James Irwin, Singapore – Some cracks are appearing in Australia's refusal to renegotiate the Timor Sea Treaty with East Timor – the latest being the emergence of past testimony from a key member of the Australian negotiating team, Dean Bialek, that his country should negotiate in good faith with East Timor and not deplete resources in disputed areas.
In addition, Australian Senator Bob Brown late last week addressed a crowd in East Timor's capital, Dili, criticizing Australia's "theft" of East Timor's oil and gas revenue from the Timor Sea. Brown spoke to a group of protesters who gathered outside a hotel, where Australian negotiators were attempting to convince East Timor to ratify the agreement to develop the Greater Sunrise gas fields. Under that deal, the Australian government would reap 80% of the estimated $10 billion in royalties over the next 20 years, leaving East Timor with a 20% portion. Greater Sunrise lies closer to East Timor than to Australia.
"Australians will not back the [Australian Prime Minister John ] Howard government," said Brown. "100% of the royalties are yours [East Timor's ] because 100% of the resource is on East Timor's side of the Timor Sea."
The comments made by Bialek, however, may do more damage to the Australian government's position. Brown represents Australia's Green Party, whereas Bialek, an international law expert with Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), also represents the Australian government in talks with the East Timorese.
Bialek made the comments supporting East Timor's territorial claims while working as a law lecturer at the University of Melbourne. In a written submission, as well as in testimony to an Australian parliamentary committee, Bialek strongly questioned whether Australia had the legal right to insist on the "natural prolongation of its continental shelf," the country's main argument in the maritime boundary dispute.
Critics say the treaty recognizing the legitimacy of Australia's continental shelf is questionable, since Indonesia, which ruled East Timor in 1972 when it was signed, gave Australia a greater portion in return for Australia recognizing the legitimacy of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. In his testimony to the parliamentary committee, Bialek said there have been 80 instances where median lines, drawn equidistantly between the coastlines of two countries, have been applied to resolve territorial disputes. The boundary drawn between Australia and East Timor, which the Indonesians signed, is the only example of a border being established on the basis of a continental shelf, according to Bialek's testimony.
"There is a general obligation under international law and international relations that there be good faith negotiations toward the conclusion of a permanent boundary. That would, I think, in international law, say that Australia should not drag its feet in terms of reaching a permanent solution," Bialek told the committee. East Timor has accused the Australian government of dragging its feet in the negotiations while continuing to exploit the disputed Laminaria, Corallina and Buffalo fields.
The Australian government withdrew from negotiations under the auspices of the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands two years ago, a step that Sen. Brown said was done because "it knew its actions were illegal" under international law.
Australia and East Timor began talks last week to establish a permanent maritime boundary in the oil-rich Timor Sea.
East Timor's refusal to accept Australia's position threatens the development of Greater Sunrise, which is being developed by a joint venture between Woodside, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch/Shell and Osaka Gas, all of which are reluctant to proceed unless the two countries reach a permanent agreement.