RI, Australia need cooperation and agreement<\/p>\n
By Damien Kingsbury<\/p>\n
MELBOURNE (JP): It is clear, despite the goodwill on the part
\nof many people on both sides, that there continues to be
\nconsiderable misunderstanding about the causes and solutions to
\nthe difficulties in Australia and Indonesia's bilateral
\nrelationship. Central to the problem is, of course, the issue of
\nEast Timor and Australia's role there, especially in the
\nInternational Force for East Timor (Interfet).<\/p>\n
To repeat, while Australia obviously had a major interest in
\nthe resolution of the uncontrolled violence in East Timor
\nfollowing the Aug. 30 ballot on self-determination, Interfet was
\nmandated under the auspices of the United Nations. It was and
\nremains a multinational force, comprising representatives of
\nseveral nations under the control of the peak world body.<\/p>\n
But it is correct to say that Australian Prime Minister John
\nHoward has not always spoken in ways designed to calm the
\nrelationship. For that matter, neither has President Abdurrahman
\nWahid. Both politicians have been appealing to domestic political
\nor "nationalist" sentiment.<\/p>\n
This is an indictment of them both.<\/p>\n
Ikrar Nusa Bhakti laments Australia not being a good friend of
\nIndonesia in bad times in his article (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 9).
\nHis view is perhaps understandable, but I believe he is
\nmistaken.<\/p>\n
The concerns expressed in Australia about Indonesia's
\ninvolvement in East Timor were directed first and foremost at the
\nIndonesian Military (TNI) and its role in supporting the militias
\nthere. It does not matter what the generals say; I saw
\ncollaboration between TNI and the militias when I was there as a
\nballot monitor.<\/p>\n
Most Indonesian citizens now regard TNI's involvement in
\npolitics and its heavy-handed approach to "security" as a
\nproblem needing to be dealt with. Yet, when TNI is criticized for
\nthis from Australia, some of these very same people become
\ndefensive and "nationalistic". This seems contradictory.<\/p>\n
Ikrar makes a number of claims against Australia. To set the
\nrecord straight, while the Australian government might have been
\n"accused" of having intelligence agents in the United Nations
\nMission in East Timor (UNAMET), it was not shown to be true.
\nThere were a couple of Australian UNAMET staff with intelligence
\nexperience from when they were in the army. This is common and
\ndoes not imply they were active in intelligence gathering. But
\nthen, the TNI's chief military liaison officer, Maj. Gen. Zacky
\nAnwar Makarim, was also chief of intelligence before returning to
\nEast Timor, while many other TNI personnel there were continuing
\nin an "intelligence" capacity.<\/p>\n
Ikrar also claims that Australian UNAMET staff members were
\nnot neutral in the conducting of the ballot. I coordinated a
\nlarge team of ballot monitors in East Timor, and the reports from
\nall of them on UNAMET showed its conduct to be exemplary. TNI and
\npro-Jakarta forces of course claimed otherwise, as they needed to
\nrationalize their overwhelming rejection by the East Timorese.<\/p>\n
Many Australians in UNAMET had private views on the ballot,
\nbut this did not influence their professional behavior.
\nUnfortunately, the same could not be said for TNI or, in many
\ncases, the National Police, which as I saw were active in trying
\nto subvert the process and outcome of the ballot. UNAMET did not
\nkill or rape people, or burn their homes.<\/p>\n
Ikrar expressed concern about Australian unions boycotting
\nIndonesian ships and aircraft. As he would know, the unions in
\nAustralia are free and not controlled by the government. Those
\nsame unions also supported Indonesian independence in 1945. They
\nwere not controlled then either.<\/p>\n
Most Australians recognize that Indonesia is undergoing a
\ndifficult transition from authoritarianism to democracy. But that
\ndoes not mean Australia should censor its views when
\nauthoritarianism again rears its ugly head. To the contrary! If
\nsome Indonesians shift their attitudes from being anti to
\npromilitary as a result, it is only they who suffer the
\nconsequences of their shortsighted actions.<\/p>\n
But underneath it all bilateral relations are not as parlous
\nas many portray them. Indonesian students still study in
\nAustralia -- without harm or harassment. AusAID still provides
\nfunding to Indonesian aid projects and scholarships. The
\nAustralia Indonesia Institute still provides grants to enhance
\nbilateral understanding. And those Australians who were concerned
\nabout military involvement in East Timor are also concerned about
\ncontinuing military involvement in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Soon the Interfet will be replaced by another UN military
\nmission. As East Timor has reverted to UN supervision, it will
\nnot be up to Indonesia to determine who is involved in this
\nmission. The views of the East Timorese may, however, be taken
\ninto account, and they have said they do not want Malaysian
\nleadership of the UN forces. If Australia continues to play a
\nrole under UN auspices in East Timor, this should not be seen as
\na threat to Indonesia, as Indonesia has formally severed
\nits links with the territory. If Australia wishes to play a
\ncontinuing role in East Timor, it is because of its geographic
\nproximity and what is perceived to be its long-standing debt to
\nthe East Timorese.<\/p>\n
But perhaps what is most disturbing about Ikrar's comments is
\nthat, in order to mend Australian-Indonesian relations, he
\nsuggests that Australia should "appease" Indonesia. "Appeasement"
\nis an unfortunate word, as it implies calming a potential
\naggressor by making concessions.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has not been aggressive toward Australia in any way
\nthat ordinary Australians would worry about, although its
\nmilitary has in East Timor. Australia -- and the world -- is not
\nlikely to want to calm Indonesian sensitivities by making
\nconcessions to TNI's role in East Timor.<\/p>\n
It is now widely accepted in Australia that its past policy of
\nbuilding good relations with Indonesia was based on "appeasement"
\nand this was a fundamental mistake. It allowed many Indonesians
\nto believe that Australians did not genuinely object to certain
\nproblems, prime among which was the invasion and continued
\noccupation of East Timor. To appease is to not be genuine in
\ndealing with the relationship.<\/p>\n
What we really need to is work on our continuing areas of
\nagreement and cooperation, and to attempt to resolve or set aside
\nthose issues about which we might disagree. Within the framework
\nof two mature political societies, disagreement is sometimes an
\nacceptable outcome. Even the best of friends cannot be expected
\nto agree on everything all the time.<\/p>\n
The writer is executive officer of the Monash Asia Institute,
\nMonash University.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-australia-need-cooperation-and-agreement-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}