faced by Australia in the ongoing International Arbitration on the matter of spying on Timor-Leste during the negotiations, being conducted in the legal precinct of The Hague and in accordance with the rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. In the same city of law and justice, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is hearing the matter of the seizure of legal documents belonging to Timor-Leste, which were seized in a raid on a lawyer’s office in Canberra.
Both legal processes continue to attract international attention, not least in Australia, where experts on international law convene public forums to analyze and discuss the impact of these legal processes upon Australia, Timor-Leste and on international law itself. The Australian National University (ANU) held a symposium dedicated to these topics. In a summary attested to by participants with legal backgrounds, a number of salient points emerged.
Dr. Christopher Ward, speaking on the background to the dispute, acknowledged that Australia has “consistently shifted ground away” from the natural prolongation/continental shelf argument, while “still playing lip service to natural prolongation”. In addition, he noted that if the determination of the maritime boundary was brought before an international court, “something very different to natural prolongation would come forward”. Commenting on the lateral boundaries, he noted that if A16, the eastern point of the Timor Gap area is moved “laterally”, all the Greater Sunrise will lie within Timorese territory.
Dr. Sarah Heathcote spoke on “The Claim of Treaty Invalidity and CMATS”, which is currently being argued by Timor-Leste’s legal team, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Professor Vaughan Lowe QC in thespying case being arbitrated. Dr Heathcote presented her view that Timor-Leste has to prove that the legal principles within the framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLOT) are customary law or that grounds beyond the VCLOT exist to declare CMATS to be void. Timor-Leste cannot rely on the VCLOT itself invalidating CMATS because Timor-Leste was not a party to VCLOT at the time of the alleged espionage activity. However, if a provision within VCLOT can be proved to be customary international law, it is theoretically binding on all States. While there are limited grounds available, one possible ground is fraud. Dr. Heathcote went on to note that “it is difficult to say” if fraud is a customary principle of international law as many jurisdictions have different definitions of fraud and there is a lack of relevant international law precedents. On other likely grounds, Dr. Heathcote also made reference to the history of Unequal Treaties, saying that the Soviet-style interpretation of the doctrine, which focuses on a developed State taking advantage of a developing State, “fits nicely” with the Australia/Timor-Leste dispute. However, she also pointed out that Unequal Treaties is not customary international law and it is also not covered by the VCLOT. Further, she outlined a “fantasy” ground for invalidity, such that the treaty is invalid for violating rules of jus cogens(the peremptory norms on which international law is based).
Professor Donald Anton, speaking on “The Closest Nature of Arbitration in the Context of the Dispute”, echoed the view that CMATS could be declared void if espionage is shown to have occurred, as it breaches Australia’s obligation to act in good faith under CMATS, despite the fact that there are no treaties on spying, nor customary international laws prohibiting espionage. Citing the Nuclear Test Case and the North Sea Continental Shelf cases he described the notion of good faith as a “broad rule of international law” and added that “good faith underpins the essence of negotiations related to seabed boundaries”. On spying, Dr. Anton stressed that it “looks more like bad faith when for commercial gain” and that “sending in agents to a foreign country without consent offends the principles of non-intervention” set out in previous cases. He added that Timor-Leste stills needs to prove that the espionage activities occurred.
However, regardless of the legal theoretical dilemmas, the conclusion to be made from the academic debate is that Timor-Leste, as a Nation-State, has the right to avail itself of these legal avenues and to seek remedies under international law to protect its rights, including its sovereign status. As long as Timor-Leste continues to act with due propriety and reasonableness, as it has, the case can be considered a strong one in favor of Timor-Leste. It is true that there is the need to prove that the espionage activity did occur and within the realms of the international arbitration to a ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof.
In the same symposium, Dr. Donald Roth well made the point that if Timor-Leste was seeking see a “litigation advantage” from the public nature of the ICJ hearings, they were right to do so.
On the need for Timor-Leste to successfully argue that spying constitutes fraud under the VCLOT, it has been argued that such a need is due to the fact that ‘everyone is spying on everyone anyway’. However, this can be a very misleading perspective. The argument put by Peter Galbraith in the latest documentary from ABC’s Four Corners on the topic, made a distinction between different types of espionage. One type is the recording of someone’s conversation or hacking into their emails or telephones. A second type, and the more offensive type, is to enter a foreign government’s office illegally, install a bugging device, listen to the Prime Minister and his minister’s confidential discussions; and enter again the same venue to extract the bug. This type of espionage, not average by any standard, could only be characterised as a desperate move to gain commercial advantage during a serious negotiation on natural resources. In such negotiations the parties are expected to act in good faith, particularly because Timor-Leste was and is not an enemy of Australia. The reference to "commercial" advantage" and not to "national security" is most important in this context.
