Australia has been flouting international law since 2002, taking billions of dollars in oil revenue that should rightfully belong to East Timor. No wonder we’re being so cagey about the East Timor spying allegations.
In the Senate yesterday, independent Senator Nick Xenophon asked Attorney-General George Brandis about reports in the Fairfax press that a former spy and his lawyer might be charged with disclosing classified information about Australian espionage against East Timor.
East Timor is alleging before a three-person arbitration panel in The Hague that Australia breached international law by bugging East Timor’s cabinet rooms during the 2004 bilateral negotiations over the Timor Sea Treaty. A key witness for East Timor is a former spy who is said to be the director of all technical operations for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, which allegedly conducted the bugging operation using the Australian aid program as a cover. On December 3, 2013, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation raided his house and the office and home of Bernard Collaery, a former attorney-general of the Australian Capital Territory who is providing legal advice to the government of East Timor. ASIO seized documents and data containing correspondence between East Timor’s government and its legal advisers.
The former spy, known as Witness K, is due to testify at The Hague on September 27.
“It is quite distasteful to see Australia’s intelligence services being used to deprive the people of East Timor of their principal economic asset.”
Xenophon wanted to know whether the government would permit Witness K to travel to The Hague unimpeded (provided, of course, that the identities of current and former ASIS officers were not disclosed). After all, if he were prevented from giving evidence, that would impede a fair hearing. Brandis gave the standard defensive formulation: the matter is “currently before an international arbitral tribunal” and “it is the longstanding practice of Australian governments not to comment on matters currently before international arbitration”.
East Timor is a fragile, new state, barely more than a decade old. It would like to draw a maritime border halfway between the Australian and East Timor coasts, as it is entitled to do under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, in March 2002, just two months before East Timor became independent, Alexander Downer, then Australia’s foreign minister, announced that henceforth Australia would exclude all disputes relating to the delimitation of maritime zones from the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. This meant that East Timor has the law on its side but can derive no benefit from that fact.
In 2004, Australia agreed to a median line boundary — with New Zealand, when we established a maritime boundary to resolve overlapping claims off the coast of Norfolk Island.
If international law were to apply, East Timor would be entitled to 100% of the oil and gas on its side of the median line in the Timor Sea. This includes the single most crucial resource, namely the Greater Sunrise field, the bulk of which lies just outside the lateral boundary of the Gap.
It is quite distasteful to see Australia’s intelligence services being used to deprive the people of East Timor of their principal economic asset. Since 1999, Australia has taken more than $4 billion in oil revenue that should rightfully belong to East Timor. Having taken a large portion of the wealth of one of the poorest countries in Asia, the Australian government has given back about $0.4 billion in bilateral and multilateral assistance, and about $0.5 billion in military assistance. This means that East Timor, believe it or not, is Australia’s largest international donor. This is not a typo.
Is international law on maritime boundaries really that cut and dried? I’m no lawyer, much less an international one, but Article 77.1 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, viz.
would seem to indicate that Australia’s claim over the Timor Sea has some basis legally, for all that it may be questionable morally. Geologically, the oil fields do appear to lie astride the Australian continental mass.
It seems that we’ve been here before: crikey.com.au/2013/02/12/woodside-gas-deal-could-redraw-australia-east-timor-borders/#comment-237406
Just another example of why we taxpeyers have such a low opinion of our elected leaders. This oil grab was and still is morally wrong, would Australia allow a neighbouring country to pull the same stunt? And now the current cohort of ministers want to cover it up, whilst the decision makers of the day are rewarded with inflated superanution packages, and other perks, that we can only dream about.
So we commit espionage to steal oil wealth from Timor but give away our iron ore and coal wealth to international corporations.
“The bullying of small nations by big ones and assertions that might is right should have no place in our world”
Tony Abbott, Question Time, 1 September 2014
Oh, he was talking about Russia? Disregard.
“It’s not as though they’re real people, are they?”?