RI, Australia need cooperation and agreement

RI, Australia need cooperation and agreement

By Damien Kingsbury

MELBOURNE (JP): It is clear, despite the goodwill on the part
of many people on both sides, that there continues to be
considerable misunderstanding about the causes and solutions to
the difficulties in Australia and Indonesia's bilateral
relationship. Central to the problem is, of course, the issue of
East Timor and Australia's role there, especially in the
International Force for East Timor (Interfet).

To repeat, while Australia obviously had a major interest in
the resolution of the uncontrolled violence in East Timor
following the Aug. 30 ballot on self-determination, Interfet was
mandated under the auspices of the United Nations. It was and
remains a multinational force, comprising representatives of
several nations under the control of the peak world body.

But it is correct to say that Australian Prime Minister John
Howard has not always spoken in ways designed to calm the
relationship. For that matter, neither has President Abdurrahman
Wahid. Both politicians have been appealing to domestic political
or "nationalist" sentiment.

This is an indictment of them both.

Ikrar Nusa Bhakti laments Australia not being a good friend of
Indonesia in bad times in his article (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 9).
His view is perhaps understandable, but I believe he is
mistaken.

The concerns expressed in Australia about Indonesia's
involvement in East Timor were directed first and foremost at the
Indonesian Military (TNI) and its role in supporting the militias
there. It does not matter what the generals say; I saw
collaboration between TNI and the militias when I was there as a
ballot monitor.

Most Indonesian citizens now regard TNI's involvement in
politics and its heavy-handed approach to "security" as a
problem needing to be dealt with. Yet, when TNI is criticized for
this from Australia, some of these very same people become
defensive and "nationalistic". This seems contradictory.

Ikrar makes a number of claims against Australia. To set the
record straight, while the Australian government might have been
"accused" of having intelligence agents in the United Nations
Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), it was not shown to be true.
There were a couple of Australian UNAMET staff with intelligence
experience from when they were in the army. This is common and
does not imply they were active in intelligence gathering. But
then, the TNI's chief military liaison officer, Maj. Gen. Zacky
Anwar Makarim, was also chief of intelligence before returning to
East Timor, while many other TNI personnel there were continuing
in an "intelligence" capacity.

Ikrar also claims that Australian UNAMET staff members were
not neutral in the conducting of the ballot. I coordinated a
large team of ballot monitors in East Timor, and the reports from
all of them on UNAMET showed its conduct to be exemplary. TNI and
pro-Jakarta forces of course claimed otherwise, as they needed to
rationalize their overwhelming rejection by the East Timorese.

Many Australians in UNAMET had private views on the ballot,
but this did not influence their professional behavior.
Unfortunately, the same could not be said for TNI or, in many
cases, the National Police, which as I saw were active in trying
to subvert the process and outcome of the ballot. UNAMET did not
kill or rape people, or burn their homes.

Ikrar expressed concern about Australian unions boycotting
Indonesian ships and aircraft. As he would know, the unions in
Australia are free and not controlled by the government. Those
same unions also supported Indonesian independence in 1945. They
were not controlled then either.

Most Australians recognize that Indonesia is undergoing a
difficult transition from authoritarianism to democracy. But that
does not mean Australia should censor its views when
authoritarianism again rears its ugly head. To the contrary! If
some Indonesians shift their attitudes from being anti to
promilitary as a result, it is only they who suffer the
consequences of their shortsighted actions.

But underneath it all bilateral relations are not as parlous
as many portray them. Indonesian students still study in
Australia -- without harm or harassment. AusAID still provides
funding to Indonesian aid projects and scholarships. The
Australia Indonesia Institute still provides grants to enhance
bilateral understanding. And those Australians who were concerned
about military involvement in East Timor are also concerned about
continuing military involvement in Indonesia.

Soon the Interfet will be replaced by another UN military
mission. As East Timor has reverted to UN supervision, it will
not be up to Indonesia to determine who is involved in this
mission. The views of the East Timorese may, however, be taken
into account, and they have said they do not want Malaysian
leadership of the UN forces. If Australia continues to play a
role under UN auspices in East Timor, this should not be seen as
a threat to Indonesia, as Indonesia has formally severed
its links with the territory. If Australia wishes to play a
continuing role in East Timor, it is because of its geographic
proximity and what is perceived to be its long-standing debt to
the East Timorese.

But perhaps what is most disturbing about Ikrar's comments is
that, in order to mend Australian-Indonesian relations, he
suggests that Australia should "appease" Indonesia. "Appeasement"
is an unfortunate word, as it implies calming a potential
aggressor by making concessions.

Indonesia has not been aggressive toward Australia in any way
that ordinary Australians would worry about, although its
military has in East Timor. Australia -- and the world -- is not
likely to want to calm Indonesian sensitivities by making
concessions to TNI's role in East Timor.

It is now widely accepted in Australia that its past policy of
building good relations with Indonesia was based on "appeasement"
and this was a fundamental mistake. It allowed many Indonesians
to believe that Australians did not genuinely object to certain
problems, prime among which was the invasion and continued
occupation of East Timor. To appease is to not be genuine in
dealing with the relationship.

What we really need to is work on our continuing areas of
agreement and cooperation, and to attempt to resolve or set aside
those issues about which we might disagree. Within the framework
of two mature political societies, disagreement is sometimes an
acceptable outcome. Even the best of friends cannot be expected
to agree on everything all the time.

The writer is executive officer of the Monash Asia Institute,
Monash University.