If concerns about fundamental principles of international law being challenged reflect a fear that the international order may be weaker if Nation-States do as they please to nurture their greed for more territory and resources, Timor-Leste has been right in availing itself of what international law resources can do to resolve potentially destructive tensions. Those tensions, aggravated by acts of espionage and raiding lawyers offices to take advantage of information which otherwise may not be available, serve certain economic interests as opposed to protecting national security. Timor-Leste resolved not to politicise unnecessarily the espionage issue, as well as the raiding of one of its lawyers’ office, which reflects the seriousness of the Timorese Government to protect the extremely good relations between Australia and Timor-Leste at all levels. It was Australia that publicized these activities and it is Timor-Leste that wishes to engage in discussions to overcome the disagreement over the Timor Sea but has had to resort to the neutral forms of international law available to sovereign Nation-States, such as Arbitration and the International Court of Justice, to progress its interests.
In regards to Timor-Leste exercising its right to self-determination, Australia’s attitude towards the rights of the people of Timor-Leste has been consistent. Australia supported the illegal occupation of Timor-Leste led by President Suharto. During the 24-year occupation Australia benefitted handsomely from many developments which have exploited the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea.
The Timor Gap Treaty signed while Indonesia was illegally occupying the territory of East Timor was one of the most venal and hurtful acts and demonstrated a kowtowing to President Suharto and turning a blind eye to the murderous policies being implemented by the same regime against the people of East Timor. This was all done for the sake of natural resources, which Australia, being a vast island-continent rich in oil, gas and minerals, was not so desperately in need, unlike East Timor.
This de jure recognition was wrongful and done under the cliché of realpolitik, one which was wrongly applied to Timor-Leste because the premise was that East Timor will be never become independent; and the best it can hope for was some sort of autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia. This proved to be a monumental miscalculation caused precisely by underestimating the power of international law applicable to non self-governing territories. Australia tried unsuccessfully to have this matter removed from the Decolonisation Committee of the United Nations, where East Timor was listed. Decolonization can mean the need to hear the voice of the people through a plebiscite, whereby the people vote in a free and peaceful manner to determine their future. The people of East Timor exercised this right on the 30th of August 1999, bringing about the newly sovereign and independent Nation-State of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. Australian politicians had a wake-up call when faced with the reality made by the people of Timor-Leste, supported by international law against all odds.
The question to be pondered by this state of affairs and how Australia continues to act about the Timor Sea is “Have Australian politicians really understood and learnt a lesson?”. It is difficult to appraise this learning curve. One reason is because Australian federal politicians are elected in a cycle of three-year elections and the majority does not get a real opportunity to be involved in international politics, let alone maritime boundary delimitations. These matters are more often than not left to senior Canberra bureaucrats and experts in the foreign affairs, defence and security sectors, to gauge the pros and cons of these issues and to advise internally on the national interest. The politicians further get standard advice on the best ‘lines’ to use, if and when they have to say and/or act on these matters. There are always some politicians though who speak to principle and did so throughout the illegal occupation of Timor-Leste.
As is the way with politics, reactive statements are mostly for short-term political consumption, rather than long-term strategic national interest.
The prejudicial and long formed attitude in Canberra to the tiny nation state of Timor-Leste is difficult to supplant. If it does not come from within the agencies and led by politicians, then it requires pressure from the international realm, combined with domestic public opinion to turn the attention of the powers-that-be in Canberra to listen to the claims of Timor-Leste. When the Timor Sea Treaty was signed on May 20th, 2002, on the very first day of the restoration of independence of Timor-Leste, promises were made that there would be talks on "permanent boundaries" soon. But the promise has been on hold now for twelve years.
