Wed, 06 Oct 1999

Australian media lacks insight into Indonesian affairs

By Sukawarsini Djelantik

CANBERRA (JP): The relationship between Indonesia and Australia can be compared to a roller coaster, because of its cyclic nature of difficulties. Since the East Timor self- determination ballot was held on Aug. 30 this roller coaster has been at its lowest level. The sharp turn happened after Australia declared it was deploying troops from Darwin.

Several factors have caused the ups and downs of the Indonesia-Australia relationship, the primary factor since 1975 being the East Timor issue. The second factor is social and political unrest, together with the economic situation, which has been widely covered by the Australian media.

No one would argue about the present significant role of the mass media, especially in an industrial country like Australia. Public opinion on the East Timor issue has heightened anti- Indonesian, and especially anti-"Javanese" sentiments.

The Australian media has often presented the current regime as Javanese. They obviously have a lack of knowledge about the multiethnic composition of Indonesia which means that the Indonesian Military (TNI) troops in East Timor were not identical to the Javanese.

Anti-Indonesian sentiment in Australia is not only growing among bluecollar workers but has even spread to whitecollar workers. The strong role of the Australian Trade Union has significant influence on the Australian government.

Coupled with the cooperation of the media, they both could become a pressure group lobbying decision makers at government level.

Ordinary people cannot distinguish between good and responsible officers and the corrupt ones in TNI. Neither can Australians distinguish between TNI and corrupted officers and apolitical civilians.

Some cases have shown that Australians stereotype all Indonesians as killers and looters who deserve condemnation. This generalization is caused by both a lack of understanding and an uninformative background, especially in relation to the Indonesian political system.

Unfortunately this lack of information is also apparent among the editors and journalists of the Australian media. The two countries' media differences became more obvious during the New Order regime when the government applied a strong suppression of the media.

The David Jenkins Affair in 1986 became a classic example of the role of the media in the formulation of government Policy. After Jenkins' article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald daily, ties between Indonesia and Australia declined sharply. It took a long time and tireless efforts of the two countries' diplomats to return the relationship to normal.

Currently, the widespread coverage of East Timor and Indonesia by the Australian mass media show how they have shaped public opinion against Indonesia.

The coverage is usually biased, unbalanced, and more pro-East Timorese. They fail to view the East Timor issue within a broader political context. There are factions within TNI, as well as the struggles for power, which have never been explained to the Australian public.

Television interviewers usually side with the proindependence group and support the "East Timor lobby".

Australian leaders like John Howard and Alexander Downer at the earlier stages of the conflict tried to give more diplomatic and "neutral" comments on the issues.

Yet journalists cornered both of them into giving strong comments and making condemnations, which has led to growing anti- Indonesian sentiments in Australia. This attitude could explain the actions of the Indonesian envoy to Australia, Wiryono Sastrohandoyowho, who had just ended his term when he walked out of an interview at one of the Australian TV commercial stations in early September.

Ever since the reform movement took place in Indonesia, the Australian media has covered the social and political unrest triggered by the economic crisis. The ongoing crisis has been viewed as TNI's failure to overcome unrest, causing the further decline of TNI's image in Australia.

The Australian public believes that TNI stands behind the prointegration militias of East Timor who are at war with the proindependence militias. As a whole, the standing of the Indonesian government within the international community has declined sharply. Those bad images bring uneasiness to Indonesians living abroad, especially those in Australia.

Australia is worried that the civil war in East Timor will have direct and indirect implications for Australia. Therefore, days before the popular consultation was held, Australia, through Defense Minister John Moore, stated that Australia was ready to deploy its troops in Darwin within 24 hours. Some staff of the United Nations Mission in East Timor are Australians and the government is obliged to protect its citizens.

However, many Indonesians feel that such statements indicate Australia's arrogance. The situation was worsened by media coverage, which eventually resulted in negative responses from both sides.

The unbalanced reporting contributed to demonstrations and flag burning incidents, both in Australia and in Indonesia. Banning of Indonesian goods in Australia followed. However, all these demonstrations have been too emotional and out of context, as well as destructive and ineffective. These demonstrators seem to have forgotten that previous crises in Australia-Indonesia relations, have only been temporary. Therefore it is important to restrict ourselves from actions which might be regretted in the future.

Indonesians' protests were derived from the Australian government's "double face" policy with regard to East Timor: while the Australian government had previously recognized Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor, its public were more supportive towards the East Timorese struggle movement.

However, geographic proximity makes two countries neighbors forever. It is thus most important to prevent the implications of the crisis broadening into other issues.

The Indonesia-Australia relationship is not limited to just the East Timor issue. There are other issues of economic, political, social, and cultural importance.