Australia’s relationship with that area of land now known as the sovereign nation of East Timor (or Timor Leste) is one of the darkest episodes in our foreign affairs history.
Complicitness or acquiescence in the invasion and occupation by Indonesia made for intense ethical concerns from some. Then there was the question of who made the money from lucrative undersea resources in the ocean between East Timor and Australia — with long-running claims Australia was greedily taking more than a fair share from an island where many live in poverty.
The independence of East Timor in 2002 has seen this relationship calm, after some turbulent post-independence years. But there is a major issue outstanding: money.
As Damien Kingsbury writes in Crikey today, a deal between Woodside and the East Timorese government over a large LNG project may fail to meet a key deadline — which could see the sea boundary between East Timor and Australia redrawn. This is a contentious issue.
The World Bank estimates almost half the East Timorese population lives in poverty, while gross national income is at US$2730 per capita. Life expectancy is just 62 years.
Australia has a record of pushing pretty hard to make a buck from these undersea resources. Perhaps it’s time to rethink that approach. With more than 30 years of sometimes deeply troubled history behind us, shouldn’t we now give back?
Damien Kingsbury suggests in his article today (for which comments are disabled) that under UNCLOS, all of the Greater Sunrise field would fall within East Timor’s EEZ, and that the boundary, if drawn in accordance with UNCLOS, would be the median point between Australia and East Timor. That’s not strictly correct.
The median point method is just one of three potential methods applicable to define the boundary under international law. The other two methods are the limit of Australia’s continental shelf (i.e. the point at which the continental shelf drops off into the Timor Trough) and the natural sea-bed boundary at the bottom of the Timor Trough.
The problem for East Timor in these two methods is that Australia’s continental shelf is very broad and the Timor Trough lies close to the coast of East Timor. The Greater Sunrise field actually lies on Australia’s continental shelf.
The previous agreement between Australia and Indonesia, and the agreements between Australia and East Timor, recognised all three of these methods. The 90/10 zone to which Damien refers is the zone between the bottom of the Timor Trough and the edge of the Australian continental shelf (i.e. the Australian side of the trough). The 50/50 zone is that part of the Australian continental shelf outside of the median line.
Short of a ruling by the International Court of Justice, the correct boundary may never be determined. In the interim, some may say that giving East Timor 50% of the royalties derived from oil and gas extracted from the Australian continental shelf is a fair compromise.
Agree. Australia has behaved like a rapacious bully.
@ Peter Ward
Thanx, most informative.
I also agree that it would be good to have comments enabled on Kingsbury’s article. I expect that the most likely explanation is snafu.
This is just the sort of bastardry that may see East Timor looking reluctantly to China in future.