Well, you were asking before about the importance of justice for Timor. There are obviously many reasons, but the best way to understand it is to ask why not have justice for Timor. East Timor suffered the largest loss of life relative to population since the Holocaust. And this has been established with a great deal of precision. Surely, if every other group of people had the right to justice, then the Timor East should have the right to justice. I mean, there are other pragmatic reasons, such as it helps Indonesia's democratic transition, the fact that any number of Indonesian human rights and other groups have called for an international tribunal for Timor. But it simply is the right of every group of people who had such serious crimes against humanity to have justice. Now a crime against humanity is the responsibility of all of humanity. It's not just the responsibility of the Timor East, which is why regardless of our views on other things, politics or economics or the way to development, regardless of which party we support overseas or in Timor, on the question of justice, I think there should be an agreement. Now, how can it actually happen? It happens simply by calling for it. The legal consensus already exists that very serious crimes were committed and that there should be a tribunal. Now, what's needed is to convert that legal consensus into a political consensus. It's just like getting the independence of Timor. When Timor became independent and troops were sent in in 1999, it's not because the activists of campaign for Timor actually had any troops of their own. But by always talking about the independence of Timor, always talking about the right of self-determination, they helped to create a political consensus. There was a legal right to self-determination, but there was no political consensus. By always talking about it and emphasizing it, people created that political consensus, same with an international tribunal for Timor. What you need to have is to convert that legal consensus into a political consensus, just by talking about it at every opportunity. Regardless of your disagreements with somebody else or an economics or development to agree on justice, that's how I think it should be done. The question is, what effect will an international tribunal have on the bilateral relations relationship? Firstly, you have to understand that there is an argument that the government of Timor less day makes, and it can't be brush aside. You have to take it seriously. The argument is that East Timor shares a land border with Indonesia, and there could be trouble instigated at any time by the Indonesian side. The second argument is, of course, that East Timor imports about 42% of its imports from Indonesia, and there's thousands of Timor's students studying in Indonesia, and therefore, should the Timor less day government press for an international tribunal, all this could be shut down. I think it's a strong argument, but one that can be refuted. Firstly, Indonesia is democratizing, and the Indonesian government is not going to risk being treated like an international pariah, just because the Timor less day government has asked for its right under international law. In fact, the Indonesian government is very, very highly dependent on good international relations as well. It too is very conscious of the need to not antagonize the rest of the world by acting like an international bully against Timor. It also has a lot to lose if it tries to obstruct Timor less day. So for it to start shutting down the border and expelling students and denying its trade with Timor is a significant international act. It would cause a lot of problems for the Indonesian government, and the Indonesian government would not want those problems. So you take that side, the fear of being called an international pariah, along with the fact that Indonesia is democratizing. I think you take that. You'll find that the fear is actually not legitimate. I don't think that in fact there would be any problem. There would be lots of bluster, lots of people sulking, but there wouldn't actually be any material detriment to Timor. The United States and Britain and in fact other powerful countries are not actually going to oppose an international tribunal. They just won't take the lead unless the Timor less day government says that it would like justice for the crimes against humanity that were committed. I don't see any sign that the United States would oppose a tribunal, but at the moment because the Timor less day government is saying we don't want it. They of course won't want to interfere in Timor's international relations by trying to impose a tribunal that the government itself is rejecting. So the United States Congress has always been very supportive of the rights of the Timor Rees. You find that in Britain as well, and I've had meetings with various people. Some of these have been closed meetings so I can't name people. But there is a lot of sympathy for the idea of justice, but it's very difficult to get them to intervene in Timor's internal affairs when the Timor's government has said that it doesn't want any international intervention on the question of justice. If that stand were dropped, if the Timor less day government or Timor's civil society constantly came out in favor of tribunals, you'll find that the West would you ask me about the issue of the costs for the national tribunal. Look, if we were talking about a tribunal in 1995, yes, that would be very expensive. Because you need to have a court of law, you need to have the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, you need to have the jurisprudence, pointing up judges, lawyers, etc. It would take a lot of money. But now, in 2010, we've already had three international tribunals. One was the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Another one was the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. And the third tribunal is a special court for Sierra Leone. In those three international tribunals, the rules of procedure and evidence have already been developed. The jurisprudence has been developed. The nature of international law has been solidified. The number of lawyers required, the number of judges, all that already exists. You don't actually need to create all this from scratch. It's in a sense you're going over a road that's already been built. If you had to do this in 95, yes, it would be very, very expensive. All you need now would be simply a vote by the Security Council or an international agreement with the United Nations that there should be an international court. But you wouldn't need to spend money setting up a court with simultaneous interpreters with an international search for judges, for lawyers, for prosecutors, for translators, for everything like that. That all re-exists. And as you have more and more international tribunals, the costs come down a lot. I can understand the point if it was made in 95. It is not true. On the question of evidence, that's already been collected by, in the first instance, Easty Most Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation. The key suspects have already been listed. If you look at Shager, the chapter eight, Appendix two and three will have all the key suspects. And there's also the work of the UN Series Crimes Unit. So there's no real problem with evidence. It's only a political consensus that needs to be created. The Truth and Friendship Commission or TFC, as we call it, is a joke and we call T-Mult-Fright Chicken, because it only had the power to recommend amnestiques. It couldn't focus on individuals, but on institutions, and it couldn't recommend criminal prosecutions. Despite that, despite all of that, the TFC recommended that no amnesty speak of them. So in that sense, it was positive. One of the bad things was that it focused only on 99, whereas the majority of crimes were committed between 75 and 99. It's as if somebody was trying to examine the Jewish death toll during World War II, and only focused on the last year of World War II, not the actual camps, where the genocide occurred. So there were lots of problems with the Truth and Friendship Commission, but even then, no amnestiques were recommended. But the real thing is, Shager has a recommendation for international tribunal. The recommendation 7.2 of Shager calls for an international tribunal, and that's what we should be supporting. You asked about the work of the Australian Coalition for Justice for East Timor. We basically have only two principles. The first one is educate, the second one is organize. And that's not just specific to Australia. Any activist who wants anything else is also going to have to educate and organize. So as far as the educational role is concerned, we've obviously made sure by working with the Balaboo movie and with various other projects and cases that have come up like the Maternist Barrier case. We've helped to educate a large proportion of opinion makers in Australia, and journalists, members of parliament, parliamentary committees, and so on, about the importance of justice. We're also trying to work with schools in order to make sure that there are courses on East Timor in schools in Australia. And the curriculum materials are all available, and any country, in fact, can use it, including East Timor, including Indonesia, because these have been translated into Indonesia. It's a very brief answer to what has actually been a lot of work over a few years. When it comes to organize, part of it is simply building networks. So when there's an issue that needs to be acted upon, we have any number of people who will volunteer to hold an event or write letters, and so on. Interestingly, it's not, for the most part, academics were involved in this issue. I happen to be an academic, but it's mostly other people in civil society. There's also development, unfortunately, many of them try to be very focused on their own projects, their own NGOs. They try and stay clear of issues like justice. Academics are obviously making their careers the centerpiece of their lives, and so they don't want to be involved in justice. There are, of course, exceptions. And so much of the support we receive, if you just come from what people would call the ordinary citizen.