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.