Wealthy First World Nation Uses Spies to Rip Off Poor Neighbor

[ReeferMadness]

This is an outrage.

But the kind of spying under discussion here was too shameful to share even with the other Four Eyes of the “Anglosphere”. It was an Australian-only operation mounted in 2004 to gather information about the negotiating position of a very poor neighbouring country, East Timor, so that Australia could rip its neighbour off in a treaty that divided a rich gas field on the seabed between them.

Is this what the world has come to? Is this the natural outgrowth of capitalist thought? Screw your much-poorer neighbor and take what isn't yours?

The normal rule on international seabed rights would put the boundary equidistant between the two countries, but that would have given East Timor sovereignty over the entire gas field. Instead, CMATS postponed a final settlement of the seabed boundary for fifty years, and in the meantime gave Australia 50 percent of the revenue from the Greater Sunrise field.

The existing gas field off East Timor’s coast has only about ten years’ life left, and the the East Timor government depends on gas revenues for 95 percent of its incomet, so it was very vulnerable in those negotiations. The Australian negotiators could exploit that vulnerability because they had daily updates on how desperate their Timorese opposite numbers were: the Australian Secret Intelligence Service had bugged the prime minister’s and the cabinet offices.

Unbelievable. But it gets better.

The Australian government’s response was to arrest the whistle-blower and cancel his passport last week so that he could not travel to The Hague to testify, and to raid the Sydney offices of Bernard Collaery, the lawyer who is representing East Timor before the Court.

I guess Harper now has competition from a government that seems even more determined to ruin their country's reputation.

[Guest Derek L]

Next-up………Countries don’t actually have friends but interests…….strangely enough, Lord Palmerston recognised this over 150 years ago………and Machiavelli 350 years before him……etc etc

[bush_cheney2004]

Next-up………Countries don’t actually have friends but interests…….strangely enough, Lord Palmerston recognised this over 150 years ago………and Machiavelli 350 years before him……etc etc

Yes...imagine that....nation states don't have "BFFs". They actually spy on each other ! Who would have thought such a thing was not only possible, but pursued with such vigor.

[On Guard for Thee]

This is an outrage.

Is this what the world has come to? Is this the natural outgrowth of capitalist thought? Screw your much-poorer neighbor and take what isn't yours?

Unbelievable. But it gets better.

I guess Harper now has competition from a government that seems even more determined to ruin their country's reputation.

The US would just throw your ass in Gitmo so the Aussies and Canucks have strong competition.

[ReeferMadness]

Next-up………Countries don’t actually have friends but interests…….strangely enough, Lord Palmerston recognised this over 150 years ago………and Machiavelli 350 years before him……etc etc

Is that the best you can do? In a poor country, the extra income could easily make the difference between life and death, particularly for children under 5? Care to make a few cracks over that?

[Guest Derek L]

Yes...imagine that....nation states don't have "BFFs". They actually spy on each other ! Who would have thought such a thing was not only possible, but pursued with such vigor.

I was shocked to learn that....

[Guest Derek L]

Is that the best you can do? In a poor country, the extra income could easily make the difference between life and death, particularly for children under 5? Care to make a few cracks over that?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing with your OP.......You think a nation state should put it’s own needs before the dirt poor? Like Communism, but only on a worldwide scale right?

[ReeferMadness]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing with your OP.......You think a nation state should put it’s own needs before the dirt poor? Like Communism, but only on a worldwide scale right?

I think a nation state should follow international law and deal fairly with its neighbors. I think a nation state should follow its own laws and not arrest its own citizens for having a conscience.

But hey, clearly you don't have one so how could you understand?

[Guest Derek L]

I think a nation state should follow international law and deal fairly with its neighbors. I think a nation state should follow its own laws and not arrest its own citizens for having a conscience.

But hey, clearly you don't have one so how could you understand?

What? A conscience?

Oh, but you’re wrong, I think it would be unconscionable to not put our own nations interests ahead of others……..

[PIK]

Is that the best you can do? In a poor country, the extra income could easily make the difference between life and death, particularly for children under 5? Care to make a few cracks over that?

And I bet you have no problem with our racist immigration policy that has stolen generations of the best and brightest out of these poor countries. The world is a dirty place to do business in, and it seems you are just figuring this out now.

[WWWTT]

I don't get this?

East Timor was a former Portuguese colony. But the Indonesian army run it over and the Islamic majority of Indo. has been making life difficult for the Catholics on East Timor.

Is East Timor now independent from Indonesia?

Clarification please.

WWWTT

[The_Squid]

What? A conscience?

Oh, but you’re wrong, I think it would be unconscionable to not put our own nations interests ahead of others……..

Monetary interests so people can get fatter ahead of people in the other country being able to survive... that's a great ethic...

I'm sure you'd be all for Elysium...

[Guest Derek L]

Monetary interests so people can get fatter ahead of people in the other country being able to survive... that's a great ethic...

