The fact that the Australian government is always so gutless in the face of 'world opinion' but is sticking to its guns in the face of Timorese whining indicates that they are in a strong position, and it's stiff cheese for Timor. Anti-Australian activists and academics who align themselves with Timor against their own country are a disgraceful people who do not deserve Australian citizenship.

Look, our Australian borders are not new but have existed for decades,(centuries even) and only the discovery of oil and gas inside that part that is Australian,[the Australian continental shelf,] has caused this controversy!

That said, I'm sure there can be an agreeable sharing of this bounty by friends, without altering traditional borders, least we create a precedent for a resource hungry china to emulate!

Incidently there was an inherently fair, signed and sealed agreement on the table that was worth forsaken billions to the East Timorese!

They were the ones who rejected and tore it up, and on the spurious and unproven grounds that some of our officials were, it would seem, eavesdropping on private conversations?

Allegedly, there were bugs found? By whom, and why is it assumed that some of our operatives planted them?

Years can go by as the Timorese grow thin with essential development stalled!

Moreover international courts and their rulings are routinely ignored! Australians died in hundreds of thousands to literally prevent, centuries old traditional maps being redrawn, and that ain't going to happen, regardless of the admonition of a recently formatted international court! Or the feckless advice of frothing fomenting foreigners!

Criminal bail jumper, Assange should have considered where his loyalties lay before his un authenticated, reveal all vexatious mischief.

And but for that and that alone, billions could have already flowed into East Timorese Government coffers!

International court rulings? Bah humbug! Just look at the whaling taking place in the allegedly protected Southern ocean!
Rhrosty.

Everything was fine until the subjugated realised they were being subjugated and didn't like it. Great post!

Well, the CMATS agreement of 2007, between East Timor and Australia, ( which was signed off by ET), gave Timorese a 50% share of revenue, valued at the well head.
The agreement removes either party from further negoations on boundrys until 2057.
While Timor wishes now to do so, under the CMATS agreement, Australia has no obligation to do so.
It is clear that Timor wishes now to deal Australia out of oil royalties completely, by shifting the boundary, claiming all the royalty revenue for itself.
Timor susceded any rights to re-negotiating boundaries, when signing the CMATS treaty.

Is the relative wealth of each country relevant for these type of negotiations? Theoretically I would think not, as international law should apply equally. However many articles such as this seem to argue that the fact that because East Timor is poor, and Australia is rich, that this should somehow be taken into consideration. On the other hand, practically the opposite is probably true, as rich/powerful countries are going to have the upper hand with disputes over resources or territories (just look at China in the South China Sea).

I assume that spying during negotiations is common. Just look at wikileaks and how the US gathered any type of intel possible, or how China stole the building plans for ASIO. I don't blame the US or China for spying on us, this is just how the world works, rather I blame our own counter-intel for not preventing it. If the East Timorese were not spying on the negotiations, that is due to their own naivety or incompetence. After all, the role of our intel agencies is to "protect and promote our vital interests". I think our territorial boundaries and resources would be within this scope.

However, I'm not an expert in maritime law/territorial dispute resolution, so I would be interested in understanding what the likely long-term outcomes of this dispute could be. It seems from diver's comment above that we have no obligation to renegotiate, I wonder how well this would stand up to pressure in international courts?

Botswana has some of the richest diamond deposits in the world, and they have a contract with De Beers to mine the diamonds and share the profits 50/50. Here the territorial rights are not in dispute and the contract keeps on getting renewed. The premise is that 50% of a lot of money is better than 100% of far less.

The people that developed the oil and gas field have invested $bns based on a contract that provides the security for their investment. The East Timorese have done nothing but sit back and take the profit, and not to kill the golden goose.

I would like to see an equally informed comment on the ALP’s policy on the maritime boundary as voiced by Tanya Plibersek after the last ALP conference. It’s worth remembering that Laurie Brereton, shadow Foreign Minister in the late 90s, was the (surprising) key to the ALP's about turn on Timorese independence and at least partly responsible for Howard and Downer's change of direction. Draw the (median) Line advocates would be well advised, I think, to use the coming federal election to focus their campaign on ALP candidates, Foreign Policy Committees, Unions and rank and file both to ensure they understand the party’s policy on the issue and that they publically commit to it.

Perhaps East Timor would be well advised to remember that they only exist because of Australia's efforts, & we are the only real friend they have.

I for one, among many, am getting a bit sick of them, & their bitching. If they keep it up we would be well advised to walk away, next time their big neighbour starts flexing it's mussels.

Stezza...

The original agreements on the sunrise oil/gas fields, were with Indonesia, before ET independence.
Indonesia agreed to the boundaries which are now set, and was happy to take ( I think), 8% of the royalties.
That % was raised to 50/50, favouring ET, when conditions were renegotiated after independence.

Even if Australia were to agree to a boundary change, and deal itself out of the fields altogether, East Timor would then be faced with negotiating agreements with Indonesia, since part of the field would fall into their territory. It's messy!

It is also interesting to note, on this subject, around the time of negotiating the boundary agreement with Indonesia, Australia was in the controversial position of conducting joint military exercises with Indonesia on Australian soil.

Adding to the controversy, was the sale of surplus AMF weapons to Indonesia. This was in view of the uprising in East Timor about that time. So Australia was firmly on the side of the Indonesians. It's obvious why, at the risk of sounding syndical .

Yes Diver, Witlim was, I believe, among other things a gutless wonder. Who caved in to Indonesia at the first chance, With few objections from the Fraser, led opposition, even though we more than matched them in our navy and at the time superior air power.

And given our alliances,, one of which is nuclear armed, could have more than matched their military.

I've heard stories of a Maori battalion, that just stood its ground on a Malaysian coastline and put the frighteners through and faced down the intending invading Indonesians (late fifties-early sixties) with an aggressive and descriptive fixed bayonet Haka.

The Indonesians, are brave warriors when taking on unarmed women, children and old men, and will even take on bows and arrows over annexed land, when they have tanks and air power.

Even so one resolute maori battalion armed with just SLR's a few mortars and bazookas, were able to turn back a massive expeditionary Indonesian invasion force (flotilla), without a shot fired, in the war that never was.

Conversely, PM Howard just stood his ground on East Timor and was the last to blink! Hence a now free fledgling democracy!

As for royalties, 50% of something is far better than the former agreed 8%, or the the 100% of nothing that is the result of stalled negotiations, and given the time it took to get a ruling on Southern ocean whaling, stalled for at least a decade, with the whaling outcome, ensuring any ruling unenforceable?

Our existing maritime boundaries are the moat that gives us our enhanced security, and would likely go to war, rather than see them disassembled by this or that vexatious and mischievous activism.

When the international court is able to enforce a firm and irrevocable two state solution on Israel and Palestine; that both will honor and respect, and or oblige China to cease its "reclamation" works on remote if disputed reefs?

Perhaps we should allow ourselves to be guided by them and negotiated agreements, always providing those agreements aren't torn up at the first opportunity, by a now entirely unreliable "friend!"
Rhrosty.