In spite of the recent requests by the Timorese Government to start such talks, the appeal from Timor-Leste has fallen on deaf years. It appears that no one in Canberra is really listening to what Timor-Leste states it wants in terms of its maritime boundaries. The retort is, “Well they need to tell us what they want”. There is really only one way to say, “Timor-Leste wants to sit at the table with Australia and have structured talks on maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea.”
There have been meetings between leaders, at the highest levels - Prime Ministers Xanana Gusmão with Tony Abbott and also with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; yet no clear message has come from Canberra as to its willingness to listen and to respect international law in the Timor Sea.
This silence is a poor sign of misunderstanding again, shown by Australian political leaders, that things may just get worse before they can get better. Unfortunately for both sides, this will continue to occur if the Timorese leadership and society are not taken seriously. Last year, in an interview to ABC radio program ‘PM’ Dr. Ramos-Horta, former President of Timor-Leste and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, appealed to the Australian Government to take the Timorese leadership seriously. He made the point that the Timorese are serious about their sovereignty and they will prosecute their rights to their resources in the Timor Sea, in accordance with international law. It seems he is also being ignored.
Why now? This is an important question. One of the most respected and internationally a well renowned former U.S. Senator, experienced in mediation on borders and natural resources, simply answered: it must be now because temporary arrangements on borders if left too long, can and do tend to become permanent. This is a simple truth, particularly in the scenario of Timor-Leste and Australia, where there are no agreed maritime boundaries at all; what does exist is a cordoned off zone of development inherited from the illegal Timor Gap Treaty Australian entered into with Indonesia during the time of the illegal occupation of East Timor. Furthermore, Australia has entered into maritime delimitation with all its neighbors, and is party to the Antarctic Treaty, except the country Australian leaders frequently refer to as its closest and friendliest neighbor; Timor-Leste. And comparatively, one is referring to a very tiny area and portion of Australia's vast border.
The middle/median line
For the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Timor-Leste has a right to expect the middle or median line to be drawn in the Timor Sea between Timor-Leste and Australia. Surely this has to be negotiated in accordance with international law. No matter what arrangements are in place in the Timor Sea, Australia has no right to refuse to negotiate with Timor-Leste for the settlement of its maritime boundaries. It is time for Australia to make genuine efforts to resolve the dispute and find a constructive solution through an honest and transparent process. The international law of the sea, reflected largely in UNCLOS no longer supports the natural prolongation theory alone, so the middle line is and will be the departing point, where the borders are less than 400 nautical miles apart, as is the case. As for the lateral borders, Australia has expressed publicly some concerns related to Indonesia, but these cannot be overcome without substantive dialogue and honest and transparent negotiations. In short, sitting with Timor-Leste to talk about maritime boundaries now is advantageous for Australia, as well as for Timor-Leste. Australia cannot just say it is too hard, thus denying Timor-Leste its lawful right to negotiate maritime boundaries with Australia. This right exists under international law and Australia expressly agreed to do so in the 2002 and 2006 treaties.
The boundary is one - but are there other problems? The answer is yes. One central problem is attitude. The world has progressed, but the way Australia’s largely old and tired technocrats view the Pacific constitutes a problem. South Pacific countries’ leadership is hardly taken seriously by Australian officials. Just recall how the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea was held at the airport in Brisbane and forced to take his shoes off, humiliating him. Protests were made between foreign ministries but to no avail. The same policy still exists.
When Timor-Leste initiated its international arbitration against Australia, a senior bureaucrat in Canberra categorized the move as that of a ‘banana republic’. And when Timorese diplomats and others speak to Canberra bureaucrats about issues related to delimitation of maritime boundaries, the reply is that the politicians cannot do much; it’s the bureaucrats in Canberra that decide, which means Timor-Leste has an even tougher summit to climb.
What the bureaucrats do not fully appreciate though is that Timor-Leste has a habit of fighting goliaths and this fight is one that is familiar to its leadership. Hence the appeal of Dr. José Ramos-Horta for Canberra to take Timorese leadership seriously should not fall on deaf years. An opportunity exists for Australian politicians to seize the opportunity before them - to effect change and act on their conscience, not the advice of technocrats. It would also free Australia from constantly worrying about whatever it did with Indonesia and for the first time could have an open relationship with two of its closest and critically important neighbors. It would free itself of the past and unshackle itself from its locked-in paradigm on this matter. A win all round. International law and political will can do this. There exists a window of opportunity, one which presents itself to leaders periodically to look beyond the status quo, beyond the sneers of the opposition and beyond the next election.
