Indonesian President BJ Habibie's chief spokeswoman, Dewi Fortuna Anwar, answers your questions

Robert Brose, United States of America: Why do the elements in Indonesian society who are supporting the violence in East Timor feel so threatened by the possible emergence of an independent East Timor? What are the interests at stake?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: There are many different reasons. There is a fear, rightly or wrongly, that an independent East Timor would trigger similar demands for independence in other troubled provinces in Indonesia.

Many people in Indonesia have not been fully informed about Indonesia's entry into East Timor because Indonesia's entry into East Timor was not really a much publicised affair within Indonesia. So not very many people are aware of the international implications of Indonesia's involvement in East Timor. Not many people in Indonesia are aware that East Timor's integration into Indonesia has not been fully recognised by the United Nations. So I think one of the primary objections is the fear that it could lead to similar demands for independence from other parts of the country.

Alexandre Ferraz de Oliveira, Brazil: What will be the reaction of Jakarta if other areas of Indonesia, like Aceh and Irian Java explode in separatists movements like East Timor? Will the Army suppress the movements?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar:I think we are very, very clear that the 26 provinces of Indonesia including Aceh and Irian Jaya are fully integrated into Indonesia, and are recognised by the whole world and have been recognised by the United Nations. So it is not really to be expected that Indonesia as it stands will tolerate insurgency movements in other parts of the country.

But I think it is recognised now in Indonesia, as Indonesia enters an era of democracy that most of the dissatisfactions from the regions are not really because of different ethnic identities, but rather because of dissatisfaction with over-centralisation because there is perceptions of inequality in treatment between various regions and feelings of exploitation and also human rights abuses. So we have to address that issue.

As an independent and sovereign state Indonesia wishes to remain a united country, but it is now understood that to address grievances the military force is not the only solution. In fact it should not even be the first solution, it should be the last solution. The primary solution should be democratisation, regional autonomy, human rights protection and a better share of revenues from the central and regional governments.

David Kemp, Singapore: Do you guarantee that absolutely all parts of East Timor will be allowed to become independent now that they have voted in such a fair and transparent way to be free?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: According to the agreement that was signed by Indonesia and Portugal under the auspices of the United Nations, the whole of East Timor was included in the agreement. So if they voted for autonomy it would be the whole of East Timor, and if they voted for independence it would also be for the whole of East Timor. So there is really no idea of partition according to that international tripartite agreement.

Rui Simões, Portugal: Will Indonesia punish the army members and militia who killed innocent civilians in East Timor?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: Well, we'll have to look into the matter very closely. As you know as we enter into a period of democratisation our human rights abuses are becoming a very contentious issue. We want to uphold a rule of law and we want to ensure that abuses like that are not carried out again.

But we also have to face the facts that there have been so many tragic incidents in the past that when one starts opening one box there are so many other boxes that are waiting to be opened. There is the question whether Indonesia should spend its time in the past, or it will have to go forward to the future.

But I think that's the question that they're looking into very closely - this is an issue Indonesia is trying at the moment to grapple with - as we try to transform our military into a professional organisation.

Noel O Gara, Ireland: Because Habibie is the chief of authority in Indonesia how can he escape responsibility for genocide?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: I think it is very, very clear that the President from the very beginning has established his policy of wanting to establish democracy in Indonesia, and also to promote human rights. It was President Habibie who initiated the policy of allowing the East Timorese to have self-determination. So it's very very clear what his policy is and also his commitment to allow the East Timorese to decide their future.

It was never the President's policy to allow genocide in East Timor and I think it was very clear that when President Habibie realised that the situation on the ground was no longer tenable, he agreed to turn to the international community for assistance.

Tomás Hayes, Ireland: Is the President really in command of the nation?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: Well he's in command of the nation but as you know we are in a period of transition. There are so many things happening all at the same time. Various parts of the country have raised up against Jakarta, like the most troublesome is Aceh, because of the feeling of discrimination from Jakarta in the past. So regional rebellion is the real issue in Indonesia.

Secondly we have ethnic violence and inter-religious violence which in fact stems from long suppressed dissatisfaction. We also have problems of social conflict between the haves and have-nots. The feeling in the past that only a certain group of people have enjoyed economic development, while the majority of the people did not really have access to economic opportunities.

