Other pro-East Timorese pressure groups, such as La’o Hamutuk (Timor-Leste Institute for Reconstruction Monitoring and Analysis) and ETAN (East Timor and Indonesia Action Network/US), were similarly unconvinced as to
the wisdom of East Timor entering into the Treaty. While acknowledging that
progress was made in the negotiations, especially with regard to the additional
resources and revenues secured for East Timor through CMATS, both groups
were critical of the Treaty. According to La’o Hamutuk’s statement regarding
CMATS, “an unbalanced negotiation resulted in an unjust agreement for
Timor-Leste,” though it was recognised that the negotiations had “produced a
better result than Australia’s earlier offer.”
ETAN’s statement similarlyacknowledged that “the deal may be the best that could be achieved at this
time,” but nevertheless complained of an “inherently unequal negotiation process”
leading to a Treaty that “does not fully serve the rights and interests of
the people of Timor-Leste.”
ETAN also lambasted Australia’s previous con-duct in the dispute, including its “unfair treatment of its new neighbor” and
alleged “blatant theft” of oil from fields located adjacent to the JPDA, but
much closer to East Timor than to Australia, such as the Laminaria-Corallina
fields