 Your excellencies, lords and ladies, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues and students, it is a great honor for me as chair of SOAS's Center for Southeast Asian Studies to welcome his excellency, Dr. Jose Ramos-Horta to SOAS this evening. This evening's event, a conversation between our esteemed guest, Dr. Ramos-Horta and our distinguished director, Baroness Valerie Amos, inaugurates a public lecture series celebrating SOAS's centenary. For 100 years now, SOAS has been dedicated to supporting research and public exchange on the crucial issues of the modern era, equality, justice, human rights to begin with, and the diverse roles of the arts and sciences in deepening understandings of these societal ideals. For 100 years now, SOAS scholars have been devoted to exploring how and why we fail to ensure equality, deliver justice and respect to others, while also making and celebrating real progress towards the realization of these ideals. The specific questions we ask continue to evolve, of course, as do the funding needs of today's institutions of higher learning, but then as now, we've always asked ourselves what are the questions that are worth asking, and in one way or another, from the seemingly abstract aesthetic concern to the most minute demographic calculation, our research aspirations are collectively grounded in a deep and complex commitment to bettering this world. But as you all know, SOAS's raison d'être has always been and continues to be bound up in thinking these apparently simple yet challenging questions beyond the confines of the so-called West or the so-called global North. Turning a studied eye on the other from the beginning, SOAS turns also a studied eye on itself, contemplating its own special role in European and global higher education, now consolidating, now upsetting, the hierarchies of knowledge and power, which allow us still to conceive our world divided. Today's event also marks the 50th anniversary of SOAS's Center for Southeast Asian Studies. The center's creation was enmeshed in the turbulent power politics cited in Southeast Asia in the 1960s, a context which formed the coming of age of our esteemed guest. By the early 1970s, the young Dr. Ramos Horta had emerged as a leader of the East Timorese independence movement, a movement which ultimately liberated Timor-Leste from a double colonial yoke, first of a European power, Portugal, then of a powerful Southeast Asian neighbor, Indonesia. As representative of the resistance government to the UN for well over two decades, as president of an independent Timor-Leste, as Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dr. Ramos Horta has fearlessly navigated the turbulent international, regional, and local waters from which today's Southeast Asia has emerged. Consistently daring to stand against the oppression, corruption, and hypocrisy operating at the heart of power, be it in the local, regional, or international realms, he has embodied the promise of a more just power. He has no small responsibility for the remarkable fact that Timor-Leste can now be said to lead the region in democratic process and respect for human rights as it prepares to join its regional neighbors in ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. As we at SOAS seek to understand Southeast Asia, engage with Southeast Asia, and accompany the development of Southeast Asia in our shared 21st century, we are truly honored to have his excellency, Dr. Ramos Horta amongst us, and to learn from him in conversation with our director, Baroness Valerie Amos, this evening. I want to thank those of you who sent in questions for this evening's discussion. We have integrated these questions into Valerie's own questions of Dr. Ramos Horta. We will also be opening the floor to further questions. I want to pass you now to my colleague, Dr. Dan Plush, the director of SOAS's Center for International Studies and Diplomacy, which is co-hosting tonight's event with the Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good evening. I want to warmly second the remarks of my colleague and add but a few words. It's a great pleasure and honor on behalf of the Center in SOAS to welcome President Ramos Horta of Timor-Leste here to SOAS. He serves as a magnificent example of the triumph of peace and hope over violence and despair or the very values that SOAS holds most dear. By the end of the last century, his people had liberated themselves from a double colonization that had left a quarter of the population destroyed. It took 30 years for the second period of colonization to be brought to a close with the assistance of the international community. Throughout his period in exile, at times when success must have seemed but a dream, he and his colleagues persevered and after the tumultuous period of transition achieved relative stability, sometimes in spite of the hostility, bureaucracy and obfuscation of international institutions. In the CISD, we teach and learn from some 300 students, all of whom I think aspire to be effective in global affairs. Many of our students seek to work to overcome violence and discord and enlarge the sphere of peaceful emancipation. In doing so, they, indeed all of us, need examples and role models. Persistence, patience and a burning impatience driven by a sense of our common humanity, these I think drove and drive our guests this evening. And for these reasons alone, it's wonderful to have him with us and I would like you to join me in welcoming him and our own Valerie Amos in discussion. Thank you very much. Jose, welcome. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. I wish I could say that that applause I got every single day here at SOA. So it's absolutely wonderful to have you. We've had two wonderful introductions which I think have spoken about the really important and critical role that you played in the independence movement for East Timor. And those of us that have read about it think that it sounds like a really romantic story. You arrived in New York to plead your case. Didn't have very much money. You didn't even have a coat and it was December. So you must have been freezing. You spent 24 years pleading that case. You won the Nobel Prize. Sounds romantic. It can't possibly have been. Can you tell us about some of the realities of that? Well, first, thank you so much, Valerie. Thank you so much for inviting me here to London to this great school. I'm here with my ambassador of Timor Lester to the UK from the young student movement, Joaquin Fonseca. He was one of those who, while I was in New York, somewhere in the mountains of Timor Lester, he was in the studying and doing underground political work mobilizing Indonesian public. And, well, I never obviously expected to be going to New York. One day in Timor Lester, on few days we knew an invasion was coming. We had done the unilateral declaration of independence and Nicolau Lobato, our prime minister at the time following the unilateral declaration of independence, a convener meeting, all of us. I had been appointed at a very young age, Minister of Foreign Affairs, in information. Information because I had already some understanding of media, of journalism, Foreign Affairs, because I spoke some English and knew a bit about international affairs. I read a small booklet, primarily as I look back, I think it was mostly a UN tourist guide for UN, with questions and answers. So I remember, someone gave it to me and that was my moral understanding of the UN. And then Nicolau Lobato said, you go to New York. I will not again enter into detail how we managed to go to New York, there were no flights, so how you get out, I was assigned to find ways to get out of Timur to Australia and then on to and so on. But anyway, to make sure, I arrived in New York, having never been to the US, never seen snow in my life. It was December 75, New York, Manhattan was blanketed. And at the airport, I was picked up by the driver of the newly established permanent mission of Guinea-Bissau. The first country of the Portuguese Luzofon countries that was recognized by the United Nations, by the whole international community. And then at the hotel, it still exists, but with a different name now called Hilton, back then a two-door hotel, the ambassador was waiting for him, Gilles Fernandez. Now about 80, wonderful human being, we're still in touch. He lives between Brazil and Portugal. And I check into a room that costs about $10 or $20 a night. And now the same room, slightly refurbished. If you go during peak season, the General Assembly, it costs you $400. Have they named it after you? Is it the Ramos Hortum? Yes, so it's still about the same, the hotel. And I was then the next day taken to the UN. So it was not that I was completely on my own because Mozambique was already there as a member of the United Nations, and the Freilimu gained exceptional prestige during the struggle for independence. Guinea-Bissau and the Pais de Cé, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde at the time they were together. And there was an exceptional African diplomat there. You probably heard of some of you, students, academics of African studies, must have heard, Salim, Salim. One of the youngest ambassadors to the United Nations. Age 27, 28, he was ambassador to the UN. Chairman of the Special Committee on the Colonization. And at the time, Tanzania was member of security council. So Salim, Salim was meeting me at the entrance, I know, the escalator going up to the General Assembly. And they briefed me, et cetera. Well, that was my introduction to the UN. I met day one who made appointments for me with everybody concerned. Indonesia had invaded, Portugal had their mission power, took the case to the security council, so the security council was convened. And they waited for my arrival to begin talks on Timor-Lester. And I briefed every, I met with every security council member, permanent and non-permanent. And I recall meeting with Jakob Malik. Jakob Malik, for those of you who are historians who know, he was Soviet Union ambassador, starting in San Francisco. So can you imagine by the time 75 in New York, he was relatively aged. And I was talking to him and he was falling asleep. And, you know, that was my first time in New York meeting with Jakob Malik, permanent representative of the Soviet Union, a superpower. So he had to be very respectful. And if sleeping, what should I do? I talk, he wakes up, he gets upset, and I didn't do a job for my country. But he had an aide accompany him. And I look at the aide, the aide, North Milligan, to continue, meaning he's sleeping, but he's listening. And that went on for 10, 50 minutes. But anyway, we got the 50 members of security council to vote after 10 days of discussion, unanimously on a resolution calling on Indonesia to withdraw its forces without delay. That's the expression, without delay. And I thought, well, unanimous, without delay, by after Christmas New Year, I'm back home in Triumph. Well, 24 years later, I went back home. And I learned some lessons, my first introduction to the UN. And so it's not, you know, it's not the UN as such, you know, it's not the Secretary General. It's not the people working in the Secretary. It's the powers that they, who are there in the security council, they are the ones who adopt a resolution, and they are the ones who have the means, the power to implement the resolution they had just adopted. So in the case of Timor-Leste, the resolution was adopted. And the Indonesian, for a minute at that time, a brilliant chairman general called Adam Malik of the generation of Yakov Malik, he said they can go to hell, referring to the security council. And I thought, well, if he tells security guys to go to hell, security council members will be very upset and they will act well. The same countries that voted on that resolution continue on selling weapons to Indonesia. By 77, the US Intelligence Service, State Department, Pentagon, then we saw that later years when the Under the Freedom Information Act, there was alarm in Washington that Indonesia militarily was getting bogged down in Timor-Leste. So came Jimmy Carter, we had hopes, but it was under Jimmy Carter, the so-called human rights administration that weapons transferred to Indonesia increased by 100% within one year. So that's international. And I'm not saying that in bitterness, but that's the reality, which we see today in some of the conflicts raging on in the world today. So what kept you going over those 24 years? I mean, almost unheard of, a unanimous resolution passed, but not implemented, what kept you going? Well, I always kept thinking, I was given a mission by Nicolau Lobato, by the leadership of Fred Lynn, and I have to deliver. And my mission was to advocate, to defend our case, our cause. I completely alone, not a single other Timori soul living in the whole of the US. I was alone there, didn't know really anyone except one or two academics who had been to Timori before, like Shep Forman, anthropologist, great man, Elizabeth Trau from Harvard, who was anthropologist also, but they were not even in New York. Then, I thought I was going back home anyways, but then I didn't. Then one day, an American academic, left-winger, decided to find a place for me to stay. His name is Frank, something I don't remember, never seen him again. He took me to do some shopping, and towels, bed linens, cutlery, and I bought one knife, one fork, one spoon. He said, why don't you buy a whole set? I said, no, I'm going back home, so I don't need all of this, because I didn't want the, I won't resist the idea that I was going to settle in, so no, so I just bought one thing, it's a little towel, one soap, and no, it was traumatic when you, I didn't go from New York, from Timor-Leste to Darwin, Sydney, and then Spain a few years in transition somewhere, can imagine. I grew up in a remote village in Timor, and Timor is a village, as a whole, at the time, and then you end up in the winter in New York. At least if you would have gone to Singapore, or Kuala Lumpur at the time, you know, more or less, similar to Timor-Leste, so instead end up in New York, so traumatic. But I was tremendously helped all the time by Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Tanzania, a few countries, and then some NGOs start emerging at church. Then I met some people in the US Congress, really wonderful people, Congressman Tony Hall from Ohio, Congressman, freshman Congressman Tom Harkin from Iowa, later became senator, later presidential candidate. For over 30 years, he was supportive of Ted Kennedy. So there are people who start giving you hope. And the one thing that is important, is remarkable, is that over the years, people who had nothing