Indonesian perception of Australia: It really isn't a laughing matter<\/p>\n
S.P. SETH, Sydney<\/p>\n
In the last month or so, Indonesia has featured quite a few
\ntimes on prime-time Australian television. The context for these
\nstories has been terrorism in Indonesia, particularly with
\nreference to the Bali bombings. One of these programs was
\nrecorded in Jakarta with the participation of some high profile
\nIndonesian media personalities, including some Indonesian
\nstudents with Australia as their special subject. It was intended
\nto assess for the Australian audience back home Indonesian
\nperceptions of Australia around the anniversary of the first Bali
\nbombings.<\/p>\n
It was a good humored debate, with some Indonesian
\nparticipants taking a dig at Australia for its arrogance and
\ninsolence by stereotyping Indonesia as a terrorist territory,
\nwith its nearly 90 percent Muslim population. One intervention
\nwas particularly interesting, when someone pointed out how
\nrespectful Australia was toward Indonesia under the Soeharto
\nregime. When the Australian host of the program jokingly asked if
\nthis meant that Indonesians might like to revert back to those
\ntimes, everyone simply laughed it off.<\/p>\n
But it is not a laughing matter. Let us see why Soeharto had
\nto go. There were many reasons. But two stand out, in terms of
\nthe immediacy of his departure from power. First: there was the
\nAsian economic crisis of 1997\/98 which Soeharto could not
\novercome, as the West (International Monetary Fund et al.)
\nrefused to bail out his regime. Second: they would not do it
\n(except through the IMF austerity regime, making Indonesia an
\neconomic basket case) as Indonesia was no longer strategically as
\nimportant after the end of the Cold War.<\/p>\n
Imagine such a crisis at the height of the Cold War with the
\nprospects of communists, at home and abroad, exploiting it for
\npolitical and strategic gains. The U.S. would have done
\neverything to ward it off. There was no such strategic compulsion
\nfor the U.S. in the late 1990s. With Indonesia in economic and
\npolitical crisis, Soeharto had nowhere to go but quit to escape
\nbeing thrown out. And he wisely chose the former.<\/p>\n
But how is this related to the present situation? Like in the
\nCold War period when communism was the enemy, it is now
\nterrorism. In some ways, terrorism is even more pernicious
\nbecause it appears to be anywhere and everywhere. Its
\npractitioners are Muslim extremists, keen to blow up the world to
\ncreate a new paradise for those who share their beliefs.<\/p>\n
In this sense, they are self-appointed. And their natural
\nhomes are in predominantly Muslim countries. Among them Indonesia
\nhas the largest Muslim population in the world. It has Jamaah
\nIslamiyah, the ideological fountainhead of Indonesian and South
\nEast Asian extremism. The terrorists in Indonesia are real as
\nproven by the two Bali bombings, and other attacks at a hotel and
\nthe Australian embassy. Therefore, it is imperative that this
\ndanger be dealt with effectively.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has only recently transited into a democratic system
\nfrom a 30-year dictatorship. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has the
\ndistinction of being the first directly elected president after
\nthe long Soeharto tyranny. It is a great achievement in the
\ncountry's democratic functioning.<\/p>\n
The Soeharto oligarchy was a wasted period in political terms
\nbecause its very arbitrary nature did not allow a self-sustaining
\nlegitimate pluralist system to flower and mature. Since his
\npolitical demise, a pluralist political culture is growing to
\nprovide the foundations of a healthy constitutional and
\ninstitutional structure. It has a long way to go, though, before
\nit can withstand pressures to whittle or manipulate it.<\/p>\n
There is always a tendency, anywhere in the world, to find
\nshort cuts to deal with terrible times and crimes. It is
\nhappening in old democracies like Britain, the U.S. and
\nAustralia, where a panoply of antiterror laws to over-ride civil
\nliberties have been enacted. There is no convincing proof,
\nthough, that repressive laws will do the job of tackling
\nterrorism any better than the existing laws. But it is still
\nhappening.<\/p>\n
The only consolation, if at all, is that with older
\ndemocracies their institutional maturity, combined with public
\ndebate (even though constrained under new laws) provides some
\nchecks and balances. The new antiterror laws in countries
\nchampioning democracy for the world are a poor reflection on
\ntheir credentials, when their governments are prepared to abridge
\ntheir own democracy when faced with challenges.<\/p>\n
But for new democracies, like Indonesia, such short cuts are
\nperilous, because of the danger of relapsing into the dreaded old
\nsystem. The case in point is the presidential order to reactivate
\nthe TNI's old role to tackle internal security, such as
\nterrorism. As TNI chief Gen. Endriartono Sutarto said, \"we will
\nalso activate the territorial command up to the village level.\"<\/p>\n
As is well known, under Soeharto the Army's territorial role
\nwas mostly used to create a climate of fear, intimidation and
\npolitical repression. And that mind-set in the Army will take a
\nlong time to change.<\/p>\n
It is not suggested that Susilo has any dark political motives
\nbehind his order to involve the army in the fight against
\nterrorism. He is saddened and angry at the terrorist bombings for
\nits indiscriminate killings and for tarnishing Indonesia's
\ninternational image. And he apparently believes that the Army
\nwill do a better job of eliminating terrorism. But there is need
\nfor extreme caution, knowing that Soeharto used similar
\ninstrumentalities to deal with communism and communists, when an
\nestimated 500,000 so-called communists were eliminated. Indonesia
\nis still bearing the scars of it.<\/p>\n
Susilo is no Soeharto, and the times are now different. But
\nSusilo is under pressure by the United States and Australia to
\ntighten his country's antiterror regime, which will inevitably
\ncurtail civil liberties, leading to the use of arbitrary powers.<\/p>\n
Indonesia embarked on democracy when the Western countries
\nrefused to bale out the Soeharto regime during the Asian economic
\ncrisis. Now, as in their own countries, they are pressuring
\nIndonesia's new democracy to curtail, if not reverse the process.<\/p>\n
In an earlier era, during the Cold War, Soeharto's anti-
\ncommunist credentials and crusade won him support and plaudits
\nfrom the United States and Australia. Today, Susilo is being cast
\nin the role of a fighter against global terrorism in his country.
\nHow this will square with Indonesia's nascent democracy would
\nremain to be seen!<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance writer based in Sydney.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesian-perception-of-australia-it-really-isnt-a-laughing-matter-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }