His experience is not so foreign to that of modern Israel — commitments broken, an inert international community in the face of onslaught, independence only achieved after military trauma. All of which might explain why the Nobel Laureate Foreign Minister of the new state has sympathy for Israel’s position, an unsentimental appreciation of political realities, and a distaste for humbug about multilateral panaceas and catch phrases. He makes as much a point of taking third world leaders to task for their hypocrisies as he does Western leaders.

Dressed in comfortable tunic rather than business suit, Ramos-Horta sits down, willing to discuss any matter I might choose. I raise his support for the Anglo-American-Australian campaign in Iraq, where his views are as forthright as his eagerness to avoid pigeon holing is apparent.

In a New York Times opinion piece last February, Ramos-Horta criticised the antiwar movement for risking contributing to "the peace of the dead" by attempting to dissuade the US from using force to remove a savage regime. He also urged more time for UN inspectors, despite pessimism as to their prospects of success. He does not resile from a word of it.

"Well, first I have to clarify that my opinion piece in The New York Times was read and misread by whoever wants to misread. Any careful reading of my article would not suggest that I endorse a war as a first option. I oppose wars, any war. However, I’m also realistic and too cynical about the world [not] to acknowledge and to remember that there are times when the use of force was necessary in the past and might be necessary in the future.

"I didn’t say in the article that war, military intervention in Iraq, was the best option. I argued with those who opposed war period. I argued that sometimes regrettably, the use of force is necessary to end a despotic regime that commits genocide."

Regarding more time for UN inspectors, Ramos-Horta concedes that it was "highly unlikely" that Saddam would resign voluntarily and go into exile. He explains the resultant dilemma that would have then faced the world. "Should we let matters stand as they are in terms of allowing a despotic regime to continue? Hundreds of thousands died in his hands, either because of the wars he unleashed on his neighbours, on Iran and then Kuwait, or through the mass killings that he orchestrated. I regret to say that in the case of Iraq, I did not see any peaceful alternative to bring to an end the ugly regime."

The war itself was fought with far less loss of life on all sides than was anticipated by its many opponents, freeing millions. But Ramos-Horta says the Timorese experience of being abandoned by the world to the whims of the former Indonesian regime "only partly" explains his position.

"One question I put to people who oppose wars, any war, is: should the rest of the world have surrendered to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Because, based on our belief that we should not use force, we should surrender. Should we have, the rest of the world, the US in particular let the Third Reich live a thousand years and completely wipe out the Jews? Closer to our times, was it right that the world did nothing when the despotic regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its people? And was it wrong that Vietnam — whatever its motives, I don’t care — unilaterally intervened in ’79, ousting the Pol Pot regime and saving hundreds of thousands of people?"

But what, I ask, has fuelled this popular international trend opposing Western military intervention, even though it means leaving despots in place and permitting massacres and injustices to continue unchecked?

"Well, there are a number of reasons why people are opposed to war. For some it is a matter of their own belief, a matter of their own incredulity or their own disbelief, lack of faith, of trust, in the governments of the day. And unfortunately, many governments in the West do not inspire confidence because of years and years of misinformation and deceit, of selectivity. And second, there are people who genuinely oppose war of any sort. We can respect that, although we could say it is naiveté."

"But there are others who have a political agenda of their own. They oppose the US, no matter. The US tried to do some good, they will immediately look into it and find some sinister motives for such US involvement. I will give you an example. Did anyone thank the US for ending the Balkan wars? Did the Muslim world thank the US and the UK for saving the Muslims of central Europe, saving the Muslims of Kosovo?

"If the US had not intervened, they would have been savaged by everyone. The liberals would accuse them of hypocrisy, and the Muslims would have accused them of racism and ignoring a Muslim minority. But when they intervene, again outside the Security Council, in the case of Kosovo, they were accused again of unilateralism.

"There are some individuals, Marxists, former Stalinists, who do not forgive the US, and no matter what the US does. Of course," cautions Ramos-Horta, "the US itself is not a benign power. It cannot wipe out its own history of collusion with all kinds of dictators throughout its history, it cannot simply wipe out decades of interventionist policy which had absolutely nothing to do with exporting democracy and freedom but rather had more to do with mercantile calculations, or cynical cold-blooded Cold War rhetoric."

When I suggest that choosing between violent regimes is a special dilemma, citing Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, Ramos-Horta does not concede the point. Instead, he does something more surprising, which is to demolish the oft-heard canard that US administrations actually supported Saddam Hussein when it suited them.

"There is very little truth in that. First, throughout the Ba’ath Party rule, from the very beginning, it sided with the Soviet Union. Both Iraq and Syria developed close relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba. The Soviet Union provided almost up to 70 to 80 per cent of Iraq’s weapons needs. The rest was provided by France.

"Until recently," continues Ramos-Horta, "60 per cent of the weapons purchased by Iraq were supplied by Russia, 20 percent by France and the rest by different countries like China and so on. The UK comes very low, one percent, and US almost none, actually none. And although politically, the US took great pleasure Iraq and Iran slaughtering each other, therefore weakening each other — and its obviously true that the US back then was much more sympathetic to Iraq for purely pragmatic reasons — it did not really side with one or the other.

"And let us not forget that the non-aligned countries, of which the two countries are members, Iraq and Iran, neither the Islamic Conference nor the Arab League were able to help bring about peace between the two countries. So I find sometimes a bit too cynical and misguided for people to say well the US supported Iraq in the war against Iran."

"I congratulate the two sides, the Israelis and Palestinians, that have had the courage to try to finally end the war," he adds, referring to the "Roadmap".

"I hope that the Israelis and the Palestinians can bury the hatred, the division and build a permanent peace. It’s not going to be easy, obviously. I think we just have to be very sober and realistic that there will be extremists on both sides, the Israeli side and the Palestinian side, who will try to derail the peace process. Let’s remember it was not a Palestinian who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, it was a deranged Israeli citizen."

But Ramos-Horta also shows awareness of the prevalence of extremism on the Palestinian side. "I would urge Arabs, including Palestinian and Muslim leaders, not only in the Middle East but around the world, to please cease instigating hatred of Jews, hatred of Christians and of the West in general.

"Where in the thousands of Islamic schools and textbooks around the world, children are taught, indoctrinated against Christianity, against Jews, against the West, we should not be surprised that later on we have so much hatred and misunderstanding. Is it surprising that, following the September 11 terrorist bombing in New York and the Bali bombing, some individuals in the Arab and Muslim worlds were attributing these terrorist bombings to some American CIA or Israeli conspiracy?

"I would urge the Palestinians to ban the books, the texts that instigate hatred of Israel, Jews and others, otherwise, they will perpetuate this state of war, they will perpetuate this state of hatred, for many more generations to come."

Challenged that Abu Mazen has indicated that he will not militarily crack down on the terrorist movements, Ramos-Horta responds, "Well, we have to be sympathetic to the extreme difficulties that the Prime Minister might face in really dismantling the Palestinian terrorist organisations. He must try to do it, he must be helped, but let us not blame them entirely if they do not succeed."

"Granted that his task is very difficult," I start, "but when at the same time he indicates that he will not actually dismantle the groups…" But Ramos-Horta cavils.