to do with us, with me personally, with our country, Americans, or Australians, or Japanese, or Portuguese, or French, but they become dedicated, and day after day, year after year. So these very same people are helping us, they give us hope and inspire me. Some here in the room, I've had it already, some who helped us over the years. So the international solidarity movement gave us hope, and some of the courageous media at the time that inspired how far away Timor was. So combination of these, plus you're my conscience that I was sent to do something, I have to do, and this is the minimum, the least I can do for those who are fighting dying in the country. And in those 24 years, what were the things along the way that you actually think helped to change the international perception of what was going on, and actually changed the way the world looked at Timor-Leste. Well, first, for me, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, I remember it was in Geneva, I would go there every year for the UN Human Rights Commission meeting, a totally futile exercise. Like today you have Saudi Arabia in the Human Rights Council, and you might as well have the Melda Marcus chairing an anti-corruption commission, investigating corruption in the shoe industry in the Philippines, something like that. But I would go anyway to lobby. One morning, I would stay in Nio with some Swiss friends, which you drive, no traffic, 50 minutes, I think, I don't remember. I would drive, borrow in a car from one of my friends to Geneva. 8 a.m. sharp, I always had BBC on. I have the greatest affection, love for the BBC, and I turn on the, sharp 8 a.m., the BBC was on. And what was the story I heard at the time? I had to stop because it was so dramatic. A Soviet cosmonaut had gone into space many months, circling the Earth, I think. And he was preparing to return to Earth. He was told from Moscow, don't come back, your country will longer exist. So the Soviet Union ceased to exist. But this is actually the message they sent him. Someone was joking with him or whatever. They said, circle the Earth a few more times and we'll figure out what to do with you. Yeah. And he circled a few more times, he ended up landing in Kazakhstan, I think. His passport was no longer valid. And so I thought, wow, if the mighty Soviet Union can just disappear like that, how about Indonesia? So I said, well, but you know, the fall of the Berlin world, of course it's set in motion in the liberation of South Africa and the Eastern European block country, and then you saw in Africa began the disengagement of South Africa from Namibia, et cetera. So there was spring, season of hope. But at the same time, it took another few years. For a few months when we had the Santa Cruz massacre in 91, that was at an end point. Those of you who might not familiar, there was a peaceful demonstration in Timor-Leste. The army fired on the demonstrators. But unlike in previous situations, where there was not a single camera person there, a journalist at that time, Timor-Leste was more open. Indonesia opened up the territory, although still under a lot of control. And a courageous British-Swedish journalist, he had dual citizenship, British and the Swedish Max Stahl. Brilliant journalist working at that time for our Yorkshire television with Peter Gordon, I don't know where he is here in the room. They did this remarkable feature. So filmed the whole massacre. And with extraordinary serenity, he hid himself in the cemetery, dig up, cover up the video of films because he knew he was going to be captured by the military. They released him. In the evening, he went back to the cemetery, jumped in and took the film. And then someone took the film out. So that was a turning point, 91. And then came the Nobel Peace Prize in 96. Soon after, the financial economic crisis in Southeast Asia that also hit Republic of Korea. And then it was Indonesian people, Indonesian students, who came to the streets in Indonesia and brought down the Suharto regime. It was not the international community. And we didn't defeat the Indonesian Army obviously, so it was a combination of factors. Raise awareness of the Indraj community. There was no longer the East, West, Soviet Union, United States, all of that ideological rivalry. The financial crisis. Indonesian people had had enough of the regime. So that opened up the doors for the independence of Timor-Leste. I gave an interview. First time ever, I had a lengthy interview with CNN was May 15 or 16, 1995, 95, even before the Nobel Peace Prize. The program was diplomatic license with Richard Roth. Someone talked him into doing a program on Timor-Leste and he did. And it was 24-minute program. It was mostly with me talking. And I said at the time, in the interview, explicitly, within two to three years, the problem of Timor-Leste will be resolved. The Suharto regime will fall under the weight of corruption, mismanagement, and increasing illegitimacy. Then it will be easier to find a solution. That's what I said. He went, obviously, as a good journalist. You go and interview the other side, interview the Indonesian ambassador, lovely, refined gentleman. And he said like this, well, Ramu Zorta is always too optimistic. He was right. And she said, even if one day we no longer have Suharto in power, there'll be no change. Well, exactly 21st May, 2008, I received a call from Richard Roth again. As Jose did you hear the news, Suharto is out. We are playing back your comments of three years ago. So then, and why Habibi decided, and Habibi spent more than 20 years in Germany, brilliant aeronautics engineer. If anything, he learned in Germany is to be pragmatic, to be practical, not to be ideological. So Suharto fall, he becomes vice president. I happened to visit France in CNN in Atlanta. I knew almost everybody in CNN, so I was visiting them as friends inside the headquarters. I was given interviews left and right in CNN. Then they called me. Jose, come look at the Indonesian president speaking. BJ Habibi was telling Indonesian businessman, January, January 98, I think if I'm not, 99, January 99, you are saying, by December this year I won the problem of Timur Resol. Too much, probably that he's at that place. It has only rocks, and in fact, we do have a lot of rocks in the country. And I said he has a valid point, you know rocks everywhere. And he just dismissed. These places only rocked and causing us so much trouble. Well, that's how he dismissed. And there was a referendum organized by the United Nations, turmoil followed, but it was one of the fastest action taken by the UN Security Council. Within the explosion of a crisis from the moment it happened to a resolution which was unanimous to the deployment of international force was the fastest ever in, I believe, in history of the United Nations. Because there was a coalition of goodwill, of determination by all the powers that be at that time. So you returned home, lots of people desperate to see you as a kind of heroes welcome, although you don't like to talk about it like that. You eventually became president. So you made that transition from liberation movement to government, and you are someone who's made that transition and has remained very popular. It's very rare. Have you done it? Well, I think I... Listen, Kev. I think I remain relatively popular because I was prime minister only for one year. Keep it short. And I was mostly foreign minister one year as prime minister during the crisis. I was asked to serve as prime minister, and then I went to president. Almost every foreign minister is popular because you don't deal with complicated domestic issues. You don't have to do budget cuts. You don't have to, no one blame you for failure in education, in health, et cetera. And in our system, the president also doesn't have his active authority to make decisions on the budget, et cetera. Maybe partly because of that, that I remain popular, but I enjoy people. And the simplest, the people, the poorer, I enjoy because you sit with them. As I do often, you know. And you really learn a lot. You listen to their stories, their problems, their dreams. I had a presidency that was, sometimes my own stuff, I had to explain to them why I drive my own car. I have a British car called Mini Moke. Moke, very old from the 50s, not from the 60s. And open, very low. And I had to explain to my staff why. I said, well, leaders, presidents, when they come to power, each of us come with our own philosophy of concept of power. Can be the imperial power, a bit like the Vatican. Why the Vatican is surrounded with such aura? That means power. And well, I believe in this 21st century, leaders have to be accessible to the people. And at the same time, in our situation, when people are afraid, traumatized, if they see the president driving around, I stop everywhere in traffic lights and I'd never have a siren, police ahead of me, or open the, they say, well, situation must be okay for him to be driving around like that. So you transmit an air of tranquility, of security to the people. Because if they see you with 50 people armed guards around you, something is wrong with our country. So I did all this. I had to explain sometimes because my staff, sometimes they're a bit confused. I never allow weapons in the presidential compound. No guns there. I set up the first ever free internet service in the gardens of the, in the presidential gardens. Because it was a huge garden. I said, this is for one person, the president, this whole garden. So I decided to share with the public. So I put up there free wireless internet for the student. Because at the time internet was very expensive. It was not limited. It inspired the government then to have now, we have a wireless in many other places. So maybe partly because of that, I remain, I say relatively, you know, relatively popular. Not really popular. I think if you talk to a lot of political leaders, they'd say you're really popular and still really popular. And the assassination attempt in 2008, did that in any way change your view in relation to that openness and accessibility? No, actually quite the opposite. When I was returning home from Darwin, one doctor there, they assigned a psychiatrist to talk with me, advising me to maybe better not to go back to the house. I would have a nightmare, et cetera, et cetera, all of that. I said, no, I'm going back home. So I never had a nightmare. And I did even more, even more openly. And I never had any problems. Because the assassination attempt was not, I would say, you know, a bizarre situation that happened at the moment. I was not targeted. It was in the middle of a confusion in the area. And I had gone out walking very early in the morning. I heard shots and I decided to come back because, well, it's coming from my house. I have to go find out what's happening because there are people there, family there, some staff there. I cannot run away. So I went back. And because I also felt immune, because throughout the crime, 2006, I was everywhere. In the midst of some of the worst violence, I was there to stop them. And nothing ever happened to me. So I thought, well, I go and they will stop. Well, I was fired. And the moment I was fired, the people, they ran away. Then they were completely disoriented. How this happened, the group that came to my house. And then they found, they heard the news that I survived and they issued a statement. When president returned, we will surrender. I returned from Darwin. A few days later, they surrendered all their weapons. And the situation has remained. Then they were put on trial. And some were sentenced to many years in prison. Then I exercised my presidential prerogatives and pardoned all of them. I was criticized by some traditional, conventional judges that dis undermine justice, blah, blah, blah, et cetera. You know, during my presidency, I pardoned off many, many people. And some NGOs, Temulis NGOs criticized me. He doesn't even read the files. He just signed off. He pardoned everybody left and right. I said, no, sorry, I read them. I do read them. But if, I said, I told them, if my greatest sin in life is that I pardon left and right, well, I'm happy to be the sinner in a pardon too often. I read somewhere that when you were president, one of the things that you said, and I quote, is that good relations with Indonesia are more important than prosecutorial justice. Because there was a push at that time to actually take people to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the war crimes that it was alleged had taken place in Timor-Este. It was not only my view. It was the view of our collective leadership. Shanana Guzmão, most of you would have heard. He was the charismatic leader, architect of the resistance. Seven years in prison in Indonesia. Maria Kateri and the other, Maria Kateri, leader of Ratli, all of us, we had solid consensus on this issue. And it was not just pragmatism that relation with Indonesia far too important. A, we knew that Indonesia had just gotten over the Suatu era. The transition to democracy will be long and difficult. And it was, as anyone who could have witnessed at that time with ethnic religious violence in Ambon, ethnic violence in Kalimantan, and there were doomsday scenarios about Indonesia disintegrating. So when you have a dictatorship like that for 30 years in any situation, in the post-dictatorship, extremely difficult too. And if we were to go on the calls for an international tribunal, it would exacerbate the infight, the tension in Indonesia itself. So we decided, no, let the Indonesians handle, manage their transition. We have enough challenges here in our country. And so basically that ended, the Indonesians side, the leadership and everybody appreciated the Timuri's leadership understanding of the challenged Indonesia phase. And that's why today, we have the best possible relationship with Indonesia. But not only because of that. Throughout 24 years of the struggle for independence, never once we demonize Indonesia as a country, as a people. Never once we invoke religion. It's timid, predominantly Catholic, 98% Catholic, Indonesia, majority Muslim in the world. So you could easily say Muslim versus Catholic. Nothing to do with it. There was violence in Indonesia, in our chair for instance, against Muslims. The Suha'at regime, for those who are probably familiar with, one thing he never discriminated was when it came to violence. Where you're Muslims, you're Hindus, it doesn't matter as long as you challenge him, you get your share of violence. So it was not only Catholic Timuris, but Muslim Achinis, or students in Java. So we never, and the unresistant Timuris never touched a single Indonesian civilian in 24 years. Not a single Indonesian civilian school teacher, vendor, wives, children of the military was ever kidnapped or killed by the resistance. Every, you know, the resistance captured hundreds of Indonesian military personnel over the years. Some were officers. Not one was executed, was killed. After a few months, they were set free on the road back to Army headquarters. Then over the years, there were many Indonesians, like today, some of them visit Timur, military doctors, who helped volunteer fighters, running risk, they provide medication, medicine. A poor Indonesian policeman, he gave two little pistols to the resistance he was caught by the, they put him in a bag and pulled him around, down in Delhi, and he survived. His wife, living in Timuris. So many Indonesians, not huge numbers, in Timuris itself, supported. And many in Jakarta. And some went to prison in Jakarta for supporting us. I've got a whole lot of other things to ask you, but I'm gonna open it up to see if there are any questions from our audience before I continue. Gentleman right at the back. Do we have a mic? Thank you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. My question is, we don't hear much, in fact hardly anything about your country nowadays. Is that because it's resolved finally, which we hope? And if so, is it due to the intervention of the United Nations? Or is it despite that intervention? And more to the point, it's relevant to the situation currently in other parts of the world, which you correctly described as raging. And I mean the Middle East, and specifically Syria and Iraq. What is your, from your vast knowledge and experience, can we apply aspect of that particularly, personally, maybe the only one I know that calling for you and mandate for the region because the two countries are failed states. That's not my statement. It's scholars and politicians like your good selves and present here that described it as failed states. In my study, I've been... Can I ask you to just pause there? To be brief, sorry? I said, could you pause so that we can get the answer to your question? That is the answer. Can we apply, the question is, can we apply the UN mandate to Middle East region from your experience? Thank you. Thank you. Well, I would say almost definitely not. There are no two situations that are exactly the same that can be transcribed and applied in another country. I was the chair of a United Nations panel called High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations for almost two years. I and 16 other colleagues. And I recall throughout the numerous, numerous meetings, consultations we had around the world, listening to people, I kept saying. But when we talk about prevention, today the UN back talking about prevention. And there is strong consensus in the UN, in the world that prevention of conflict is better than having peacekeepers deployed or having once a conflict started, the UN tried to do something. Well, but prevention happens only when it succeeds, happen when leaders in a given country, and leaders are national leaders, elected or non-elected, community leaders, church leaders, other religious, confessional leaders, all out to the responsibilities they know, they sense what are the problems in the country, what are the tensions, what are the sources of the tensions, inequality, injustice, exclusion of particular groups, whether ethnic or religious. And then someone, the leader of the country or someone else, maybe if the president, the prime minister or the king is not looking at the province or not credibly enough, some other people draw attention and then bring everybody together. So prevention happens, no need for outside intervention, when leaders own up to the province. Look at the situation in Syria. We can blame the US for not doing anything, you can blame the French, the British, the Chinese, the Russians, et cetera, but allow me to say here, those greatest responsibility are Syrian leaders themselves. The Hassan regime, for not understanding, show humility and wisdom reaching out in the aftermath of Arab Spring, he should sense things are changing, so you reach out. But those who wanted changes, overestimated themselves and the estimated the regime. You recall when there were efforts to negotiate those on the other side of the trench against Hassan, they wouldn't want to talk with just out. Then you have enthusiastic supporters in UK, in France, who kept saying, no, Hassan must go, Hassan must go. So you fuel the exacerbate the divisions there, so this is the result, all sides are. What can you do now? I have to say, my answer is similar to an answer I gave three years ago in Geneva at the United Nations, a meeting like this, but at UN, myself and Marta Tissari. So that was three years ago. I said, I'm sorry, there are certain wars that will take their course, not much you can do about. Iran-Iraq war of the 80s, eight years of war, more than a million people died. Only when the two sides were exhausted, then there was a truth and negotiated settlement with Algeria, not the UN. It was Algeria that helped a broker in the peace, but that after eight years, more than a million people, chemical biological weapons were used. And so it is, I have to say, it's really, because assuming the P5 and non-permanent 10 all agree on their resolution, what resolution they agree to really, to do effectively on Syria. But assuming, and that is highly unlikely, that the tensions between Russia and the US happened before Libya exacerbated with Libya, and then Ukraine. So it's really, I'm sorry, but we are facing a situation in the world today that extremely complex, dangerous, and the world is, Europe is more or less leaderless. The US is leaderless, and the UN leaderless on the way out, Ban Ki-moon is out, and you Secretary General will be elected soon, and I hope the wisest, the best, the most capable of all the candidates so far. In 1987, you wrote, and I quote, certainly no particular country or regional group holds a monopoly on double standards and hypocrisy in international relations. These are the trademark of the United Nations, even if all members subscribe to the lofty principles and purposes of the charter. There's a lot of talk about the UN not having any legitimacy, the UN not being relevant anymore, not being credible anymore. What's your view now? Remain the same because it's so easy and hypocritical for any of us, for the media, for academics, to blame the UN as such, as if the UN is an abstract body made of no one or just a bureaucrats at the UN. No, I'm sorry, the UN, the powers that be led by US. You know, just a parenthesis to say here, whether we like it or not, the US is the superpower. When the US president walks into the UN General Assembly, even if you don't like him, like people didn't like much, George W. Bush, the room is packed in absolute silence. I was there so many times watching and studying the situation, and I was like, what, what this man, how much power he has? It's only like we all go and pay tribute to the US president. The moment he finished speaking, the room is total chaos. They rush out to try to shake hands of the US president. And the person immediately after speaking, no one listens to him or to her. And I always say, I never wanted to be the speaker after the US president. Put me five, six, 10 after him. So, and if the US, but even with a charismatic, inspiring