The challenge of the new Indonesia
The challenge of the new Indonesia
The alarm bells went off again this week. However, the shrill response to the terrorism scare at the Indonesian embassy in Canberra was not just more of the same old sniping across the bilateral divide. Since the fall of Indonesia's authoritarian leader Soeharto in 1998, Australia and Indonesia have been feeling around for a new footing.
Australia spent decades exhorting Indonesia to democratize; that inherently difficult process is now under way.However, democracy in Indonesia also means it can be more difficult to douse anti-Australian sentiment once ignited.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, says Australians are at risk of retaliation following the letter scare at the Indonesian embassy. On the importance of perceptions, Howard is right. Indonesia now has a free media which, unsurprisingly, jumped on the terrorism story. It also has a jumble of rival political parties which play to domestic audiences. Now the attack has been revealed as a hoax, it may seem irresponsible that several politicians sought to enhance their own standing by, for example, calling for warnings about travel to Australia. But Indonesians' freedom to express ill-informed views on Australia is no less than that of Australians to express racist views about the Corby case. This new force in the Australian-Indonesian relationship is inherently difficult to manage, because public opinion is so vulnerable to misunderstanding and prejudice.
Indonesia's President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, has a strong, co-operative relationship with Howard. However, he cannot ignore his electorate's mood any more than Howard can the overwhelming Australian sympathy for Schapelle Corby. The hysteria of Australians calling for the withdrawal of tsunami aid and a boycott of Indonesia will only make more difficult Susilo's efforts to push through parliament a prisoner exchange deal. This does not mean the bilateral relationship is too fragile to withstand criticism. But threats based on race or nationality -- from either side -- are not part of any legitimate debate. -- The Sydney Morning Herald