JP/7/SETH

JP/7/SETH

The relations between Jakarta and Canberra have been strained by
becuase of the way East Timor got its independence.

What Went Wrong in Indonesia-Australia Relations?

S.P. SETH
Sidney

The tsunami disaster has brought Indonesia closer to the
world, particularly with rich developed countries able to help
with their human and material resources. Australia, for instance,
has committed about $A1billion (half as grants and rest as low
interest loans) for reconstruction work over a period of time.
The government aside, the Australian people have also chipped in
for disaster relief in Indonesia and elsewhere in the region.
This then is seen as an opportune time to forge closer relations
with Indonesia.

The relations between Jakarta and Canberra have been strained
because of the way East Timor got its independence. The
deterioration occurred under John Howard's stewardship as
Australia's Prime Minister. Around the same time, Indonesia
underwent a severe economic crisis and the fall of President
Soeharto, Indonesia's long term authoritarian president.

It was under then president Soeharto that Australia and
Indonesia forged close relations. Australia's then prime minister
Paul Keating made it a priority foreign policy consideration.
With Soeharto and Keating both gone from the political scene, the
relationship became fatherless, so to say.

When the Labor Party in opposition sought to make East Timor a
popular political issue, the Howard Government quickly wrested
the initiative by advocating special autonomy for East Timor
followed by a referendum sometime into the future. Indonesia's
then president Habibie, though, opted for immediate referendum in
1999. In the process, Indonesia lost East Timor when its people
overwhelmingly voted for independence.

Australia found itself in the middle of a political and
humanitarian crisis, with John Howard's Government winning
political kudos for bringing about East Timor's independence. It
wasn't true, though. Australia simply happened to be in the right
place at the right time.

Of course, Canberra played a significant peacetime role after
the mayhem created by the departing Indonesian forces and their
militia creations. The leading peacekeeping role was, in some
ways, foisted upon Canberra as there was no one else in the
region willing to do it.

But inadvertently or by design Canberra managed to over-
dramatize its political and military role; making it look like a
military victory over a demoralized Indonesia already in the
midst of a severe economic and political crisis. Indonesia's
ruling class, particularly its military elites, haven't forgotten
or forgiven Australia for this.

It was felt that Australia had taken advantage of Indonesia's
weakness as it was grappling with its manifold problems. And they
had a point. Because over the years, since Indonesia occupied
East Timor in 1975, Canberra had accepted Jakarta's sovereignty
even signing the maritime boundary in the Timor Sea to partake of
its oil riches. This is now a contentious issue between Australia
and the independent state of East Timor. But that is another
story.

East Timor is now history, though it will continue to cast a
shadow on Indonesia-Australia relations. For instance, despite
Australian protestations that Canberra respects Indonesia's
territorial integrity, it is taken with a pinch of salt. Whether
it is the separatist movement in Paupa or Aceh, Australia is
believed to be somehow involved, largely because of its perceived
role in facilitating East Timor's independence.

Even as the tsunami relief operations are continuing,
important elements of Indonesia's establishment see sinister
motivation behind foreign involvement in Aceh-principally from
Australia and the United States. Maj. Gen. Syamsir Siregar, the
head of the National Intelligence Agency, has reportedly said
that foreign troops in Aceh brought a hidden political agenda to
map territory and secure the strategic Strait of Malacca.

Be that as it may, Australia does sound arrogant when
reporting on Indonesia. For instance, the front page banner
headline in the Sydney Morning Herald about Canberra's instant
response to the tsunami disaster in Aceh was titled "Australia
takes charge in Indonesia." The report that followed wasn't much
better. It read: "Indonesia has asked Australia to come into the
heart of its Government and help lead the reconstruction of its
tsunami-stricken regions, a diplomatic coup for the Prime
Minister John Howard" It might just be a newspaper report but it
does seem to reflect a certain mindset.

Commenting on what a brilliantly executed move the tsunami-
package announcement was, an Australian analyst wrote, "What once
looked like a haphazard strand of foreign policy has been
transformed into a coherent policy for reducing security and
economic risks emanating from the Solomons, Papua New Guinea,
East Timor and Indonesia-Australia's northern 'ring of fire'."

Leaving aside the propriety of reducing a decent humanitarian
gesture to a political gain, it just doesn't seem right to club
Indonesia with some of the tiny South Pacific states under
Australia's zone of influence.

Such insensitivity is also reflected in official policy
pronouncements. Prime Minister John Howard's December 15
announcement to effectively extend Australia's maritime security
zone to 1000 nautical miles is a recent example. Apparently, this
was a unilateral decision without consultation with Indonesia.
And not surprisingly, Jakarta is unhappy.

Canberra's own pre-emption doctrine against regional terrorism
still rankles in Indonesia and other regional countries.

At another level, Indonesia is tarred with the problem of
terrorism. At times Indonesia looks like a one-dimensional entity
needing to be tackled as a regional terrorism hub. Prime Minister
John Howard believes that moderate Islam could be strongly
encouraged by increased investment in Indonesia. At the Asia-
Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Chile, he said, "It's
important to try and tackle inequalities in societies which
provide, how should I put it, a point of advocacy for
terrorists", as in Indonesia.

There is certainly more to Indonesia than terrorism. And to
see Indonesia as a regional terrorist hub requiring terrorist-
related help is a limited and limiting policy approach.

The author is a free-lance writer based in Sidney.