leader like Barack Obama, not able to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not able to mobilize forces in the world to address the Syria crisis, well, let's blame Ban Ki-moon then. But no, failure of Barack Obama, failure of France-Walland, of Prime Minister Cameron, Merkel, and the powers that be. But what can they, could have they done anyway, you know? Because there are phenomena, there are situations that erupt beyond anyone control. And I guarantee you Syria, what? Would be another naval blockade, Russia would allow it, a blockade of one of their allies, would be the end of Russia's credibility as a global power, as a regional power, whatever you want to call it. So just not possible. So business as usual, I mean nothing changes. Can change. If you have an inspiring secretary general of the UN, a visionary, because, you know, look at Europe, post World War II Europe, you had Europeans, I know there are not all Europeans here, exceptional leaders, Conrad Adenauer, later came in many years later Willy Brandt, you have Jacques Delors, and many others in Europe, that pull Europe together, you know, from the disaster zone and build what the European Union came into being afterwards. And, but unfortunately there are circumstances also in the world, in Europe that particular time when it is monumental crisis, that there are some really weak leaders in Europe. And I'm from a president, from a foreign minister, nothing to do with the UN, so I'm a bit freer to comment. But even with an exceptional person like Barack Obama, well, he had to deal with the US Congress. He had to deal with Republicans. Not all Republicans are bad, obviously, you have some very good Republican Congress leaders who supported Obama in certain areas, but so he also had limited powers. But if you have a secretary general who is absolutely brilliant, visionary, but also has certain humility in him, and he can find common ground among the leaders and bring them together as it was possible at San Francisco, at the New York, after World War II, because over the years there were some absolute challenges that happened and they were. So that's the role of the secretary general. When superpowers do not talk, because even when you're a superpower, like the US, like Russia or China, the emotions of individuals count. This is just not all technicism, all facts and figures, it's how Putin feels. Was he insulted? Did Cameron, did Obama insulted him? And did someone insult, Obama is, I think, someone who probably able to put his feelings aside and very cold, very, but all other leaders we influence emotionally. Then when come the secretary general, able to create conditions of people to work together. So that's how important will be the election for the new secretary general of the UN this year. Absolutely vital, otherwise if the P5 decide to elect, to elect someone, because there are six or seven candidates at the moment, official candidates, I'm not hiding, you probably have read a few things I have written and my views, unfortunately, inconsequential in the world. I don't think Putin have ever read anything I've written. Even when I was in Moscow, I had long radio interview, I don't think he sat there listening to my interview. But anyway, I advocated for Antonio Gutierrez of Portugal. Brilliant individual, he knows about communication, how to engage the world. He would be the equivalent of the Pope. What power has the Pope? He doesn't have the seventh fleet, the sixth fleet. He doesn't even have economic power, you know. But some popes in the past, like Clement, I keep mixing the names of Benedict, sorry, Benedict 16. I met his holiness, Benedict 16, not the most charismatic individual in the world. Papa Francisco, absolutely charismatic. Papa Francisco changed the Catholic faith, enormous power of communication. So, Antonio Gutierrez could be like Papa Francisco. He's humble, he's compassionate. That's quite an endorsement. We're honest, so because the power of Secretary General today, 21st century, that you are able to mobilize people out on the wall behind you, behind the UN. That's, you know, his power. He doesn't have any other power. Then his ability, with that power behind him, he talks to the leaders. You know, when I was in Guinea-Bissau, absolutely different, I went all over the country. Everywhere in Guinea-Bissau, I went. And sometimes it was embarrassing because I was received like I was the Secretary General of the UN or like the President of the country. They had banners all over, welcoming the special representative Secretary General, et cetera. I thought, I hope no pictures are taken and they send this to New York, showing how I'm received and Ban Ki-moon not very impressed. So I thought, no pictures, you know. But was also to communicate to the political leaders of the country. I have your people behind me on this UN agenda to change the country. In a very small way, the Secretary General can command far more than that. So that's why it's very critical. Besides, obviously, his professional, competent knowledge, how to manage the UN itself. The secretariat also needs changes. But even you perfect the system, the secretariat, but without being able to build bridges, mobilize coalitions, you have the best secretariat in the world and it will not be of any relevance for solutions. If you don't, you're not able to also work the leaders. That's why I hope wisdom prevail in the Security Council in New York and by October, November, Antonio Guterres, former Prime Minister of Portugal, former High Commissioner for Refugees, is our new Secretary General. What's this face? Any further? Lady at the back. Hold on, the mic's coming at great speed. I was trying to be encouraging. Thank you. Question is around West Papua. I'm part of the Fiji Island Solidarity Movement for West Papua Liberation. One of the things that we discussed a lot within this discourse is the similarities with Timor-Leste and the situation in West Papua right now. I mean, what basically is happening in West Papua right now is nothing less of a genocide. However, we see such less support from United Nations, from a lot of countries, and from a lot of international agencies around the world. So I would like to, if possible, if you'd like to share what your perspective is on this, why there is such a lack of support, a lack of international support towards the West Papuan Liberation and Self-Determination, and also in terms of not only United Nations, but two different countries, especially within the Pacific region and the Asia Pacific region. Thank you. Indonesia is not the only multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious country in the world. There are numerous. Throughout Asia, look at Myanmar or India or you go to Africa. So the fact that there are specific, distinct, major or minor ethnic groups and religions in a different country, in a given country, doesn't mean necessarily that everybody should be separate, be independent. Indonesia, like the rest of Asia, with some exceptions, almost the whole African continent with the exception of Ethiopia, inherit the boundaries from the colonial powers. Very, at source, you must be very familiar with the way Europeans engineered the map of Africa. And although it might sound like hypocritical to still blaming the Europeans for the Berlin Conference, no, the legacies