FAITH IN INDONESIA

FAITH IN INDONESIA
The shape of the world a generation from now will be influenced far more by how we communicate the values of our society to others than by military or diplomatic superiority. William Fulbright, 1964
Showing posts with label Australian foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian foreign policy. Show all posts

Friday, December 08, 2017

MISSING FROM THE WHITE PAPER: INDONESIA

Background:
I wrote this after the White Paper had been published and sent a draft to Indonesia Institute President Ross Taylor on 24 November.  While it was being rejected or ignored by  the AFR, New Mandala, Inside Story and The Interpreter Professor Tim Lindsey came out with his excellent analysis which I first saw on 4 December. http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/australia-silence-indonesia/

In many ways it's curiously similar to mine below, but this is coincidence, not plagiarism.


No white space for Indonesia                     

It's the great Australian foreign policy quandary:  Should the vast Southern Hemisphere continent continue to rely on Trump’s America for help - or seek closer relationships with neighbour nations?

Asking this question in the past would have been heretical but world alliances are fluid.  National interests trump international deals whatever else is said or written.

Australia’s newly-released Foreign Policy White Paper doesn’t demolish the old Anglosphere foundations though some words point to fractures. Like Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s foreword: ‘We must be sovereign, not reliant’.

Rousing stuff - but catch breath for hard facts: Australia has 25 million people, Indonesia ten times more; China has 1.38 billion and India 1.32 billion.  In this ring of might roaring like a mouse without a nuclear arsenal cheers nationalists but does nothing practical. