Media plays key role in RI-Australia diplomatic ties

Media plays key role in RI-Australia diplomatic ties

This is the first of two articles based on remarks by former
Indonesian ambassador to Australia S. Wiryono at a gathering
organized by the Indonesia-Australia Business Council in Jakarta
on Nov. 2, 1999.

JAKARTA (JP): My posting to Canberra in 1996 came as a
complete surprise to me as I was about to finish my last few
months of assignment in Paris. The news from Jakarta indicated
that at least a dozen very prominent names were mentioned as
candidates for the post vacated in May 1995 by Sabam Siagian, but
that my name was not even mentioned.

Originally, the Indonesian government's choice for the
Canberra post was Lt. Gen. Mantiri. The formal process of
proposing his name and the agreement by the Australian government
proceeded normally, but once the name was officially announced,
there was a political uproar in Australia.

This rumpus originated from Australia's political left, the
East Timor lobby, part of the Catholic Church, non-governmental
organizations and the media who disapproved of certain comments
allegedly attributed to Lt. Gen. Mantiri about the November 1991
incident or "massacre" at Santa Cruz, in Dili, East Timor as the
Australian media would prefer to call it.

The Australian government was in an awkward position. It had
formally given the agreement, but the political uproar in
Australia made it impossible for the Indonesian government to
proceed with sending Mantiri.

Finally, his name was withdrawn and the post was left vacant
and relations between our two countries were at a crisis point.
Such was the situation between our two countries prior to my
appointment as ambassador to Australia.

For almost a year, the post in Canberra was vacant, but by
late November 1995, while the Jakarta media were busy speculating
as to who would be Sabam's successor, without any forewarning I
was informed by telephone that I was to be reassigned to
Canberra.

Australia was changing leadership from a Labor to a Coalition
government whose campaign statements on Indonesia in general and
on East Timor in particular were quite strong.

A poll by the Australian National University, the NSW
University and Queensland University showed that 76 percent of
the coalition candidates considered Indonesia a "threat",
compared to 36 percent of the Labor candidates.

On the Indonesian side, there was a strong perception that
part of the reason why relations between our two countries were
so accident-prone, was the carping fractious media and its highly
critical writings about Indonesia. So one of the most important
instructions given to me was to be able to deal with the
Australian media.

The cultural difficulty that I have to face in Australia was
aptly reflected by one Australian National University (ANU)
professor, Dr. Ann Kumar. She said on the occasion of the
launching of a book on Indonesia: "The Ambassador of
Indonesia ... has a job, which involves constantly dealing not
only with the inevitable difficulties springing from the very
different political and economic history of our two countries but
also our different styles. Should he remain a politely
understated Javanese and have his message completely pass over
the heads of an Australian audience or speak as we Ockers do and
have everyone back home thinking he's completely forgotten his
manners?"

In Paris, I seldom received any attention from the French
media, but I immediately felt the heat from the Australian media
when I was still in Paris. Channel 9 and David Jenkins of the
Sydney Morning Herald called for an interview.

I had a 15-minute interview with Channel 9, but only one item
was aired by Channel 9 for less than one minute, and that was
when I stated that what happened on Nov. 11, 1991, was an
incident and not a massacre.

Immediately, the headline in Australia was that "Wiryono is
just another Mantiri" and should be rejected. But Foreign
Minister Gareth Evans cooled the situation down by saying that it
was "the form of words that is used consistently by Indonesian
Ministers and officials right from the beginning. So no
particular significance should be attributed to it, end of
story".

Jenkins' article on the other hand was good.

I realize that state-to-state relations are conducted by
governments and that economic relations are carried out more and
more by the private sector. The people-to-people interactions are
taking place naturally and are becoming more and more important.
But the media is increasingly becoming a crucial player. The
media is clearly playing an important role in our bilateral
relations and I know that Sabam Siagian's commitment to Australia
was based on the consideration that being a journalist he would
know how to deal with the media.

My own view is that diplomacy owes a great deal to the
profession of journalism. There is no doubt that the media has
indeed contributed considerably to making the world first a
global village and now a global neighborhood. It has made people
all over the world tremendously more knowledgeable and interested
in international affairs.

And during my last few months as ambassador to Australia, I
was made even more aware of how ordinary citizens as the vessel
of public opinion have a great deal to do with the making of our
two governments' stands on the issues involving our two
countries.

Much of the public opinion in our two countries is based on
the information, analyses and opinion leadership provided by the
media. In a very real sense, therefore, the media is inexorably
involved in diplomacy. Although it does not make policy, it
exercises a great deal of influence on the government and the
general public.

In fact, much of our government's polices were media-driven,
which is in many ways unfortunate but inevitable.

The media supplies a great part of information which shape
people's perceptions and therefore has something to do with
people's responses to government policies and actions.

Accordingly, an ambassador, no matter how professional,
skillful and experienced he or she is, can hardly do a good job
of winning appreciation for his or her country's policies if the
media does not take up those policies. Moreover, it is not enough
that the policies of a country are reported; it is even more
important that they are reported correctly.

Therefore, far from being natural enemies, the diplomat and
the journalist, whether they like it or not and despite their
wariness of each other, are in fact the most natural partners.
They both have something to put across to the public. Diplomats
want to put across their government's policies and all that their
government stands for.

On the other hand, it is the job of the journalist to report
the facts and his or her understanding of the facts about those
policies. Between what the diplomat wants to convey and what the
journalist actually reports, there should be little difference.
Unfortunately, we all know too well that is not always the case.

My own impression is that the news media tends to be too
sensational, intrusive and focuses only on the negative. On both
sides, I feel the media's bluntness extends to rudeness, which is
uncalled for, and of course unnecessary. But somehow the media is
still believable.

This is partly because on many occasions government officials
are less than straightforward, and are too defensive in their
approach. We are now dealing with a media that has grown
omnivorous and more than ever before increasingly intrusive and
opinionated.

Gone are the days when they were just reporting. They are now
participating, and they are important and powerful players.
Moreover, unlike politicians or officials, the media is
accountable to themselves.

Therefore, I would like to repeat my plea which I made when
leaving Australia: that the media on both sides of the
relationship would do well to contemplate the considerable power
they have at their disposal to influence public opinion by
informing the public in a balanced and objective manner. Thus,
the media may positively influence the course of relations and
interactions between our two countries.

The media needs to serve the objectives of social
enlightenment by providing a perspective that will minimize
misunderstandings, misperceptions and the prejudice and negative
judgment that they breed.