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.