Relations
with Indonesia have once again drawn the attention of the foreign policy
community in Australia, this time it is not prompted by what Prime Minister
Tony Abbott does or says, but rather by a new book that calls for a change in
the way the country deals with its giant northern neighbor.
Ken Ward, a retired Foreign Service officer, in his
book Condemned to Crisis (Lowy Institute Paper) calls on Australia to discard
the long-held foreign policy mantra that “Indonesia is its most important
relationship” and that Canberra should be more realistic in its expectations of
Indonesia since relations are always prone to crisis. Ward also suggests that
Australian politicians be more circumspect in what they say in public to
prevent differences from escalating into crises.
We fully agree with his bold recommendation to stop
making Indonesia Australia’s most important relationship because not only does
it make no different to Indonesia, but it also makes us uncomfortable, since we
can never reciprocate the feeling. Australia is barely in the top five of Indonesia’s
most important relationships; some may even say that it would be lucky to be in
the top 10.The mantra has been repeated by every single prime minister since
Paul Keating outlined it in a luncheon speech in Sydney in 1994 in the presence
of then Indonesian ambassador Sabam Siagian.
It was really addressed to the Australian public
rather than to Indonesia. There are strategic reasons for making the Australian
embassy in Jakarta the largest in the world, and for every newly elected
Australian prime minister to make Indonesia the destination of his or her first
overseas visit. But to call Indonesia its most important relationship smacks of
hypocrisy when Australia bypasses Indonesia in economic ties and when Canberra
continues to regard Indonesia more as a potential threat than a friend,
evidenced by the 2013 revelation of a massive Australian eavesdropping
operation on Indonesian leaders.
This is not to say that Australia is unimportant to
Indonesia. Today, the two countries have intensive relationships in all
sectors, as two large neighbors should. And there is ample room for
improvement, most notably in our economic ties. We should not be under any
illusion that relations will always be smooth. There will be differences, and
some of these will lead to tensions and turn into diplomatic rows. But then
Indonesia also constantly fights with some of its other neighbors like
Singapore and Malaysia. If anything, these tensions and rows are indications of
the intensity of our relationship. To suggest that the relationship is
condemned to crisis, or prone to crisis, is not only stretching it a little but
it could lead to wrong conclusions and policy prescriptions.
Indonesia and Australia are condemned to be neighbors
by geographical dictates. But why be so negative about it? Why can’t we say
that we are blessed to be neighbors, as we are?No two close neighbors can be so
unlike as Indonesia and Australia are, but differences in cultures, historical
experiences and levels of economic development necessarily make it challenging
for the two countries to forge their rich relationship. Sure, both countries
have recalled their ambassadors in recent years, but that too is normal in such
an intensive relationship. It only becomes a crisis when the two countries
sever their relationship or go into a war, which has never happened. Where Ward
gets it wrong is in his recommendation that Australians adopt a more temperate
language in dealing with Indonesia. Fault their large embassy in Jakarta for
failing to inform them that Indonesia today is a vibrant democracy, with free
speech that matches any other free society around the world.
Indonesians can take all the insults Australians
throw. Yes, some will be offended, but whatever Australian politicians, media
columnists and talk-back radio hosts say about Indonesia, we have heard it
worse from our own people talking about our president, government and
politicians, corruption, terrorism, human rights violations, Papua and the
executions of drug traffickers.
By being direct, frank and honest, you will get much
further in building the trust that is essential in any relationship. You cannot
restore trust, which thanks to Abbott is currently in huge deficit, by holding
yourself back.
While we are in the business of being open, here is
our frank assessment of Australia. Rather than trying to figure out where
Indonesia is heading with all the changes that are taking place in this
century, Australia would be better trying to figure out its own place and
future in the emerging Asia.This is a topic outside Ward’s book, but it is an
important question that Australia must answer to be able to craft a more
effective foreign policy in building relations with Indonesia and the rest of
Asia.
Australia is struggling with existential uncertainty.
Is it part of Asia? Does it want to become part of Asia?
Its economic future and hence prosperity, is
increasingly tied to Asia. China is by far its largest trading partner and
Australia is also trading more and more with its Asian neighbors. But that is
probably as “Asian” as Australia gets; that, and in addition to its geographic
location and the rising Asian mix in its population.
Politically, Australia is still stuck in 20th century
mode. It is a monarchy with a head of state in London, and all its security
arrangements are Cold War relics, whereby they take orders from Washington.
Australia is out of sync with the emerging geopolitical environment of Asia
today. Until Australia fixes this anomaly and moves into the 21st century, it
is hard for Indonesia and the rest of Asia to take Australia more seriously.
The writers Endy Bayuni and Sabam Siagian are senior
editors of The Jakarta Post and former editors-in-chief of the newspaper. They
are Class 1979 and Class 2004 of the Nieman Fellowship program for journalists
at Harvard University. Siagian was formerly Indonesia’s ambassador to
Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment