RI's 'farmer diplomacy' in the Pacific

Dewi Anggraeni, Melbourne, Australia

Since the world became highly sensitized in regard to security issues since Sept. 11 (terrorist attacks in the U.S.), we have been hearing from the United States, Britain, Australia, and our own (Indonesian) senior ministers about how crucial Asia-Pacific regional cooperation is, if we are to achieve the security we are seeking.

In February at a conference in Bali, the Asia-Pacific nations agreed that, in order to intensify the cooperation in fighting terrorism in the region, universal legal mechanisms are needed to facilitate prosecution and extradition of terrorists.

Some people in the world do not seem to understand that security does not stand alone, that for any agreement on cooperation to work beyond mere rhetoric, it is necessary to establish mutual trust among the participating parties. And mutual trust is often elusive in the region.

In the case of the Pacific countries, Indonesia has to begin with a handicap. With high-profile cases of alleged human rights violations in East Timor and Papua, widely reported by the international media, it is to be expected that suspicions towards Indonesia are widespread throughout the Pacific countries where the dominant ethnic group (like the Timorese and Papuans) is Melanesian. And distorted views have been allowed to loom larger each day because very little has been done to stem the growth.

Relationships with the Pacific nations have been mainly ignored by Jakarta, presumably because economically speaking, they are hardly consequential. But even so, is trade all that matters?

To begin with, in Fiji alone, since the opening of an Indonesian Embassy in Suva two years ago, Indonesia has benefited from over US$20 million worth of trade. In Vanuatu, where diplomacy is managed from Canberra, Australia, there has been little trade to boast of, but is this any reason to put so little priority on a relationship with that country?

At the end of April, Indonesia's Minister for Agriculture Bungaran Saragih, knowingly or unknowingly made inroads into better relationships with Fiji and Vanuatu. The fact that it was a ministerial level visit was well-noted. That the minister and his entourage came with offers of assistance was undoubtedly appreciated.

The 10 hand tractors and a pledge to extend technological expertise to Fiji in rice growing found the right spot, because Fiji has been trying to develop its rice planting programs for some time. However, the reaches of the visit extended beyond the appreciation of the assistance. It was very obvious that the Fijians were touched by Saragih's genuine interest in their agricultural practices.

During the group's visits to small farms and cottage industry manufacturers, Saragih paid a great deal of attention to detail and often asked for further explanations. He did not hide his excitement in learning from them.

In Vanuatu where 98 percent of the population is Melanesian, Saragih's delegation effectively faced a fairly tough test. The Indonesian Ambassador to Australia and Vanuatu had begun quiet diplomacy in that country, emphasizing that Indonesia has a bigger number of citizens of Melanesian descent than the Melanesian population of all the Pacific countries put together. However, the suspicions toward Indonesia were palpable.

The delegation was duly honored with an official reception wherever it went, but it was only after the minister's speech which placed Indonesia and Vanuatu on level ground that warmth began to show.

Saragih explained that while Indonesia came bearing assistance and offers of cooperation in agriculture and agri-business, it was not a donor country, and neither was Vanuatu a recipient country. In terms of size, the assistance is indeed no comparison to that provided by countries such as Japan or Australia. So Saragih pointed out that the gift of five hand tractors for Vanuatu farmers, and US$40,000 in cash for the victims of Cyclone Ivy which hit Vanuatu at the end of February, was extended in the spirit of solidarity, from one developing country to another.

It was in the context that the Melanesian components in Indonesia and Vanuatu had brought the two countries closer.

The Acting Prime Minister, Ham Lini, then made a point of saying that he and many Melanesians had been under the impression that Indonesia was their enemy. It was a country where Melanesians were oppressed, disenfranchised and even killed. "Maybe we have misunderstood you. Maybe we were mistaken," Lini said.

What other, more powerful proof do we need, to see how unflattering Indonesia's image has been among the Pacific's many Melanesians? With such a sullied image, could it realistically expect cooperation in terms of security from the Pacific countries? Who are we kidding?

Bungaran Saragih has somewhat straightened up the distortion of this image in Fiji and Vanuatu, with what he calls his "farmer diplomacy", and Indonesia is possibly on the way to their good book, but how long can this situation last? What Saragih did was only a first step, and unless these are followed by a sustained march, the window of opportunity will certainly narrow and eventually close.

Undoubtedly one of the best ways to gain trust from your neighbors is to avoid human rights violations altogether, but it is a complex issue which is beyond the scope of this column, so let us look at the next best solution.

The April visit to Fiji and Vanuatu has shown that to inject trust in a relationship, rhetoric needs to be substantiated by tangible communication. Furthermore, the communication must not be a one-night stand, it must be followed by sustained contact and proven commitment.

Let the Pacific countries gradually see Indonesia's more flattering side, as well as its warts. Most friends accept each other's imperfections to a degree, but very few tolerate being ignored or abandoned.

And security cooperation can only be really effective among friends.

The writer is contributor to The Jakarta Post