I'm sure you'd be all for Elysium...

Never saw it.......but from reading the review in the link, why would we leave Earth? We already own the joint.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't get this?

East Timor was a former Portuguese colony. But the Indonesian army run it over and the Islamic majority of Indo. has been making life difficult for the Catholics on East Timor.

Is East Timor now independent from Indonesia?

Clarification please.

WWWTT

East Timor has been independent since 2002. Look it up.

[ReeferMadness]

And I bet you have no problem with our racist immigration policy that has stolen generations of the best and brightest out of these poor countries. The world is a dirty place to do business in, and it seems you are just figuring this out now.

And.... if you made that bet, you'd lose. In case you're not getting it, I'll repeat it more plainly and slower. You're wrooooonnnnngggg. While I'm in favour of a world where people are free to live where they like I don't support policies that keeps poor countries poor.

Even in the world of politics where hypocrisy, greed and a complete lack fairness are the norm, international relations are a particularly despicable cesspool of human depravity. What wealthy countries trumpet as foreign aid is often in actuality a combination of stability-destroying arms, surplus produce which simultaneously subsidizes the wealthy country's corporations while undermining the poor country's economy and loans that ultimately further impoverish the country. Powerful, wealthy countries routinely deal with weaker ones in such a transparently predatory fashion (such as this deal) that I'm only surprised that the level of antipathy towards wealthy countries in the third world isn't greater than it is. Perhaps the citizens are so jaded by corruption in their own countries that they don't have the energy to spare when they see that their already poor country is further victimized by one that already has more than it needs.

I also think that you're looking at the matter completely ass-backwards. We normally import look for immigrants with wealth and marketable skills (which means education). In very poor countries, low social mobility is the norm and so these are normally people who are born into relatively wealthy families. Hardly a good way to select the brightest.

Having some of the more educated people leave a poor country certainly would have a detrimental impact but I think there are much more worse ways that the wealthy countries are hurting the third world. The exploitation of resources by multinational corporations, the meddling in internal politics, the supporting of dictators, the coercion by the IMF and world bank of indebted nations to accept deals that guarantee those nations stay poor - these are the things that really hurt.

[Moonlight Graham]

This is an outrage.

I agree it's pretty outrageous. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon at all. There are many disgusting things that rich countries do to poor countries. ie: Take a close look at the WTO and it operates in a variety of ways that institutionalizes rich nations screwing poor nations.

[Moonlight Graham]

You think a nation state should put it’s own needs before the dirt poor? Like Communism, but only on a worldwide scale right?

It depends on the "needs" (or more accurately, "interests"). But ripping off poor countries just because you can isn't necessarily always the morally right action. In this case Australia is being an arse. Also, Communism and doing what is ethical aren't the same thing.

[Bonam]

Also, Communism and doing what is ethical aren't the same thing.

Indeed not. They are pretty close to polar opposites, if anything.

[dre]

I agree it's pretty outrageous. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon at all. There are many disgusting things that rich countries do to poor countries. ie: Take a close look at the WTO and it operates in a variety of ways that institutionalizes rich nations screwing poor nations.

No it happens all over the place. If you look at the hotbeds of anti-western sentiment most of them are places where we get resources from. Places like the middle east, much of south america, parts of Africa, etc.

And our normal behavior is a hell of a lot worse than tricking a country into signing a bad treaty. Those people are lucky the Australians didnt kill their leaders, and a boatload of other people, and install a puppet government that would give Australian companies access to ALL those resources.

Those people are basically in the same position that an unarmed cocaine dealer is in when a huge brawny crackhead show up willing to do absolutely anything to get their fix.

Edited December 20, 2013 by dre

[Jimmy Wilson]

Indeed not. They are pretty close to polar opposites, if anything.

No arguement on the Communism/ethical behaviour thing,however...

You're not suggesting that this apparent version of virulent and aggressive Corporatism is the epitome of ethical behaviour,are you?

[Bonam]

No arguement on the Communism/ethical behaviour thing,however...

You're not suggesting that this apparent version of virulent and aggressive Corporatism is the epitome of ethical behaviour,are you?

No, I'm not. Although, I'm not particularly outraged by it either, seems like fairly run of the mill diplomacy. Find out your opponent's weaknesses and vulnerabilities and exploit them to get the most advantageous result possible. I'd say it's more an amoral course of action rather than an immoral one. Countries employ diplomacy like this all the time, and companies go into negotiations with other companies with the same mindset as well. The reason that this particular case appears "nasty" is because of the power imbalance between the two parties - if it was two Western countries negotiating a deal and doing what they could to make it as advantageous for themselves at the expense of the other, no one would bat an eye. While there seems to be a strong cultural reflex to automatically sympathize with the underdog, especially when said underdog is not treated kindly by a greater power, I'm not sure there is anything inherently less ethical in aggressive diplomacy when applied to a weaker counterparty than when applied to an equal counterparty.