Another problem is that Canberra seems to believe that all Timor-Leste is seeking is more money. It is evident as it comes up first and foremost in many government level conversations. Former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer recites this often. The Australian political framework seems to have been absorbed by the propaganda of ‘generosity’ of Australia towards Timor-Leste due to the sharing of Timor Sea Treaty revenues and the agreement on Greater Sunrise which includes a 50:50 share of revenues, in spite of the probable 100 per cent ownership at international law.
This generosity paradigm has been challenged in many ways, including within legal realms currently ongoing in the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). When one refuses to draw the line with your neighbors and push beyond limits including threats that “Australia could bring meltdown to East Timor if it so chose”, as Mr. Downer was quoted in ‘A Study of the Offshore Petroleum Negotiations Between Australia, the U.N. and East Timor, by A. Munton (ANU), generosity is a far-fetched award one has the right to claim for oneself; opportunism, bad faith and sheer disrespect for a relatively much smaller and emerging country are likely to be most appropriate.
Of course every Nation-State in the world nowadays, including Australia, needs more money. However, putting this ‘more money’ concept into perspective, it can be offensive to Timor-Leste, to say the least. To say that Timor-Leste has taken its case to the international arbitration tribunal and the ICJ, simply because it needs more money, is utterly wrong. There is a need to understand clearly the notion of ‘principle’ when one delves deep into these matters pertaining to commercial interests in the Timor Sea whereby the profit orientated strategies of multinational resource companies (MRC) and the national interests of the owners of the same resources can overlap or derail.
This is why Prime Minister Xanana reiterates - time and again – that as far as Timor-Leste is concerned, it is a matter of principle. But what does "principle" mean here?
First, it is about acknowledging that Timor-Leste has rights over the maritime boundaries which, no matter what happens, Canberra cannot write them off as it pleases. Second, it is about sovereignty; which means defining exactly where are the sovereign maritime borders of Timor-Leste, so that our Defence Forces and Allies in the defence field (including Australia) can plan defence capabilities, not necessarily for war purposes, but most importantly, for strategic and peace purposes, for the protection of strategic natural resources such as oil and gas and the most vital natural resource, water. Permanent maritime boundaries are also crucial for effective cooperation with strategic regional allies. Third, it is about consolidation of the process of independence. Having been stripped of resource rights by Australia and Indonesia in the Timor Gap Treaty, it is time for Timor-Leste to register its claims within the realms of international law. Fourth and last, but not least important, it is about long-term national interests, say the next hundred years and where Timor-Leste believes it will be, and securing the interests of our future generations too.
Where Timor-Leste ‘will be’ is planned through the national strategic development plan (SDP);this Plan envisages Timor-Leste gradually becoming a vibrant and self-reliable economy, a model of social justice and equity, and a leading country within the community of Nations that have succeeded in building a flourishing liberal democracy. From a very low base, we are making positive and real steps in that direction. In addition, Timor-Leste wants to become a country with a population that is well educated and also contributes towards the well-being of other Nation-States, particularly those most in need. This is what is meant by Timor-Leste’s "principled approach" in the context of maritime boundaries. It does not and will never mean 'more aid', for the sake of greed; it does not mean more handover money for the sake of covering losses due to pipelines; it certainly does not mean more dependency, more humiliation, more hitchhiking diplomacy and security. Ultimately, it is about principle in the sense of human dignity, as well as State’s (Country) dignity. It is about being in charge of what rightly belongs to Timor-Leste, be it big or small, within its’ maritime boundaries and in accordance with international law. Therefore, this “principle” is about ensuring that “the future of the people of Timor-Leste” can be upheld with dignity.
To conclude, one must stress that Australia and Timor-Leste are neighbours and shall work together at all times to ensure bilateral relations are maintained at its best. Cooperation rather than competition for the sake of selfish gain must be the guiding principle. However, cooperation can only be strengthened through mutual trust which develops from respecting the rights of each Nation-State. On the maritime borders, this means settling them on the basis of international law.
Note : His excellency Agio Pereira is The Minister of State and of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and Official Spokesperson for the Government of Timor-Leste

