New perspective needed in Australian-Indonesian ties

By Siswo Pramono

CANBERRA (JP): How many Australians would agree with Pauline Hanson that Australia should stop sending aid to Indonesia because the people there had burned Australian flags? In 1999, Australians and Indonesians burned each other's flags. It is bizarre, however, that relations between the two countries, about 220 million people in total, are reduced to flag-burning business.

In the past two decades, Indonesian-Australian relations have suffered many crises, with the worst being at the turn of the 20th century.

With any incident, narrow-minded nationalism can be inflicted to worsen the friction. In times of crisis, nationalism serves as an irrational, blind attachment that seizes every aspect of life. An enduring Indonesian-Australian relationship must be based on a new perspective, capitalizing on accommodation while abandoning this narrow-minded nationalism.

Australia is in the process of nation building. It is a "Western country in Asia", confused on where to stand. It is a democratic state frustrated by protracted reconciliation with its aboriginal community. And it is a society with shifting affections from British monarchy to republicanism.

This anxiety has led to the quest for an Australian identity, which has heightened nationalism. The growing jingoistic attitudes are seen in "patriotic" commercials of Australian products, the great parade of the Sydney Olympics, the victorious East Timor mission and the centenary anniversary of federation.

Indonesia, too, is in the process of nation building. From Sabang to Merauke there is no such thing called "Indonesia" but a bunch of different ethnic, racial, religious, languages and local histories, united by colonialism.

It was born with nationalism as the driving force of its delivery. As disintegration and acute economic crisis now challenge the unitary state, many invoke nationalism as an escape.

Indonesia is becoming touchy in its foreign relations. It cries for international help while it becomes so sensitive that at anytime, an offer of aid can be considered foreign intervention. Narrow-minded nationalism can be counterproductive to Indonesian foreign policy.

It emphasizes a degrading dichotomous approach.

One side is treated as superior, while the other is viewed as weak, dependent or unimportant. Many Australians have the illusion that Australia is the only power in the region that should right the wrong that has been done by Indonesia. And many Indonesians consider Australians as patronizing white colonizers imposing their will by taking advantage of Indonesia's weaknesses.

Both sides are wrong and should learn to treat each other with respect.

Ironically, Australia and Indonesia are communities obsessed with the rhetoric of tolerance and accommodation of differences. Interethnic relations, such as among white and nonwhite and the indigens in Australia, or among different ethnic groups in Indonesia, are always strained.

"Multiculturalism" has always been a topic of public discourse in Australia, as is "unity in diversity" in Indonesia. But when it comes to bilateral relations, narrow-minded nationalism overrides this much talked about tolerance and accommodation.

Promotion of human rights is among the main issues of Australian politics. The Howard government has been a target of fierce criticism for its "bad" handling of reconciliation with the aboriginal community.

And Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party has already asserted an antireconciliation approach. Ill treatment of illegal immigrants, which triggered riots recently in the Woomera detention center, have also raised concerns of human rights abuse.

Australian human rights foreign policy counterbalances what it fails to achieve back home. In a way, the human rights issue occupies a central place in Australian party politics. It will contribute to the success or failure of the current coalition government in the next election.

Many human rights issues in Indonesia have been and will always be on the Australian agenda. Domestication of foreign issues in party politics is reflected in various parliamentary debates. Last year, during question time in the Australian Parliament, foreign policy issues occupied considerable time in discussing conflicts in East Timor and West Timor, Maluku and Irian Jaya.

While both countries now use democracy as the denominator of bilateral relations, it should not be taken for granted that they always share the same values. This does not mean that each has to compromise the values it believes in.

This means that bilateral relations will flourish when both parties accept and respect the differences and fail when they deny and suppress these.

Indonesia, for quite some time, will be the weak side of the bilateral relations. Political reform is not an overnight process. Nonetheless, many Indonesians share the belief that they will and they must survive the test.

Australian critics must be patient with Indonesia and respect the sacrifices made by Indonesians to attain a better future. Australia should thus show more courtesy and accommodation to Indonesia. This is not a kind of altruism, but a nurturing of a long-term common interest of both sides.

It is a necessity for Australia to help Indonesia so that democratization proceeds on track.

The next five years of the Indonesian-Australian relationship cannot escape the domestication of Indonesian issues in Australian party politics. At anytime, narrow-minded nationalism is a ready vehicle for politicians of both sides to appeal for public support at the expense of bilateral ties.

To avoid another crash, both Australia and Indonesia must focus on confidence building measures by relying more on accommodation and repressing possible recurrence of narrow-minded nationalism.

Arizal Effendi, the former Indonesian envoy to Australia, once stated, "it takes two to tango". Thus, the old ties must proceed with a new perspective in sight.

The writer is a postgraduate student of political science at the Australian National University in Canberra.