A lot is riding on the outcome of the negotiations between the Australian and East Timorese Governments over the resource rich Timor Sea which concludes today. Not least the Australian Government's reputation. With a millionaire businessman running pro-Timor advertisements on prime-time TV, a mob of US congressmen, and World War II diggers calling for a just outcome for the East Timorese, the Australian Government's spin doctors will be closely watching the public reaction to the negotiations between the Timorese David and the Australian Goliath.

The mood is vocal in East Timor too. Public forums, held late last year by the Timorese Government throughout the rural districts, revealed great public curiosity – and some anger – about the negotiations over the permanent maritime boundary in the Timor Sea. People wanted to know why Australia was claiming most of the Timor Sea resources for itself.

They wanted know why Australia would not allow East Timor to develop the fields jointly and to build its own oil processing industry for the benefit of current and future generations.

Prime Minister John Howard made the politically risky decision to send troops to East Timor during the post independence ballot violence of 1999. Australia's support for Timor-Leste, from the INTERFET troops and ongoing aid, are acknowledged by the East Timorese. These achievements in East Timor should not be put at risk and undermined by allowing East Timor to become a pauper and politically unstable in the future.

While the current dispute – which ended in a breakdown in talks last October – is about competing interpretations of the maritime boundary and who has the larger control of natural resources lying in the sea bed between the two countries, the East Timorese position has common sense and international law on its side.

While parents in Australia wrestle with the decision over whether to send their children to a public or private school, East Timorese parents, face a lack of schools and trained teachers. While Australians have to decide whether to take out private health insurance, many of the one million East Timorese have no access to health clinics and few doctors outside the capital Dili. The case for development for current and future generations is compelling.

Australia has reportedly increased last October's offer of $3 billion revenue over 30 years, to $4 billion in exchange for the so called Hong Kong model: signing away the right to discuss maritime boundaries for 99 years. This is unacceptable to the East Timorese, particularly given the knowledge that the under sea oilfields are still revealing undiscovered riches.

The East Timorese feel it would be irresponsible to sign away the rights to negotiate over future finds and legal certainty over development of future resources.

The East Timorese believe that the maritime boundary is the median line between the two nations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Furthermore their Government cannot accept any interim agreement that does not include their full participation in the development of the resources.

Full participation includes open discussion on the decision of when to develop the resources and the possibility of on-shore processing of the gas and oil in East Timor. The East Timorese see that such development could bring many spin-off industries, providing an enormous boost to their stagnant economy.

The Timorese have no intention of becoming another Nauru, and nor do they want to be a Solomon Islands in years to come, calling on Australian assistance to rebuild after an economic and political collapse.

The right to development is vital to the negotiations. The quicker the maritime boundary is settled according to international law and Timorese participation in the development of the Timor Seas resources commences, the better the economic and political future will be for the people of East Timor.

[Andrew Hewett is executive director of Oxfam Community Aid Abroad.]