Australians want 'sensitive' foreign policy in fear of reprisal

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.