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.