Indonesia's critics are also its friends<\/p>\n
By Damien Kingsbury<\/p>\n
VICTORIA, Australia (JP): Australia's relations with Indonesia
\nhas been marked by disagreements and mutual suspicion, only
\nsometimes leavened with gestures of generosity and goodwill. The
\ndisagreements and suspicion have largely come about from each
\nbeing less than frank, and then later wondering why matters were
\nnot more clear.<\/p>\n
Despite the apparent rapprochement between Australia and
\nIndonesia during the Keating era, the substance of that
\nrelationship was predicated on a series of false assumptions.<\/p>\n
One assumption was that, as a fait accompli, East Timor had
\nbecome a legitimate part of Indonesia. Another assumption was
\nthat Indonesia would retain a political process dominated by
\nSoeharto or a presidential facsimile thereof.<\/p>\n
Yet another assumption was that personal and patron-client
\nrelations were appropriate to both the functioning of Indonesia's
\ngovernment and to the bilateral relationship. And a final
\nassumption was that those who were not in favor of the status quo
\nwere, in Indonesia, \"bad\" Indonesians or, in Australia, \"enemies\"
\nof Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Since the fall of Soeharto, the deterioration of the bilateral
\nrelationship was largely due to the failure of these assumptions.<\/p>\n
Yet at a time when both countries are trying to rebuild
\nrelations, there are moves to return to these past false
\nassumptions.<\/p>\n
As reported by Peter Kerr in The Jakarta Post in his article
\non April 6, a two day conference on the bilateral relationship
\nin Jakarta recently was told that, should Labor win government
\nlater this year, Australia would return to its previous foreign
\npolicy position.<\/p>\n
According to Kerr, the ALP's Kevin Rudd told the conference:
\n\"When Labor wins the election there will be regional engagement:
\nEvanism, Keatingism, Hawkism all wrapped together ... We'll find
\nsome different wrapping paper but essentially that will be it.\"<\/p>\n
Regional engagement is desirable, especially after the flat-
\nfootedness of the Coalition in regional affairs. But \"Evanism,
\nKeatingism, Hawkism\" speaks of a type of engagement that led to
\nthe East Timor debacle, not to mention support for the deeply
\ncorrupt and often brutal Soeharto regime.<\/p>\n
As Kerr noted, Rudd might yet have to convince probable future
\nforeign minister, Laurie Brereton, of the value of retreating to
\nthis position.<\/p>\n
Yet that one of Labor's rising stars, notably in the foreign
\npolicy field, should support this view indicated that at least
\nsome understanding of contemporary Indonesian politics stopped at
\nthe front door of the conference venue, Jakarta's Centre for
\nStrategic and International Studies.<\/p>\n
A future Australian government is likely to want to initiate
\ngreater links between the two countries, including leadership
\nvisits both to Jakarta and Canberra.<\/p>\n
But ignoring the evolving political landscape of the
\narchipelago would be folly of potentially catastrophic
\nproportions.<\/p>\n
An Australian government need not endorse the dissolution of
\nIndonesia to recognize that its long term future as a unitary
\nstate is less than completely assured. Like the changed situation
\nin East Timor, where would Australia be, after years of loudly
\nendorsing the unitary state, if it becomes a federated state, or
\na collection of loosely linked independent states? Successive
\nAustralian governments have claimed that speaking too loudly on
\nhuman rights is counter-productive.<\/p>\n
Perhaps speaking too loudly in favor of the status quo might,
\nas it was with Soeharto, also come to be counter-productive.<\/p>\n
Kerr reported Australia National University's academic
\nEmeritus Professor Jamie Mackie telling the conference there had
\nbeen a shift in the balance \"between the friends of Indonesia and
\nwhat I would not call the enemies of Indonesia, but the critics\".<\/p>\n
Mackie's use of the terms \"friends\" and \"not enemies, but
\ncritics\" of Indonesia recalled the logic of the Soeharto era, in
\nwhich dissenters were referred as \"bad Indonesians\". Australian
\ncritics of the Soeharto regime were similarly referred to as
\n\"Indonesia's enemies\". This recalls the \"integralist\", or
\nfascist, demand that citizens not question the state.<\/p>\n
Yet in the post-Soeharto era such \"bad Indonesians\" have been
\nat the forefront of the reform movement, even at the CSIS. Having
\nattended the Jakarta conference and spent time elsewhere, I found
\na greater congruence between the views of ordinary Indonesians
\nand Australia's critics of a still fractious military and the
\ncountry's corrupt, self-serving elite.<\/p>\n
Contrary to Mackie's assumption, one may be a critic of
\nIndonesia's -- or Australia's -- government or institutions
\nwhile retaining concern and friendship for its people.<\/p>\n
Kerr also quoted Murdoch University's Professor Richard
\nRobison as saying that finding a \"new paradigm\" for bilateral
\nrelations \"should be easier now that we have a commonality in
\ndemocracy.\" This may be, but definitions of \"democracy\" (e.g.
\n\"Guided Democracy\", \"Pancasila Democracy\") in Indonesia can
\nquickly slide into meaninglessness.<\/p>\n
Australia and Indonesia must move forward, not backwards, and
\nhave broad rather than narrow, non-critical definitions of
\n\"friendship\". But above all, both Indonesia and Australia's
\nrelationship with it will progress or fail on calling
\ndevelopments as they are, not as our respective elites would like
\nthem, often disingenuously, to be portrayed.<\/p>\n
Dr Damien Kingsbury is senior lecturer in international
\ndevelopment at Deakin University (dlk@deakin.edu.au) in Victoria,
\nAustralia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesias-critics-are-also-its-friends-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}