Aug 4, 2014

Strong Growth in Timor-Leste’s Non Oil GDP confirmed by the 2012 National Accounts « Government of Timor-Leste

Strong Growth in Timor-Leste’s Non Oil GDP confirmed by the 2012 National Accounts « Government of Timor-Leste



The “Timor-Leste National Accounts 2000-2012”
were officially released on Friday the 25th July at the Timor-Leste
Development Partners Meeting. Compiled in accordance with the United Nations
System of National Accounts 2008, this set of macroeconomic accounts provides
comprehensive and consistent data that is important for policymaking, analysis
and research.


This edition of the National Accounts is the
fourth published by the General Directorate of Statistics and allows for
accurate comparisons of economic activity over the period 2000-2012.

Timor Plaza. Photo: Google.com

The 2014 edition confirms the strong growth of
Timor-Leste’s non-oil Gross Domestic Product [GDP]. In 2012 Timor-Leste’s
Non-Oil GDP in constant prices grew by 7.8% with a growth in household final
consumption expenditure of 13.1% associated with a significant increase in
subsistence agriculture in 2012.


Industry sectors that grew in 2012 were
Information and Communication, up 19.6%, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, up
14.6%, Real Estate activities, up 14.4%, Public Administration, up 11.0%, other
Mining and Quarrying, up 7.9% and Wholesale and Retail Trade, up 7.3%.


The Total GDP in current prices for Timor-Leste
in 2012 was $5,579 Million with the oil sector accounting for 77.2% and the
non-oil sector accounting for 22.8% of the total GDP, an increase in the
proportion of the non-oil contribution to GDP compared to 2011 figures.


Timor-Leste’s National Accounts 2000-2012 are
available for download at the website of the General Directorate of Statistics
[http://www.dne.mof.gov.tl].

TIMOR HAU NIAN DOBEN: Gusmao bows to party pressure not to retire

Ted McDonnell The Australian - August 05, 2014 - Reprinted by permission of the author - Ted McDonnell* © The Australian © Ted McDonnell


EAST Timor Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao has backflipped on retirement plans, declaring he will stay on and could sack up to 20 ministers in his ­coalition government.
Mr Gusmao has on numerous occasions stated he would retire two years into his second term — which would be next month. However, pressure from fellow CNRT parliamentarians at last weekend’s party conference forced him to declare yesterday that he may now see out his term until the next election, in 2017.

With many CNRT ministers fearful the party would collapse without Mr Gusmao in charge, they intensively lobbied the 68-year-old to stay on.

CNRT put two resolutions to members, one declaring the Prime Minister would stay for the foreseeable future and the second giving him a mandate to “remodel” the government, allowing him to replace up to 20 cabinet ministers. Both resolutions were passed late on Sunday.

“It is at the Prime Minister’s discretion to carry out both resolutions. Mr Gusmao will decide the time required for political transition and power to the next generation,” one senior coalition member told The Australian yesterday.

“Xanana is the boss. He has total authority in this country and now he is changing things on a day-to-day basis. Who knows what he will do tomorrow? He may well quit again.”

Observers said sacking up to 20 of the 55 ministers would create significant tension within the coalition government made up of CNRT, PD (Democratic Party) and Frente Mudansa. It was unclear which ministers face the axe, with the future of Finance Minister Emilia Pires hanging in the balance. Yesterday in Dili, Mr Gusmao presented 2014 budget executions alongside Ms Pires.

Last week, Ms Pires, one of Mr Gusmao’s closest allies, was indicted for alleged abuse of power and corruption by East Timor’s Prosecutor-General.

Former vice-minister for health Madalena Hanjam was also indicted for similar offences over a contract awarded to Ms Pires’s husband’s Melbourne-based business for the supply of hospital beds. Ms Pires and Ms Hanjam say the contract was awarded legally.

*Ted McDonnell is a senior journalist and an award winning photojournalist who has been writing on East Timor for over 30 years.

Jul 24, 2014

Figura nebe iha kualidade atu Troka Katuas Xanana? - Tempo Semanal#.U8eB6U75qW0.facebook#.U8eB6U75qW0.facebook

Figura nebe iha kualidade atu Troka Katuas Xanana? - Tempo Semanal#.U8eB6U75qW0.facebook#.U8eB6U75qW0.facebook

