Infrastructure was largely destroyed in the aftermath of Indonesian occupation in 1999 and approximately ninety per cent of roads are in poor condition and seaport, airport and
telecommunications infrastructure require urgent attention. One-third of East Timorese do not have access to improved drinking water, sixty per cent lack decent sanitation facilities and two thirds are living without access to electricity (UNDP, 2013b). The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012 (Schwab & Sala-i-Martin, 2013, p.346) notes that
constrained access to domestic and international markets due to inadequate infrastructure is the key barrier for doing business in Timor-Leste.
Under the SDP, the Government is focused on large-scale multi-year infrastructure spending, financed by withdrawals from the Petroleum Fund. The Government spent USD 268 million on capital in 2010, capital expenditure jumped to USD 718 million in 2011 and a planned USD 1,078 million for 2012 (IMF, 2012, p.4). While this focus is clearly necessary for long-run economic growth there are significant risks in undermining Petroleum Fund savings. A fall in oil prices would heavily impact the national budget. The IMF’s 2011 Article IV Consultations recommends slower capital spending to align with the absorptive capacity of the economy and a continued focus on building public financial management capacity to manage economic growth (IMF, 2012).
5.4
Conclusion
In this chapter I reviewed the history of peacebuilding, development and violence in Timor- Leste. I argue that there are four important historical periods and two transition periods from pre-colonial times to independence in 2002 that have each contributed to the current root causes of violence in Timor-Leste. These periods are: pre-colonialism prior to 1511, Portuguese colonialism from 1511–1974, the civil war and Indonesian invasion of Timor-Leste from 1974– 1975, the Indonesian occupation from 1975–1999, the end of Indonesian occupation from 1998–1999, and UNTAET’s administration from 1999–2002. These periods are important to understanding interpersonal dynamics, violence and peacebuilding in Timor-Leste. Indigenous East Timorese culture, power dynamics and relationships between key actors are central to understanding the root causes of violence in Timor-Leste. However, I stressed that from Portuguese colonialism to 2002, Indigenous East Timorese knowledge systems were
deliberately marginalised, delegitimised and distorted by external actors who were in power.
I then examined the history of intra-state violence and human insecurity in Timor-Leste from 2002 onward, with a particular examination of the security sector and the root causes of the 2006–2008 crisis. I provided a broad analysis of the root causes for violence with a focus on land, property, and resource use disputes; weak, corrupt or inaccessible governance systems; political differences between elites and manipulation to gain power; gendered power
imbalances; and a weak justice system and continued impunity for crimes. I reviewed significant related causes of structural violence including: poverty; food insecurity and food sovereignty; limited access to education; unstable state institutions and limited community participation; a lack of economic security including inequalities exacerbated by rewards to potential spoilers; unemployment and the ‘resource curse’; and inadequate infrastructure.
Many of these triggers are directly impacted by development and peacebuilding interventions. These interventions can exacerbate violence by not focusing on understanding and transforming these root causes. Therefore development, if executed poorly, it is a tool, or an enabler of development-related violence. The complexity of the violence creates challenges for an ‘outsider’ or international practitioner to understand, or predict how, when and where violence will occur.
In line with Lederach (2003) East Timorese participants explained that some level of conflict has always existed in Timor-Leste communities enabling necessary societal transformation. An East Timorese NGO peacebuilder clarified: “Conflict is part of being a human being, it is a natural thing…Conflict is always with us” (TX-1600-260910). I agree with Dewhurst (2008) who categorises Timor-Leste as currently experiencing “violent peace”; where continuing inequality and cultural violence create low-level direct and structural violence in communities and broader intra-state violence. Dewhurst (2008) argues that the historically high levels of violence in Timor-Leste have been sustained by a cultural-legitimisation of violent behaviour, where violence is normalised and is not condemned, resulting in the perpetuation of violence at all levels of society. In Timor-Leste, violence is experienced differently in rural and urban areas, between elites and citizens, and between genders and generations.
From the perspective of Indigenous East Timorese knowledge, the root cause of the protracted intra-state violence and insecurity in Timor-Leste is an imbalance in the secular and
cosmological worlds. This imbalance manifests itself in multiple ways including physically, through violent combat; mentally, through emotional trauma and violent thoughts and words; structurally, through institutions; and culturally through repressed and marginalised cultural practices. It is also engendered through sexual and family violence and inequity. This violence is complex and interconnected.