At the same time we are just emerging from a long period of authoritarianism. During the period of authoritarianism people were not free to express their opinions. Now we are in the middle of what people might call a democratic euphoria where everyone wants to express their opinions - it is a free-for-all in Jakarta.

There are just so many issues. There's the question of the military, which has been the dominant power in Indonesia for the past thirty years. But now it is slowly beginning to transform its role into a more professional army that is simply loyal to the government. But it will take time for the Indonesian army to be a force that is not involved in politics.

So given all of those challenges it is very difficult to argue that any President in Indonesia, now or for the next five years, would really be able to say that he commands everything. But that doesn't mean the President isn't in charge.

Question: So maybe the question should be is the President really in charge of the military?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: Well so far the President has been in command of the military. When the President has decided that enough is enough, he cannot tolerate the violence in East Timor any more. The military itself agrees that there comes a time when the military has to recognise its limited capacity to restore law and order in East Timor.

The President and the military have been able to come to a decision together. The President's decision to turn to the United Nations has been fully supported by the military.

Jason Ford, UK:: Why has the army allowed Indonesia's international reputation, already damaged, to be completely demolished in the eyes of the international community?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: That is not a very easy question to answer. I think people should understand that for the past 32 years that the Indonesian army has been given one major task in East Timor - namely to eradicate anti-Indonesian movements. So the army has been fighting against the anti-integration insurgence. So in their efforts the military has been able to cultivate the support of hard core loyalists within the East Timor region.

I think it has to be understood that even before Indonesia came into East Timor that it was already in the middle of a civil war. There are pro-Indonesia, pro-Portugal and pro-left wing groups. So the military had this group of pro-Indonesia militia who were very loyal to them and had been fighting with them for years.

But now with the results of the ballot, pro-Indonesians were the ones who had been taking the law into their own hands and rejected the result of the ballot. The military had been ordered to discipline these people, and one can understand the psychological restraints that they have been facing.

The difficulty on the ground was such that they may not have the macro-perspective of how the international community would see this problem and how the integration of East Timor would damage Indonesian national interests on a broader scale.

Anna Watkins, USA: Why does Indonesia continue to support and foster an army which is counter productive to its hope for democracy

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: Indonesia has the military that we have and we cannot simply disband the military and import a new one. We have to live with what we have and try to work with it and transform it slowly. I think it has to be understood that so far as the transition to democracy is concerned the military has behaved remarkably well. The Indonesian military did not shoot the students and did not drive tanks among student demonstrations like in Tiananmen Square in China. The military, although it had been loyal to Suharto for the past 32 years, backed down and did not really try to maintain Suharto in power when the forces of democracy forced the president to step down. In that case people would argue the military did remarkably well.

Now we have to recognise the fact that it will take time to retrain the military and to change a military that has been used to political dominance into a military that will be a more professional force like in most other democratic countries.

Nilton, UK: Is it right that the Indonesian Government will ban certain countries that will take part in the UN Peace Keeping Forces to restore the situation in East Timor? If it is right, Why?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: The Indonesian government has not specified the composition of the peace-keeping force. The Indonesian President has not asked that any countries be included specifically or any countries be excluded specifically, he leaves everything up to the Secretary-General. But on the ground in Indonesia I think there are certain opinions that argue it would be in the best long-term interests of Indonesian-Australian relations if Australian peace-keeping forces were not to play a direct role in East Timor for at least two reasons.

Most of the militia have turned their anger against the Australians, primarily because they see Australia as being the most supportive of the pro-independence movement. This is not surprising because a lot of pro-independence refugees live in exile in Australia. Before the ballot Australians were considered to be heavily involved, there were a lot of Australian journalists coming into East Timor and a lot of Australian volunteers in UNAMET, in much greater numbers than other volunteers, so they had already complained about Australian involvement. So there is a fear that if Australian peace-keeping troops were to go to East Timor during this very difficult time they may be targeted by the militia in a way the Russian soldiers were targeted in Kosovo.

Secondly, there have been some difficulties, at least people to people difficulties between Australians and Indonesians. There has been flag burning in both countries, the Indonesian embassy in Australia has been barricaded by Australians demonstrating about what happened in East Timor. I spoke to the Indonesian Ambassador in Canberra and he has not been able to go to his office the past few days. The Indonesian flag has been burnt in many parts of Australia and that has roused a lot of tension and similar actions have been taken by students in Indonesia - they have burnt Australian flags.

So in this kind of situation maybe the presence of Australians troops would not necessarily calm the situation down, it may inflame it. While in a peace-keeping force we need to have troops totally acceptable by local people so they do not become part of the problem. Peace-keeping forces go to a country to do police work not to engage in a war and there is a fear that if the Australians were there they might be forced to engage in a battle against the militia which would probably be counter-productive in ensuring peace and security there.

Paul Khoo, Singapore: Why is it so difficult for well trained Indonesian armed forces to control a bunch of ill equipped militia. Is it because they are participating in genocide? What are the implications for the UN peace-keeping force.

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: I think I have already answered the question. The fact of the matter is the people who the Indonesian army have to confront as enemies are fiercely loyal to Indonesia. Many of these people when they go out on their battles have painted their faces with the red and white Indonesian flag. You can imagine, for the military who have been working with them for the past twenty three years, who have been eating and sleeping with them, they find it a great psychological burden to have now to confront these people and shoot them. They have come to the conclusion that they have problems in doing that, so that is why, in the end, they have thrown in the towel and say let's allow the peace-keeping troops to come in and deal with this.

Question: So will the Indonesian military work with the peace-keeping force.

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: Yes, definitely.

Question: Even though they will have to shoot at these people they are very closely allied with?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: They will probably not do that kind of thing themselves but they will be there to help in anyway they can.

Phillip, USA: Respectfully, why does Indonesia work so hard to keep all of the minorities, islands and factions together as part of Indonesia? Why not allow them to separate if they so wish?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: If we go to the logical conclusion there will be at least 400 nation states in Indonesia, because Indonesia is composed of at least 400 nationalities with 400 languages. From the experience of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union the dissolution of nation states into even smaller entities did not really guarantee regional stability and human rights and certainly did not guarantee the economic development of that country. There will be incessant warfare between warring tribes and this will really be of great regional danger. At the moment Indonesia is the biggest country in ASEAN and it has been the anchor of stability in South East Asia. Indonesia has been able to provide a strong shield against Communist advances toward South East Asia.

If Indonesia were to break up into these micro states which would always be fighting against each other the shipping around Indonesia, the sea lanes of communication, would be troubled because of piracy and smuggling. I think people should realise out of the seven busiest international sea lanes, five are in Indonesia waters. I think people in the United States should look very carefully at the value of maintaining a united and stable Indonesia instead of encouraging the emergence of several different states in Indonesia.

Even when people in America welcomed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they had to realise that after the Soviet empire disintegrated what has come about has not been a great improvement in terms of humanitarian values, in terms of better social justice and in terms of greater regional security. Kosovo, Chechnya, Bosnia, Serbia those kind of things are not the kind of factors we would like to impose on Indonesia.

Anil, UK: Indonesia is a predominantly Islamic country and has an appalling human rights record. How do you square the persecution of minorities with the basic of Islam?

Dewi Fortuna Anwar: I don't think any religion could allow the persecution of minorities and so far Indonesia has been credited with being one of the most tolerant countries in the world. Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country but it is not an Islamic country. Despite the fact that some 90 per cent of Indonesians are Muslims the state religion is not Islam. The ideological foundation of Indonesia's Pancasila, which recognises our religions equally, we have national holidays recognising not just Muslim holidays but also Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and so on, so probably we have the most religious holidays in the world.

For the most part Indonesians have been able to live very happily amongst all the religions but the economic crisis has put enormous strain among different communities and amongst a time of stress it seems that ethnic issues and religious differences become very contentious issues. But there are cases where Muslims fought against Muslims for economic differences. People should realise that in East Timor people who are killing each other now are predominantly Catholic. It is true that in Ambon people are killing each other between Christians and Muslims. Both have committed atrocities.

So Indonesians do not persecute minorities because Indonesia is basically a nation made up of a lot of minorities. The Javanese majority has also been treated as a minority because the Indonesian language is the language of the minority Malays. So for the most part Indonesia has been recognised as one of the most tolerant societies in the world. It is so unfortunate that with the economic crisis so many cracks have appeared and we hope that with the economy recovering and with democracy coming to Indonesia and with better awareness of autonomy and better distribution of wealth this kind of conflict will be reduced in the future.

Question: There has been some talk in the press of a military take-over in Indonesia, how secure do you think President Habibie's position is right now?