Australia's post-Bali tragedy rethink

Australia's post-Bali tragedy rethink

Felix Soh, Deputy Editor Strait Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

Sometimes tempestuous, always prickly, invariably adversarial
and never comfortable. Such is the nature of Australia's
relations with countries in Southeast Asia which, with perhaps
the exception of Singapore, resembles a series of bumps on a
winding highway.

Of course, the 'insensitive' utterances of politicians in the
robust game of Aussie-rule politics do not help. They never fail
to ruffle South-east Asian feathers even though their intended
audience is the Australian electorate, not Asians.

Somehow, Asian leaders and commentators never seem to
appreciate this. The latest Australian barb is Prime Minister
John Howard's comment, made under domestic political duress, that
he was prepared to order pre-emptive strikes on Asian soil to
prevent terror attacks against Australia. His remarks, which drew
predictable fire from the region, reflects the love-loathe
relationship between Australia and Southeast Asia. It is a kind
of geopolitical schizophrenia.

A love-loathe relationship between Australia and Southeast
Asia prevails despite the increased contacts. The reality is
that for Southeast Asian countries, Australia both attracts and
repels. Similarly, for Australia, the region also attracts and
repels.

There is a heavy flow of Asian students and tourists Down
Under. In the reverse direction, thousands of Australians work in
Asia. And for Australians living in the west and north of the
country, travelling to Bali and the region is nearer, cheaper and
more exotic than to the capital Sydney. Also, strife or no
strife, trade links are strong. Half of Australia's exports go to
Asia and half of its imports come from Asia. But despite the
constant interaction and Australia's increasing multi-ethnicity,
there is undoubtedly a clash of cultures and values. It is a case
of being so close, yet so far.

Remember how the Ray Bans worn by Australian peacekeeping
troops in East Timor in 1999 created a furore because they were
considered offensive? It was rude and arrogant not to show the
eyes, the Indonesians complained. Timor was a watershed event in
Australia's ties with the region's biggest country. Its military
intervention to halt bloodshed and violence by Indonesian-backed
militia has neither been forgotten nor forgiven by Indonesians -
and other Asians.

Filipino political analyst Rizal Buendia perceives Australia
as the surrogate of Western power and interests in the region.
"Australia is culturally different and Southeast Asian countries
should not expect it to comprehend the deeper meaning of regional
solidarity and unity as understood by the region," he says.

His view is that Australia will always be more interested in
protecting its own interests than aligning them with those of the
region.

Buendia pointed out how Australia just watched passively as
crisis after crisis unfolded in the region right under its nose.
Another event more significant than East Timor has sparked off a
reexamination of Australia's place in the region - the Bali
nightclub bombing of Oct 12 which killed about 190 people. Ninety
of the victims were Australians.

If Australia's engagement with Southeast Asia were difficult
before, it would be even tougher in the post-Bali period. There
is already a build-up of tension and friction over the manner in
which it is conducting its war against terrorism - as the flap
over Howard's 'first strike' comment demonstrates.

Where does the problem lie? What are the answers?

Get rid of three issues which are a waste of time, exhorts
Prof. Anthony Milner, dean of Asian Studies at the Australian
National University, who is helping to shape new thinking on how
Australia should engage Southeast Asia in the post-Bali era.

Firstly, don't waste time arguing whether Australia is an
Asian country. It has a significant Asian population, but its
dominant value system and institutions give Australia an
unmistakeable European stamp.

Secondly, drop the debate about whether Asia could be anything
other than Australia's defining priority. "It will never be our
only concern but, living where we do in this world, the Asian
region has to be our special challenge and our special
opportunity," comments Milner.

Thirdly, it is not realistic to suggest that there can be a
choice between Australia's alliance with the U.S. and its
engagement with Asia.

The issue to focus on, he adds, is how best Australia can make
the alliance assist its regional objectives and how most
effectively Australia can make its Asian relations enhance its
strength within the alliance itself.

This 'plus' factor is acknowledged by former Indonesian
ambassador to Australia, Sabam Siagian, who says that Canberra's
government analysts are more sensitive to Indonesia than
Washington.

"Canberra has more depth in analysing the Indonesian situation
and can provide Washington with a more nuanced view of
Indonesia," Sabam, a veteran journalist, notes.

Still, Prof. Milner recognises that Australia is often pushing
uphill in Asia because its history makes it open to the criticism
that Australians take a superior colonial approach and that they
do not respect other societies. On the other hand, Southeast
Asians are not entirely blameless. Australians are irked by
Asean's refusal to allow their country to join the grouping as a
summit partner during the 'ASEAN Plus' dialogues.

In the face of these challenges, what should Australia do? An
immediate imperative is for Australia's leaders to watch their
tongues. It is a known fact that Australians are straight
talkers. And they are admired for this trait in their national
character. But, still, loquacious politicians must exercise more
sensitivity to regional feelings.

Even if it goes against their liberal democracy grain, they
must make the effort to be more responsible in their public
statements. They need to brush up on Southeast Asia 101. If
Australia wants to enter the conversation of the region, as Prof.
Milner puts it, then its leaders must speak the right language.

Adds Sabam: "It is the job of the political leadership on both
sides to manage their relationship with strategic goals in mind."

Australia can learn from the experience of Japan. Nobody can
beat the Japanese when it comes to historical baggage in
Southeast Asia. Yet, despite the bitter memories of their
brutality during World War II, the Japanese has succeeded in
engaging the region.

"Like the Japanese in the 1970s, when they learnt how potent
historical memories can be, we will gain much from the
sophisticated private diplomacy of a range of institutions and
foundations," said Milner.

In assessing its resources for engagement with Asia, Australia
needs to count on the regional networking skills of such
organisations as Asialink, the Asia-Australia Institute and
others. Ultimately, Australia's geography is its destiny. Like it
or not, its neighbourhood is Southeast Asia. It has no choice but
to press on.