I argue that since 2002, East Timorese elites have continued the marginalisation of Indigenous knowledge systems and peacebuilding practices. However, the resilience of these Indigenous systems is remarkable, and, while they have changed over time, these knowledge systems are strong and vital to communities today. In Chapter Six I will examine Indigenous East Timorese methods of peacebuilding used to transform community violence for thousands of years.
6
Indigenous East Timorese Knowledge Systems: Culture,
Power and Relationships
6.1
Introduction
Chapter Five surveyed the history of Timor-Leste from pre-colonialism to 1999 and elaborated on the systemic root causes of violence in post-1999 Timor-Leste. In Chapter Six I expand on this discussion by establishing the foundations of the Indigenous East Timorese knowledge systems and providing a deeper analysis of my theoretical framework based on culture, power and relationships. I use historical, anthropological and political science texts and field
interviews to expand on Indigenous East Timorese knowledge systems.
Not all East Timorese have equal access, responsibilities, belief and trust in Indigenous knowledge systems and not all East Timorese peoples categorise themselves as Indigenous. I asserted in Chapter Three that East Timorese peoples are the customary owners of Indigenous knowledge systems – a shared set of widely used cultural categories that stretch across and within localities. In line with other Indigenous knowledge systems, East Timorese knowledge systems are categorised by multiple ontologies and epistemologies.
Respect for and use of Indigenous East Timorese knowledge systems are deeply influenced by an individual’s historical experiences during Portuguese colonialism and Indonesian occupation. Understanding also differs across and within language groups and leadership and governance hierarchies, depending on gender, age, and formal and informal education levels. As a result there is no single understanding of Indigenous East Timorese knowledge. However, there are a some common principles within Indigenous East Timorese knowledge systems that have emerged through analysis in my fieldwork findings (discussed further in Chapters Seven and Eight). In this Chapter I highlight and expand on these three central themes, culture/lulik, power/lisan and relationships/slulu as a framework to understand the complexity and adaptability of Indigenous East Timorese knowledge systems.
At the start of this chapter I explore how Indigenous East Timorese peacebuilding practices are explicitly linked to Indigenous self-determination. In Timor-Leste, Indigenous peacebuilding is both a metaphysical and practical process aimed at bringing the cosmos and the secular world into balance. Realising tempu rai-diak (Tetum: a time of tranquility) or dame (Tetum: peace) is essential to the achievement of ukun rasik a’an (Tetum: self-determination). I draw on the work of East Timorese academics Babo-Soares (2004), da Silva (2012) and Trindade (2014) to examine how Indigenous East Timorese peacebuilding practices, such as tarabandu, nahe biti,
I move into an analysis of Indigenous East Timorese knowledge systems through the framework of culture, power and relationships (see Table 2). I highlight relevant Indigenous knowledge, practices, processes or rituals that specifically transform or exacerbate violence, particularly at a community level. In the first section on culture/lulik, I examine sacred houses and localised identity, maubere-ism, multilingualism and complex systems of land and water ownership and use. In the second section on power/lisan, I detail governance structures, leadership, FPIC and processes of participation and consultation. Finally, I extrapolate on how cooperative
relationships/slulu are built and sustained between East Timorese, with a focus on the relationships between women and men and processes of installing the outsider inside.
In exploring East Timorese knowledge through these central themes, my analysis broadly differentiates between East Timorese knowledge systems and the modern knowledge systems of international development practitioners. As identified in Chapter Two, while modern knowledge systems are centred on Western liberal ideas, modern knowledge systems are also complex and plural, as demonstrated by so many practitioners originating from different countries. Often, East Timorese and modern knowledge systems overlap, and both are used pragmatically by East Timorese peoples who fluidly engage with and interconnect the knowledge systems depending on whichever system is most practical for a given scenario. McWilliam et.al. (2014) draw on Sahlins (1985) and Tsing (2005) to explain that East Timorese flexibly respond in “culturally inflected ways” to change and difference.
Many of the Tetum terms described in this Chapter are used to group common rituals, processes or forms from across different uma lulik and ethno-linguistic groups in Timor-Leste. For each of these terms there are multiple local language forms and arrangements that may be different to the way I describe them in Tetum.