Changing perceptions of Australia post-Corby trial

Changing perceptions of Australia post-Corby trial

Wimar Witoelar, Jakarta

As the Schapelle Corby case enters a new phase with the
possibility of inviting new witnesses, again Australians are
mulling over the question of bilateral relationships with
Indonesia. The Corby case is not a case of bilateral
relationships, but the sad story of an individual. Yet many
refuse to accept the independence of the two aspects, and
perception of Indonesia shifts among parts of the Australian
public.

Perception depends more on the subject than the object.
Australian perceptions of Asia are based on its insecurity, not
on the realities in the Asian countries. This was illustrated in
a profound and humorous way by Prof. David Reeve in his opening
address at the ASILE 2005 conference in Perth. This article is
based on a keynote address at that conference.

ASILE is the Australian Society of Indonesian Language
Educators and they have a great interest in maintaining and
improving understanding between the countries. They tend to think
very kindly of Indonesia, but Prof. Reeve was giving a
presentation on how the wider public in Australia thought of Asia
since the 19th century.

Just as H.G. Wells showed aliens as monsters in 1898,
Australian political cartoonists in the past depicted various
Asian peoples in the same way. It was more a revelation of
Australian insecurities, as Indonesian perception of Australia is
based on popular fears and myths. Social and political changes in
1999-2005 are changing our perception of Australia because our
confidence as Indonesians is growing. The new perception would
gain momentum if the changes in Indonesia -- and the extent of
our challenges -- were more widely appreciated among the
Australian public.

Self-images of nations have long become stereotypes. The
Netherlands feels small and insecure in relation to Germany,
Germany knows it is strong but is insecure about world
perception. Denmark feels small, Sweden feels responsible.
Singapore feels efficient, Indonesia feels unsuccessful. Feelings
of international injustice overshadow actual world views which
are generally non-existent in the vast majority of Indonesian
people. National consciousness fluctuates between an inferiority
complex and xenophobic nationalism. A new core is emerging but it
takes time to change the national psyche.

Australia is blessed with resources and prosperity and there
is much to admire in that country. Working relationships are
easily sustainable based on this respect, but emotional affinity
is ruled by symbols and random incidents. As the woman asked her
boyfriend: "It's good to be a loyal fan of the Red Sox (American
baseball team), but have they ever loved you back?"

Sections of Australian society do love Indonesia and vice
versa. It is not easy to imagine the triggers for animosity, but
discomfort always pervades in the relationship. As we cannot
aggregate individual feelings, we do not know how Indonesia sees
Australia. We are not even sure how we see ourselves. We can only
single out changes that have happened in Indonesia, and how these
changes pave the way we see Australia.

We feel we have achieved a lot since 1999. I made an attempt
to describe this in the final paragraph of my book No Regrets:
"...it is possible for Indonesia to rise above the image of a
barbaric society... -- that fundamentally we are good at heart."
We have isolated human rights violators if not punished them, we
have brought corruption to public scrutiny if not finalized the
cases, we have established religious and ethnic pluralism as a
strong social good if not eliminated fringe extremists, we have
countered extremism with moderation, and we have held the biggest
presidential direct election in the world.

Yet these attempts by our society to reform itself are not
always recognized in parts of Australian society, who isolate
cases of injustice and feel targeted as victims. This is
unfortunate when it is the Indonesian people who have been the
most severe victims of the failings in our system.

Sometimes, in cases when the civil society of Indonesia is
struggling against our nation's evils, outsiders confuse the bad
guys with the good guys. When a bomb goes off in New York there
is sympathy for the Americans. When a bomb goes off in Jakarta
there is recrimination towards our people. We forget that
Indonesians are the victims, not the perpetrators.

The new society of Indonesia is proud of its achievements but
its confidence needs reinforcement from the outside world. The
pressure for human rights and good governance, which supported
reform in Indonesia has been replaced by America's post-Sept.11
policies. It has given back some breathing room for Indonesian
hardliners and irritated militant groups, so they can once again
take action.

Australia cannot escape from its identification with U.S.
policy because of the loudly proclaimed loyalty of the Australian
government to the U.S. government. But there is scope for
continued good relations between Australia and Indonesia if we
are aware of the good intentions in each country.

In the end, so much of this is just analysis. The reality is
that perception changes every day. Pragmatic business
relationships have been generally maintained over time. But as
Ratna Sarumpaet said, emotional relationships are a mix of love
and hate.

We will continue as neighbors to have a love and hate
relationship between our two societies, just as there are love
and hate relationships within our own society. Let us not belabor
our differences in the guise of analysis, and things will run as
good relationships go -- up and down. And they will not be
subject to individual incidents.

The writer is a political commentator. He can be reached at
wimar@intermatrix.co.id.