Originally posted by PalynkaI read your post where you said "everybody" was calling for Alkatiri's resignation. However, everybody seems not to have included the majority of members of the East Timor Parliament; otherwise they could have had a "no confidence" vote. In fact, the Freitlin party which controls close to 2/3 of the seats in Parliament reaffirmed their support of the Prime Minister a day before his resignation. Does "everybody" only include Western governments and their financial interests?
You seem to have a reading problem. I'm talking about that, how could I miss it?
Oh, I see. You're not really reading my posts, are you?
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-06-25T042258Z_01_SP8397_RTRUKOC_0_US-TIMOR.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3
I read your post where you said "everybody" was calling for Alkatiri's resignation. However, everybody seems not to have included the majority of members of the East Timor Parliament; otherwise they could have had a "no confidence" vote. In fact, the Freitlin party which controls close to 2/3 of the seats in Parliament reaffirmed their support of the Pri ...[text shortened]... gnation. Does "everybody" only include Western governments and their financial interests?
Inform yourself. I'll bet you'll get stuck on the "everybody" expression as you try to save face.
Originally posted by PalynkaBefore you get all high and mighty and wear out an injured tone of a true believer, (I have read my papers and watched 4 corners , the 7.30 report, lateline and dateline and 60 minutes for the past 25 years so if you think all I have done is copy and paste I will highlight the inherent contradictions in all my posts to fully spell out smell for you. I thought by providing a bit of context you might get a sense of the flow of the argument as I'm am sure there's a whole bunch of people out there who could care less about the intricacies of australian politics or its foreign affairs.
Read the thread. If you have any points, make them. don't be lazy and copy-paste things, especially this one that was already mentioned.
Edit - But I already know you know zero about the situation. You care only when the socialists and the greens get up in arms. Following propagandists like a good boy. Me?
I've been following East Timor with concern ev ...[text shortened]... a.
I'm done with this thread, unless I see someone really cares. So far, only Bosse did.
From the first post.
.."El Paso has signed a letter of intent to buy the gas over 15 years starting 2005, mainly for use in California, which is facing serious energy shortages.
"The entire set of gas export contracts could be jeopardized if the treaty is not agreed in time," said Jim Godlove, the Darwin area manager for Phillips Petroleum Co., which is part of a consortium developing gas fields in the Timor Sea.
Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, said recent talks with East Timorese and UN officials had made considerable progress after an "extremely difficult" phase in the negotiations. After initially proposing to split revenue on a 60-40 basis, Australia is reported to be offering East Timor an 85 percent share, much closer to the East Timorese request for 90 percent. East Timor is said to have withdrawn its demand for a redrawing of the sea-bed boundaries. Mr. Downer said it should now be possible to conclude a framework agreement for a new Timor Sea zone treaty in the next couple of months..".....
From the second.
.."The oil and gas fields lie much closer to East Timor than to Australia, but a 1989 deal between Indonesia and Australia set the maritime boundary along Australia's continental shelf, which gives it control of 85% of the sea and most of the oil. Under these terms, Australia was to receive 82% of the oil revenues and East Timor just 18%. Finally, after years of wrangling, the two countries agreed in May 2005 to defer the redrawing of the border for 50 years and to split the oil and gas revenues down the middle"...
Notice a trend?
From the third.
.."Some investors had feared that the dominant Fretilin party might hold off signing the deal, in a bid to put pressure on Mr Ramos Horta and President Xanana Gusmao not to pursue charges against ousted prime minister Mari Alkatiri.
Mr Alkatiri, a Fretilin member, stood down in June amid allegations he sanctioned the arming of hit squads to remove political opponents.
But Mr Ramos Horta said the Timor Sea treaty would be brought to Parliament soon and he would make a "robust and convincing argument" for ratification.
The pledge is good news for Woodside Petroleum, which is the Australian-based operator of the Greater Sunrise field.
It is expected to pump about $39 billion in oil revenues over 30 years, split evenly into Australian and East Timor coffers....
From the Fourth.
..."
Alkatiri, a Fretilin member, stood down in June amid allegations he sanctioned the arming of hit squads to remove political opponents.
But Ramos Horta said the Timor sea treaty would be brought to parliament soon where he would make a "robust and convincing argument" for ratification. "....
From the Fifth
..."Ramos Horta's pledge will be good news for Woodside Petroleum, which is the Australian-based operator of the Greater Sunrise field.
The field is expected to pump around $US30 billion ($A39.49 billion) in oil revenues over 30 years into the coffers of the Australian and East Timor governments, split evenly between both countries.
The deal was negotiated by Alkatiri, who infuriated Australia's government with his hard-nosed bargaining for a deal which will bring around $US15 billion ($A19.75 billion) to his cash-strapped economy, which is Asia's poorest.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said he was pleased with Ramos Horta's commitment.
"We would obviously like East Timor to move towards ratification of the Greater Sunrise deal," he said.
"We haven't ourselves ratified it, we've said we will complete our ratification processes when East Timor ratifies it. The sooner the better."...".....
If you need to have the wheel constantly reinvented just because you cant join some dots then I dont know how you could ever be convinced about the state of stink in Denmark ( Random Shakesperian aside in case you're wondering)
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm curious; how do you think that article supports your position? The dateline is June 25, 2006; the result of that meeting (helpfully "guarded by peacekeepers"😉 was that Freitlin reaffirmed its support of Alkatari as shown in the other links I've already given. However, the "Western diplomats" quoted in your article certainly wound up getting their way; Ramos-Horta became Prime Minister. I'd say that article is entirely consistent with what I've been saying.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-06-25T042258Z_01_SP8397_RTRUKOC_0_US-TIMOR.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3
Inform yourself. I'll bet you'll get stuck on the "everybody" expression as you try to save face.
Originally posted by kmax87Shocking news. Australia wants an oil deal with East Timor...
Before you get all high and mighty and wear out an injured tone of a true believer, (I have read my papers and watched 4 corners , the 7.30 report, lateline and dateline and 60 minutes for the past 25 years so if you think all I have done is copy and paste I will highlight the inherent contradictions in all my posts to fully spell out smell for you. I thought ...[text shortened]... in Denmark ( Random Shakesperian aside in case you're wondering)
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy did they need a meeting to decide whether they would reaffirm or not? What did you expect? His entire party, stooges included, asking for his resignation?
I'm curious; how do you think that article supports your position? The dateline is June 25, 2006; the result of that meeting (helpfully "guarded by peacekeepers"😉 was that Freitlin reaffirmed its support of Alkatari as shown in the other links I've already given. However, the "Western diplomats" quoted in your article certainly wound up getting their way ...[text shortened]... Prime Minister. I'd say that article is entirely consistent with what I've been saying.
Originally posted by PalynkaThose "stooges" were elected by the people of East Timor. Obviously there was pressure for him to resign and just as obviously the majority, perhaps all, of his party didn't want him to. What part of that are you having difficulty grasping?
Why did they need a meeting to decide whether they would reaffirm or not? What did you expect? His entire party, stooges included, asking for his resignation?
Originally posted by no1marauderHis resignation was also democratic. What part are you having difficulty grasping?
Those "stooges" were elected by the people of East Timor. Obviously there was pressure for him to resign and just as obviously the majority, perhaps all, of his party didn't want him to. What part of that are you having difficulty grasping?
PS: And obviously you don't know how parties function.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat???? The UN says the entire field is rightfully East Timor's but giving half of the revenue to Australia and not setting boundaries for 50 years is a "good deal'? And May, 2005 isn't "long ago" to anything but a housefly. And treaties can be rejected by the elected representatives of any democratic country last I checked except the ones under the "protection" of troops from the country they made the treaty with.
The Sea Treaty has been negotiated long ago on 50-50. That's not a bad deal for Timor and not ratifying after negotiations were concluded is not good for anyone.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaHow is an elected Prime Minister resigning his position when he has the support of the party holding almost a 2/3 majority in Parliament "democratic"? Obviously you are using an odd non-standard definition of "democratic".
His resignation was also democratic. What part are you having difficulty grasping?
PS: And obviously you don't know how parties function.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhats shocking is how we have gone about extending our boundaries for ownership of resources based on the most spurious of claims. You dont have to be green or left to respect international law, and you dont have to have your head in the sand to realise that Johnny H and Biggles and CO are more than willing to bend over backwards to accomadate US interests whether or not that compromises our real authority or standing in this region.
Shocking news. Australia wants an oil deal with East Timor...
We can't keep on pretending that we live in another region and for us to consistently lecture the region in terms of high minded moral distinctions and open censure for assumed cronyism, bribery and corruption, one is left to ask whilst wiping egg of ones face, in terms of EAST TIMOR, how on earth can Australia maintain a claim on itself to be intrinsically morally any less bankrupt than the countries of South East Asia it is its wont to so often and so easily malign.
Originally posted by no1marauder50-50 on revenues is a great deal, considering that Australia would support all the costs. Who is offering more?
What???? The UN says the entire field is rightfully East Timor's but giving half of the revenue to Australia and not setting boundaries for 50 years is a "good deal'? And May, 2005 isn't "long ago" to anything but a housefly. And treaties can be rejected by the elected representatives of any democratic country last I checked except the ones under the "protection" of troops from the country they made the treaty with.
Don't forget ET can't afford the investments.