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.