MovieChat Forums > Balibo (2009) Discussion > The complicity of the Australian governm...

The complicity of the Australian government

posted 15 years ago by nbjeff
7 replies | jump to latest

What kind of a case is made, or hinted at, in the movie?

Some background articles:

Truth to Tell, from The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/truth-to-tell-20090723-duvj.html

Indonesia: Balibo case is closed
http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/balibo-case-is-closed-sa ys-indonesia-20090724-dvtl.html

Indonesia: Balibo Five is "fiction"
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/07/24/ri-dismisses-039balibo-f ive039-film-%E2%80%98fiction039.html

Horta: At least one of them was brutally tortured
http://news.id.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3478085
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8166417.stm

Now a place of solemn contemplation
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/spot-where-balibo-five-saw-in vasion-building-is-now-a-place-of-solemn-contemplation-20090725-dwhc.h tml

VIDEO CLIP
Balibo's murderous tale
http://media.theage.com.au/balibos-murderous-tale-647647.html

[–] danwincen 15 years ago

There's not a lot of blatant accusation at the Australian government, but certainly a lot of veiled subtle innuendo painting blood on the hands of the United States and Australia, mainly through the words of Oscar Isaac's take on Jose Ramos Horta. I walked out of the cinema after the credits had rolled thinking that Indonesia (her government and military especially) are a pack of gutless cowards, and that Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser have a lot to answer for in relation to what happened - Whitlam for essentially turning a blind eye to it all (maybe he was too distracted in keeping his job), and Fraser for consistently blocking everything Whitlam's government wanted to do. Maybe if Fraser hadn't been so impatiently ambitious at pushing towards The Dismissal, Gough might have found the spine and courage to stand up for what was right. But until those two are forced to testify at a court hearing, we'll never know.

[–] nbjeff 15 years ago

The Economist did a brief write-up.

Now that order is restored, Ben Saul, an international law expert, argues there is a case for pursuing the deaths of the Balibo Five as war crimes. Mr Connolly hopes Indonesia and Australia can be “tough and rigorous” about dealing with the truth at last. But with relations never better, and Indonesia still loth to investigate any of the abuses that took place under the long Suharto dictatorship that ended in 1998, the truth may remain buried.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14323088

[–] aussie1243 15 years ago

There's better evidence around which proves that ASIS shared information with Indonesia and knew about the fates of the Balibo Five. Its a very sad thing, and in the film there was a great line which is very true, "Australia doesn't give a *beep* about 400,000 brown people.."

[–] Wayne_Grabert 15 years ago

John Pilger discusses the movie's travesty of omissions in the piece linked below. The Australian government, he claims, was very complicit in Indonesia's crimes and did nothing to prevent the murder of Australian journalists, even though the government was warned 12 hours in advance that they were targeted for murder by the Indonesian army:
http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2009/08/19/cover-up-a-films-travest y-of-omissions%C2%A0/

The governments of the UK and USA also backed Suharto's slaughter and sent him the weapons he used against unarmed people.

[–] nbjeff 15 years ago

Watch these clips and tell me if you still think this feature film is a "travesty of omissions."

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49NCKua7pz8

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns5ZnRTnyms&feature=channel

Obviously no one was trying to cover anything up. Exhaustive research was done with all the right people and there were apparently endless discussions about how much information to include. It's not a documentary, but the filmmakers wanted to be sure they didn't step ahead of anything they couldn't entirely document and they also had other considerations in terms of flow and audience attention.

I don't know if I would have agreed with them - obviously I wasn't privy to those conversations - but there's no need to engage in petty bashing.

I'm indebted to Pilger for his documentaries and journalism (although I find his line on Hugo Chavez to be overstated and naive) but he should work his side of the street and recognize Robert Connelly's right to work the other. They're complementary, not at odds.

[–] canedust 15 years ago

The film wouldn't have worked if it suddenly stopped the two narratives and jumped to an invented conversation between Whitlam and someone else.

It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everyone does everything.

[–] lynetteahughes-1 14 years ago

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the details in this film but I find it astounding that Jose Ramos Horta was actually the guy that lead Roger East after the Balibo 5. The fact that they were both shot at by Indonesians out of US helicopters reminds me that in the invasion of Bougainville about a decade later bodies of members of the resistance were thrown out of Australian helicopters by members of the PNG Defence force:

http://www.womenaustralia.info/biogs/AWE2808b.htm

It took over 20 years for Australians under the UN to intervene in East Timor, and there are still several occupied 'independent' nations within Indonesian borders - Ache, West Papua etc.