‘A Choice between a Pragmatic Realistic Position And a Principled but Ineffective Posture’ - Australia’s Position Towards Humanitarian Intervention in East Timor

Abstract

The willingness of states to undertake a humanitarian intervention is a controversial topic in the field of International Relations. Within this field, it is much discussed whether altruism or self-interest is the main driver behind the decision to intervene. This research contributes to the debate by exploring the question of what the motives behind humanitarian intervention are within the case study of East Timor. Building on a constructivist realist approach, it argues that the role of national interests explains the dramatic shift in Australia’s position towards intervention in East Timor. Australia’s decision in the 1970s to refrain from intervention and its decision in the 1990s to intervene were based on strategic calculations in which three interests were of paramount importance: (1) the maintenance of close ties with Indonesia for political and economic benefits; (2) the upholding of regional stability to ensure safe export relations and prevent spillover effects that damage Australia’s national security; and (3) the furthering of the process in which Australia proves its regional hegemonic role and growing capabilities to the world. The case study of East Timor shows that, although evolving international norms regarding humanitarian intervention force governments to reassess their foreign policy, national interests remain the key factor in the decision-making process.