[dre]

While there seems to be a strong cultural reflex to automatically sympathize with the underdog, especially when said underdog is not treated kindly by a greater power, I'm not sure there is anything inherently less ethical in aggressive diplomacy when applied to a weaker counterparty than when applied to an equal counterparty.

Exploiting a position of power against a weaker and more vulnerable person is definately a mainstay of human ethics and morality. Thats the reason why people find crimes against children by adults so reprehensible, and why your average person will be more outraged if he sees a man beat up a woman, than if he sees a man beat up another man.

The "underdog phenomenon" youre speaking of definately a real and strong component of human ethics, and youll find very few people that are ambivalent about that (and you should probably steer clear of them).

[Moonlight Graham]

No, I'm not. Although, I'm not particularly outraged by it either, seems like fairly run of the mill diplomacy. Find out your opponent's weaknesses and vulnerabilities and exploit them to get the most advantageous result possible. I'd say it's more an amoral course of action rather than an immoral one. Countries employ diplomacy like this all the time, and companies go into negotiations with other companies with the same mindset as well. The reason that this particular case appears "nasty" is because of the power imbalance between the two parties - if it was two Western countries negotiating a deal and doing what they could to make it as advantageous for themselves at the expense of the other, no one would bat an eye. While there seems to be a strong cultural reflex to automatically sympathize with the underdog, especially when said underdog is not treated kindly by a greater power, I'm not sure there is anything inherently less ethical in aggressive diplomacy when applied to a weaker counterparty than when applied to an equal counterparty.

Countries employ diplomacy like this all the time, and companies go into negotiations with other companies with the same mindset as well.

Australia and East Timor are (supposed to be) allies. They're negotiating a international treaty to be recognized by international law. Yet what Australia did was illegal, and against international law (including treaty law), and the case was brought to The Hague:

He [the whistleblower] told East Timor about it, and the Timorese government then brought an action before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague demanding that the CMATS treaty be cancelled.

The Australian government’s response was to arrest the whistle-blower and cancel his passport last week so that he could not travel to The Hague to testify, and to raid the Sydney offices of Bernard Collaery, the lawyer who is representing East Timor before the Court.

...

Can Australia get away with this? Not legally. As Collaery says, “It was a carefully premeditated, involved, very lengthy operation with premeditated breaches of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and premeditated breaches of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is a criminal conspiracy, a break-in on sovereign territory and a breach of Australian law."

Companies don't often break into each others offices and plant phone bugs when negotiating, and when they do it's illegal, so comparisons to private companies doesn't jive. Between nations, this certainly isn't unprecedented, but it also shouldn't be considered "normal diplomacy" between allies. Australia essentially broke in to East Timor's government offices and bugged them. If Canada found, say, Norway doing something like this in negotiating arctic territory claims it certainly would be scandal. They were pretending to be Australian aid workers for cripes sake!

Four ASIS operatives did the job, pretending to be part of a team of Australian aid workers that was renovating East Timor’s government offices. The man who gave the order was Australia’s foreign minister at the time, Alex Downer – who now runs a public relations firm that represents Woodside Petroleum, a major Australian company that was the main beneficiary of the treaty. Funny how things work out.

Laws are made for a reason, because the absence of them often allows for immoral activity to take place. I also think doing this to one of the most horrifically poor nations in the world, that "depends on gas revenues for 95 percent of its income", does make this an exceptionally immoral case. Calling it amoral just because it has been done before doesn't jive IMO; colonialism was the status quo for 500 years and it can't be morally justified simply because it too involved countries trying to "find out your opponent's weaknesses and vulnerabilities and exploit them to get the most advantageous result possible".

[GostHacked]

This is an outrage.

Is this what the world has come to? Is this the natural outgrowth of capitalist thought? Screw your much-poorer neighbor and take what isn't yours?

Unbelievable. But it gets better.

I guess Harper now has competition from a government that seems even more determined to ruin their country's reputation.

Some countries are using corps to do the damage. Recently Anadarko took a 8% hit on stocks after it was rules that they owe people compensation for the environmental damage they caused.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/barrier-reef-lendlease/?akid=3238.829847.jghGUS&rd=1⊂=fwd&t=2

Anadarko has been sea bed mining off the coast of Australia and NZ for some time. Their next project puts the Great Barrier Reef in jeopardy. And recently

The reef is a UNESCO Heritage site. Anyone who allows a coal port on the reef is a complete idiot and ... well I'd get booted if I used those words.

It's not just poor countries that are being ripped off.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Calling it amoral just because it has been done before doesn't jive IMO; colonialism was the status quo for 500 years and it can't be morally justified simply because it too involved countries trying to "find out your opponent's weaknesses and vulnerabilities and exploit them to get the most advantageous result possible".

Meh....tell that to Canada's First nations or the U.S.A.'s Native Americans, who still have to deal with the "immoral" actions of government(s).