RI's 'farmer diplomacy' in the Pacific

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