Australia's election: Impacts on Indonesia

Rob Goodfellow, Cross-cultural Specialist, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Alison Battisson, Independent Researcher, Jakarta

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hassan Wirajuda, announced that Indonesia would hold an international conference to discuss ways to curb the flow of illegal immigrants, his initiative was met with complete silence from the Australian government, which on Nov. 10 successfully won an election campaign predominantly on border protection issues.

Conservative-minded voters across the country were completely distracted from the issues of health, education, and a lack of infrastructure facilities in small towns and villages.

Their overwhelming concern, thanks to an influx of Afghani asylum seekers, was an ancient fear of our near north -- Asia. Prime Minister John Howard's uncompromising position was an election winner in a contest that promised to be very close, but in the end was decisive for the ruling party. Unfortunately Howard's policy of turning back asylum seekers is no solution at all. The Labor Opposition leader Kim Beazley made this point consistently during the campaign.

What for instance was the Prime Minister thinking last month by sending off Ministers Peter Reith, Phillip Ruddock and Alexander Downer (respectively in charge of defense, immigration and foreign affairs) for a three hour meeting in Jakarta, in which they suggested a detention center be built on Indonesian territory to deal with Australia's refugee problems?

What benefit was that to Indonesia? And what was Howard thinking when he failed to support the delicate position the Indonesian government was in over "the war on terror", by making very public demands on what Indonesia should and should not do, rather than advocating privately with the United States for a better understanding of Indonesia's dilemma?

The question is, would a Beazley Labor Government (ALP) have done any better? And can Howard now change his policy towards Indonesian from the comfort of a strong majority government?

There is no doubt that Labor had a clear policy of wanting to work co-operatively with Indonesia. What distinguished the ALP from the conservative Liberal Party in the campaign was that Howard saw Indonesia as part of Australia's problem, Beazley saw dialog with Indonesia as essential to long term border protection, regional security and prosperity. Further, although rhetoric, Beazley evoked the language of diplomatic engagement dormant since Keating's Foreign Minister Gareth Evans.

In the national televised debate, at the ALP campaign launch, and through the platform of numerous policy statements, Beazley consistently advanced the idea of a bilateral dialog with Indonesia built on interpersonal and professional relationships, at the level of government, the civil service and the military.

Beazley appeared to understand that what Australia needed was a real solution to the issue of asylum seekers that is both practical, effective and humane, not the "deputy sheriff", crisis management, ad hoc, and extremely costly approach of the Prime Minister John Howard.

To his credit Beazley was at pains to point out that any "solution" to the issue of asylum seekers that does not involve the full co-operation of Indonesia is no solution at all.

Interviewed in Sydney last month the newly appointed Indonesian envoy to Australia Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat, suggested that such a process of engagement was not complicated.

It was just that there was a particular way of going about it. It was, according to the Ambassador, simply a matter of "determining how as neighbors we can help each other, and then finding the most appropriate process to facilitate this".

The question is, will a third Howard government have the foreign policy acumen to be able to secure Indonesia's full cooperation over border protection and then trade this off against a number of pressing needs President Megawati Soekarnoputri now finds herself confronted with?

For example this week the Indonesian leader expressed her concern over the possibility of foreign investors leaving Indonesia for security reasons. Megawati suggested Indonesia remained in dire need of foreign assistance, despite the country's wish to be self-reliant in raising development funds.

The head of state pointed out that foreign capital was badly needed for natural resources development and for generating new job opportunities.

As the only Western nation in the region, Australia is in a unique position to advocate as a neighbor and a friend for Indonesia in the areas of foreign aid and debt relief, to strengthen the institutions of democratic and secular government, to support Indonesia's territorial integrity and unity, to provide post-graduate education in every discipline, to assist with urban and telecommunications infrastructure improvement, with good governance programs, and corporate restructuring, (particularly in the wake of the disastrous Asian economic monetary crisis of 1997).

In terms of realpolitik the dynamic would then be for Indonesia to say, "thanks for the assistance, what can we now do for you in return?" (In Indonesian,membalas budi).

What Labor is suggesting is that not only can Indonesia stop the flow of most asylum seekers, but can also advocate on behalf of Australia in terms of regional trade opportunities, for example for expanded markets for our highly efficient food- producing sector. On the evidence thus far the Conservatives still do not understand that Indonesia needs a friend in the region, just as much as Australia does.

Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald last week, former prime minister Paul Keating observed that when a nation's leader changes, the country changes. Implicitly Keating was suggesting that the deterioration in Australia's relations with Indonesia can be dated from his electoral defeat in 1996, and is consequently the result of the low premium his successor places on regional diplomatic imperatives.

The question is, will there be a change in official Australian attitudes towards Indonesia; the answer is, there has to be.