are still there. The leaders of post-colonial Africa, they inherit complicated boundaries and you don't resolve them in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. So many of the problems that happened across border problems mean it's a result of that, and extremely difficult to resolve. In Indonesia inherited the so-called Dutch East Indies and they demand at the time, we are the successor state to all the territories that formerly Dutch East Indies. And it was not only Papua, but also all the other islands in Eastern Indonesia, for instance. And the case of Papua was brought to the UN and a so-called act of free choice was carried out. It was not really free choice, obviously, that all, I don't think even serious Indonesians would argue that it was a serious exercise. And what to do now? I went to Papua recently in May this year, invited by the Indonesian authorities, and I went. And that was only two, three days there. I was not there on a fact-finding mission. And the situation was visible, tension, and heart-breaking. But when you look at the composition of Papua as a whole, there are two major provinces, Papua and West Papua in the half-island, that's called New Guinea. There are about two million people, indigenous peoples. And there are now another two million non-indigenous. So altogether four million inhabit that territory. And I tell my Papuan friends, and this is a new Indonesia. Be wise, be smart. Your best friend, best allies, will be the people in Jakarta, Indonesian academic, Indonesian students, activists, because there are many in Jakarta who, I met with them. They are very critical of the way the government or the military conduct themselves in Papua. It is through working with them that you can bring about changes. Indonesia today is not of 15 years ago, 20 years ago, much more open, but the military remain entrenched in their interest in Papua. So there is still a lot of resistance for any changes. I always tell our people, myself, Shanana, we are criticized by our youth, our NGOs, because opposing international tribunal on Indonesia, I always tell them, brothers and sisters, when we fight for a cause, when we fight for independence, for freedom, for democracy, we fight because of our conviction, because we believe in it, but we also fight with brains. When to move, when to wait, when to step aside, you study, wait for the best times, and that's why it took us 24 years and that's why you survive. So my point is that I told the Papuan friends, brothers and sisters, Indonesia today is different. They're putting a lot of money for Papua, $10 billion 2017 budget, extract as much as you can. Primarily, study, study, and study, you know. Papuan, I tell the Papuan, get the scholarships, demand scholarships, study in Jakarta, study abroad. Only when you master the power of knowledge, you can survive. You can survive in this very multi-ethnic Indonesia. You can have an influence beyond Papua, in Jakarta and elsewhere. So because that's my answer to you. To think narrowly about separation out of the blue, well, it's not going to happen. First and foremost, what is the priority? Every pressure possible, no more torture, no more killing, no more loss of life. If Papuans are part of Indonesia, they have to be treated like Balinese, like Javanese in Indonesia. And they have to have better opportunities than Javanese and Balinese because they are already much better. So you discriminate positively, given the Papuans who never had a chance, greater share of the resource of the country, opportunities to study. The rest, God will take care of it. I have hundreds of people wanting to ask questions. We are running out of time, so I'm going to take one more and I've taken from the back, so I'm going to take one from the front, right here. Can you keep it as short as possible? I wanted you to share from your experience, given the many instances of political crisis in Guinea-Bissau, society itself has remained resilient and hasn't taken part in the violence or the crisis. So I wanted you to just share with us what do you think, why that is, and is it perhaps, as you mentioned, that the political leaders don't actually know the reality of their society. They're not in touch with that society. Thanks. The political elites in Guinea-Bissau have failed their people once again. A great difference, measure of change in the regard to Guinea-Bissau is that the military listen to me, listen to the UN, listen to the powers that be who deal with Guinea-Bissau, not to get involved again. Because in the past, the military did the good, and then they were blamed for everything. This time, there is an ongoing political crisis, but the military are staying in the barracks. And I have told the friends in the Security Council, the Secretary and the police, do not always just criticize the military. Command them now, for the fact that they are staying in the barracks. By commanding them, you encourage them to stay put in the barracks. Don't come to the streets. But a great virtue of Guinea-Bissau, which is different from so many other conflict situations, even in the worst of times in Guinea-Bissau, over 40 years, the violence mostly happened at the top level, demand the top military, the top political leaders. Few people are shot, are killed, sometimes barbarously, but violence never descend to the communities, although it's a profoundly tribal base, more than 20 distinct ethnic groups. There was never ethnic base, religious base violence in Guinea-Bissau. And so the people in Guinea-Bissau are just wonderful people. And who are, who to be credit for that? And through my experience in Guinea-Bissau, I know who are the people who really credit for that? The Imans, because majority are Muslims, and most of the Imans are self-taught. There's only one Imam in Guinea-Bissau who got a PhD in Cairo, in Egypt. I met with almost all of them, the Imans, they are self-taught. The Catholic leaders, Catholic Church, only 11, 12%, and the Protestants. And it's interesting, every time I ask a meet with the religious leaders, they all come together. You see the Catholic Bishop arriving, the Protestant is arriving, and all the Imans are arriving. And who they ask to speak for them? They ask the Catholic Bishop to speak for all of them. And a fantastic experience. The religious leaders, spiritual leaders in Guinea-Bissau. And they work also with the tribal leaders. So we have to identify which are the forces of good, of peace in a given country, and empower them. Empower them sometimes just by giving them moral support, by showing up. So, but the political crisis is ongoing. They have not been able to pass a government program, a budget, and now two years. And the current president of Guinea-Bissau asked me to go back. And many, many brothers of Guinea-Bissau asked me to go back. I'm hesitating, because you cannot go back two, three days, one week. It will have a few months investment of time. But one way, once I discuss with the president of the McIssal of Senegal, Senegal has played a really constructive role there. One way would be, he would help me bring in all the political, military leaders, civil society, to some island in Senegal, of Senegal, a resort place where I would be with them for days, for weeks. We would leave the place only when they have agreed, committed themselves to a road map, but with binding