Australians want 'sensitive' foreign policy in fear of reprisal

Prapti Widinugraheni Contributor Perth, Australia

Many Australians believe their government's unwavering support for the United States in the war on terrorism was a factor that led terrorists to target Bali, a popular tourist destination for Australians.

The public is still trying to come to terms with the devastating number of Australian casualties in the bombings over the weekend. But while everyone feels grief, there have been mounting discussions as to why the bombings occurred in one of the nightspots widely known as a popular hangout for Australians.

According to Rehame Australia, a media monitoring company that records calls from people wishing to express their views on talkback radio programs, in the last six weeks up to 60 percent of callers spoke against Australian involvement in any plans for a war against Iraq.

Matthew Mitchell, Rehame's media analysis manager, said the company's monitoring of radio stations across the country revealed that after the Bali bombings, people were mainly calling in an outpouring of grief over the incident.

More than 150 callers expressed deep concern about the Balinese being hurt and wanted to know that the Balinese will be looked after, he said.

About 260 of some 1,300 callers since the Bali bombings thought the federal government's foreign policy and its relation to the U.S. was the cause of the incident; more specifically, half of them believed the most damaging policy was the government's unconditional support for the U.S.

On Sunday, more than 30,000 people gathered in a Melbourne peace rally to voice opposition to Australia's involvement in any U.S.-led war against Iraq, chanting "No war for oil" and "Don't attack Iraq". Speakers voiced concern that such a war was about rhetoric, the U.S. position in the Middle East and oil.

It was just hours after the bombs had exploded in Bali and the speakers announced that the attacks reinforced the need for an approach to conflict resolution other than by violence and war. The bombings, they said, signaled a warning about the consequences of aggressive attitudes of world leaders. Prime Minister John Howard called the actions "barbaric, brutal mass murder without justification".

He has since announced a review of Australia's counter- terrorism laws, reinforcing Australia's commitment to the U.S.- led war against terrorism.

But some politicians are wary of Howard's position. A member of Western Australia's State Parliament from the Greens Party, Christine Sharp, said that far from wavering the Party's anti-war stance, the bombings have deepened it. The incident, she said, has given more reason to look deeper into the causes of such activities. "The Bali bombings show how appalling violence is as a way of making any political statement," she said.

"It's not only the question of why it is that people are led to such extreme acts of violence and hatred -- clearly there's always going to be extremists in all societies -- but how that can gain sufficient momentum and popular support in any particular country for it to be able to flourish," Sharp said.

"Australian foreign policy has been so unquestioning of the U.S.' position and that position seems to be so insensitive to the aspiration of Muslim people that in many ways we see a link between the two. The repercussion of the Bali bombing is not to question our stance against war, it is to deepen our concern about the direction of Australian policy," she said.

Sharp considered the notion of a war against terrorism to be an "oxymoron" because the only way to combat terrorism would be to have a stable and just world.

"Then terrorism can't take hold in different cultures because the basic social unrest that breeds it doesn't exist," she said. Sharp believed the bombings would bring Indonesians and Australians closer because it was a tragedy that killed many Indonesians and Australians alike.

Ian Chalmers, a lecturer at Curtin University of Technology's Indonesian Studies and Southeast Asian Politics, Perth, said the bombings were likely to change the nature of Australian and Indonesian relations.

"There will be heightened military influence and security in Indonesia, as it is in the military's interest to do so. The Indonesians might call for closer ties with Australia, particularly in the fields of military and defense, and Australia would say that they've been asked to help with this," he said.

But he said that tightened security might backfire because there was the possibility of radical Muslims claiming that they had been marginalized.

"Whatever the scenario, it will be years until the Indonesian society reaches an equilibrium. In the long run, there could be a stronger civil society and stronger state, both of which are favorable," he said, adding that this would differ from the days of Soeharto when Indonesia was a weak state, had no civil society and was led by authoritarian rule.

Alexey Muraviev, the co-director of International Relations and Global Security at Curtin University of Technology, said the nature of relations between the two countries depended on the Indonesian authorities' efforts to combat terrorism.

"If they fully cooperate and truly make efforts to combat terrorism, then that will improve bilateral relations. If, on the other hand, they seem to have a lack of interest to do so then it would have an impact on security relations," he said.

Muraviev believed that the Bali bombings could be categorized as "macro terrorism" and were similar to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in America.

"Old-fashioned terrorists, like the IRA in Ireland or separatists in Basque, Spain, in carrying out attacks would select targets, try to minimize damage, claim responsibility and make demands. In the WTC and Bali attacks, however, no political organization has claimed responsibility, the scale of disaster and number of casualties have been made as high as possible and the maximum damage of infrastructure ensured. These terrorists will use all means of warfare; today it might be a bomb, tomorrow, it might be weapons of mass destruction like anthrax," he said.