Por: Vicente Maubocy

....
Analise & comentario:
Professor Agio,- ema ida matenek duni, em termos Public Relation, domina Portugues ho Ingles, infelizmente em termos envolvimento politico ka track political record , tó ohin “ Zero“. Publiko deskonhece totalmente.
Evidencias hatudo mo mos “tabele” katuas Xanana husi 2002 tó ohin loron. Agio sem Xanana, figura “morta” Figura ida ho karacter “fechada, incomunikavel” hau iha certeza maxima sei kauza “desastre bot” baihira sai Primeiro Ministro .
Hau la hatene, Professor Agio iha influencia iha CNRT ka lae? Hau rasik envolve iha CNRT husi 2006,iha momentos dificeis altura neba eleisaun Presidencial ho Legislativa tinan 2007 “ariska vida”, la mate, talvez Maromak sei dauk bolu. Lao hamutuk ekipa CNRT ba kampanhas no habelar estruturas CNRT iha territorio tomak tó 2011, la hare Professor Agio nia oin ka klamar.
Altura ida iha 2010, team CNRT ba Samarogo fatin Koronel Maubuti.(Laisorulai). Iha team ne,husi nacional : Maubocy,Januario, Folaran, Kaetano, Duarte ho ekipa Distrito nian ami ba halo esklarecimento. Tó hau nia vez koalia, tece konsiderasoens ruma kona ba divergencias entre FRETILIN ho FRETILIN Mudansa, grupo bot ida kaer Katanas no Samurai mossu, hussu atu para esklarecimento hodi dehan “ Fatin ne, FRETILIN nian.FRETILIN maka bele halo, partido seluk la bele”.
Hotu-hotu tauk no hakfodak. Hau kalmamente responde:” ita bot sira viola lei. La iha direito atu bandu ami.Se lakohi rona, favor ida bele sai husi ne. Imi lori kroat halo saida?
Se brani mai oho uluk mau hau. Hau maka ibun bot halo kritikas”.
Nune sira la halo buat ida. Ami husu ba Policia eskuadra ida atu fo seguransa. Se violencia ruma akontece, sira bele atua, hau Maubocy maka assume responsabilidade tomak.
Felizmente buat ida la akontece, to tuku 10.00 kalan ami fila. Udang bot, sae subida, namadoras, hau nia kareta kuase takafila, choke ba aihun bot ida.
Figura atu troka Xanana tenki iha influencia bot. Pelo menos okupa posisaun, Presidente, Sec Geral, ka membros diresaun Partido nian.Se lae konflitos internal mossu, nebe sei fo impacto negativu bot ba eleisaun 2017 ba CNRT.
Se la iha influencia – lalika mehi sai PM. Tanba Resistencia forte sei hasoru husi 30 deputados CNRT iha Parlamento. La konta ho bankadas 3 tan.
Kanten sai PM, maka ema hotu la fo respeito, halo manifestasaun bei-beik hatudo deskontentamento “ não vale a pena” worthless”. Mais vale “um vadio honrado do que um PM insultado”. Indigitasaun “forsada” konvida - crise.
Nando La Sama, - Lider partido Democratico, politicamente conhecida iha esfera nacional liu do ke Professor Agio. Possue eleitorado ho 8 assentos Parlamentares. Okupa ona posisaun chaves rua Presidente Parlamento no momento ida ne, okupa posisaun Vice PM. Iha chance, tudo depende ba Katuas Xanana konjuga tan ho Mari Alktiri + Horta.
Rui Araujo- Mediko, okupa ona pasta Ministro Saude 2001-2006, envolve iha Resistencia, memmbro CCF actual.
Iha 2005 hau ho Rui konfranta malu iha jornal, kona ba artigo ida hau hakerek. Hau responde fali ho artigos rua, Rui Araujo desiste iha palko publiko.
.
Hau la dun konhece diak, mai be internacionais sira, husi nacionalidades lubuk ida, dehan iha kualidades hanesan “bom gestor”.
Vantagem bot Rui, back up ho Partido FRETILIN nebe iha forsa politica makas ba konjuntura actual. Mediko particular Horta iha 2011 bainhira baixa hospital Darwin, konstitue mos “ credit point” husi Horta atu suporta.
Figura se se deit maka troka Xanana, lideres FRETILIN sei envolve atu “pronuncia”. kona assunto ne, tanba assunto ida ne, ho natureza, interesse nacional.
Atu garante estabilidade, Xanana ho lideres FRETILIN tenki mantein relasoens harmoniozas. Nune tuir hakerek nain nia indusaun Rui iha “probabilidade bot” tanba iha nia kotuk FRETILIN + Horta.
Katuas Xanana sei rona liu rekomendasaun FRETILIN tanba Partido bot iha forsa politica. Iha parte seluk tau mos iha konsiderasaun katak diferensas kadeiras entre CNRT ho FRETILIN la dun bot.
Partidos kik barak maka halo lakon votos “saugate” iha eleisaun 2012. Trend politica ba eleisaun 2017, FRETILIN iha chance bot atu manang eleisaun Legislativa.
Lakon ona dala rua, aprende barak ona, Camarada Mari hatudo ona flexibilidade, nune iha ona “abertura” atu “dada fali” milhares votos nebe “namakari” lemo-lemo.
Atu prevene ka evita “ political revenge” hahu agora hari politica “boa amizade” entre forsas polticas dominantes.
Tuir rating hakerek nain : Rui Araujo iha probabilidade maior tanba FRETILIN iha kotuk; tuir maka Nando Lasama, iha Partido Democratico; ikus mai Professor Agio tanba la tama iha estrutura CNRT; Se karik maka Professor Agio okupa kargo ruma iha estrutura CNRT, konvive ho ema barak, activo iha politica, preferencia rekai ba Professor Agio.
Ora subar deit iha Katuas Xanana nia “mahon” , la prova ho merito rasik maka sai PM, la iha kredibilidade, la iha influencia, konsekuentemente falta respeito husi publiko tomak.
Dedikasaun ida husi ancient Proverbs ba kandidatus PM:
If I can’t lead myself others won’t follow me
If I can’t lead myself others won’t respect
If I can’t lead myself others won’t partner me.
That applies whether the influence you desire to exert is on the people above you, beside you, or below you. (Buat ida ne, aplika ba influencia nebe ó iha, ba ema nebe iha ó nia leten, ó nia sorin, ka ó nia okos).


To read more, click on the link above




Jul 22, 2014

CPLP Summit in Pictures

Meeting of the Council of Ministers of CPLP. Photo: Hexi Groham
Photo: Hexi Groham
Head of States and Head of Governments pose for Pictures. Photo: Hexi Groham


Jul 21, 2014

PÁGINA GLOBAL : Xanana Gusmão minimiza ausência de PR de Angola e ...

PÁGINA GLOBAL : Xanana Gusmão minimiza ausência de PR de Angola e ...:






Díli, 19 jul (Lusa) - O líder do governo timorense, Xanana Gusmão, disse hoje que Timor-Leste não pode "produzir milagres", numa referência à ausência dos presidentes de Angola e do Brasil na cimeira da Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa.

"Não podemos produzir milagres", mas "teria sido fantástico se o Presidente angolano pudesse vir e a 'Presidenta' Dilma. São situações que não podemos evitar, mas teria sido fantástico", afirmou em entrevista à agência Lusa Xanana Gusmão.

"Eu acredito sinceramente que oportunidades se darão, se não é aqui é em outro lado, para que reforcemos assim o potencial que todos temos. A Presidente Dilma está em campanhas, mas enfim teria sido fantástico", insitiu Xanana Gusmão.

O Presidente de Angola, José Eduardo dos Santos, e a chefe de Estado do Brasil, Dilma Rousseff, não vão estar presentes na cimeira de chefes de Estado e de Governo da CPLP que se realiza quarta-feira pela primeira vez em Díli.

Timor-Leste assume também pela primeira vez a presidência da organização durante o encontro dedicado ao tema "CPLP e a Globalização", que vai ficar marcado pelo regresso da Guiné-Bissau, após suspensão por causa do golpe de Estado de 2012, e pela possível entrada da Guiné-Equatorial.

Em Díli, vão estar os chefes de Estado de Cabo Verde, Jorge Carlos Fonseca, São Tomé e Príncipe, Manuel Pinto da Costa, Moçambique, Armando Guebuza, e de Portugal, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, e também da Guiné Equatorial, Teodoro Obiang. Angola vai estar representada pelo vice-presidente, Manuel Vicente, e a Guiné-Bissau vai estar representada pelo primeiro-ministro, Domigos Simões Pereira.

O primeiro-ministro português, Pedro Passos Coelho, também vai participar na cimeira da CPLP e realizar uma visita oficial entre os dias 24 e 25.

O Brasil vai estar representado pelo ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Luís Alberto Figueiredo Machado.

Segundo as autoridades timorenses, são esperadas mais de 800 pessoas na capital timorense, Díli, para participarem nos trabalhos da cimeira, que arrancaram quinta-feira com a reunião dos pontos focais da cooperação.



MSE - Lusa