and the punishment. The program, the agreement would be witnessed by ECOWAS, African Union, European Union Security Council. Any breaching of the agreement, you are punished. So that is still a possibility, because by bringing people together, you talk among themselves for days, if necessary, for weeks, because now there's only three years remaining of the current regime and the country economically financially bankrupt. But fortunately there is no war. But if this dragging on, well, there have been elements of Al Qaeda, ISIS, traveling through the Navy South to say the least, be careful that your country might be full prey of, I was telling the people. Just to run out of time, but I want to ask you one last question if I may. Are students at SOAS are absolutely passionate about change and about changing the world? So what would you say to them? Is the one important thing about being a change agent? About change. Yes, about being a change agent, an agent for change. Well... Write it down. Yes. Looking at the students, whether you are undergraduate, graduate, whichever country you are from, my very simple advice is I tell people around the world, you study, study and study. This is not what they want to hear. To be here, first, not to be just good, not to be just better, aim for being the very best. For what purpose? For vanity, first, pride of your parents who made a lot of sacrifice for you to be here. Pride of your country, because the end of you, particularly coming from developing countries, who succeed in academia, in science, in sport, inspires people, particularly people who are, you know, I put something in my Facebook recently, because I saw in the social media, a very, very poor Timurese family, in an absolute poor heart in Timor-Leste. And they have their son there with his university gown, he had just received a degree. He had been given a scholarship by the US Embassy in my country and gone to study and came back. Wow, what a touching story, you know. So that's why I say, proud of the family, to serve the country, to serve humanity, because you cannot serve the humanity really if you are not really having studied, but always try to be humble, to be compassionate. That's all I tell our people. For my country, or for any of our country, to survive, we have to excel in everything we try to do. So that's my advice. Join and support some of the best NGOs that exist in this country, that for generations have done great work, like Oxfam and others, Amnesty International and others, do volunteer work for them. Because, you know, do not underestimate what you as an individual can do, because sometimes you talk to a student, I have a right now, I'm telling you, an advisor. You know how old he is? Seven years old. Well, I actually have two. One is Swiss German, the other one is German. And they sit down there and they give me advice. And so I said, formally I'm appointing you as my senior advisor. And they give me a list of things to do on environment, on collecting garbage, because they were in my country, they saw a lot of garbage. And on environment, on education. So I sit there, you know, listen to them seriously. And of course they didn't actually tell me something absolutely new, but this coming from children. So how some of you can really change lives of people. Look at Mohamed Yunus. Now obviously almost 80. He began more than 40 years ago. An individual, Mohamed Yunus, an individual, he's the one who conceived the micro-credit for the poor. And there are many others like him, or Mandela, individual who really inspired millions around the world. So you can be small, you can be big, and you can make huge difference. And Barack Obama, did he ever dream to be President of the United States? No. I met someone who worked with Barack Obama. She came to my home, my country. I don't mention his name, maybe I can mention it, there's nothing wrong with that. Samantha Power, you know, the US Embassy. She was with Harvard at the time. She came to Timorless, stayed in my house, slept on the floor in the lounge, because the house was full. So she slept on the floor. So she told me, Jose, I'm going to quit Harvard. I'm going to work with this new senator. She mentioned a name, and I've heard of. Very unusual name, Barack Obama. And when you come to Washington, I will introduce you to him. Well, you know, I didn't go immediately. Well, four years later, that was 2004 or five, when Samantha Power came. A few years later, she was President. Someone whose mother, parents from a small village in Kenya, how proud the Kenyans are, how proud the Africans are. Oh, thank God. Something that was unthinkable, that a black person would occupy the White House. You know? That's right. Jose, thank you. That was absolutely wonderful. We have a formal thank you from one of our trustees, Steve Tinton. He said, well, what an amazing evening we have had. What a privilege it has been for us to listen to your wise words and your conversation. So us is so honored that you have been able to join us this evening. You're an example to us all, every one of us in this room. Your perseverance and devotion to your country, your humility, your wisdom in guiding your country to and through independence. And then you've given back to the world your work and experience with your work in Africa, your work in the UN, your work elsewhere. What a perfect evening to share with our friends and colleagues that saw us in our centenary year. Thank you very, very much indeed. Our centenary campaign is based around the theme that so us ask the questions that are relevant in today's world. Questions such as, how are we going to live in a prosperous, peaceful, inclusive, respectful world, respectful of all religions, peoples and backgrounds? Or the consequences if we do not? You have helped us enormously with those questions this evening, your views, your experience, your guidance. So us is a leader in diplomatic studies as Dan mentioned earlier. We aim to further develop and enhance our contribution to global affairs. You have helped us demonstrate that leadership. You have helped guide many of our students this evening. Thank you again. I can't also let this evening go by without thanking Valerie. You've helped this evening even go along smoothly with your pertinent questions, your charming smile. We're all benefiting from your knowledge and experience. And dare I say some common sense with a somewhat inner steel when necessary. You've demonstrated tonight why many of us are looking forward to actually you being a bit more involved with the academic side of so us, as well as leading us to be an even better and more successful university. Thank you for those that were involved in the organization of the evening. As you can see, your hard work has been so well rewarded. Thank you. And thank you finally for everybody that is here today. Your interest and contribution is so appreciated by so us. And we hope you have been enlightened from this evening and you can go away thinking about the wise guidance and what we can learn as individuals from the wide experience we have received this evening. Thank you. This is one of a series of centenary lectures and we hope that you're able to join us in future events. So really, all that is left for me to say again now is thank you and ask you to join us in our reception upstairs. Thank you, sir. Thank you.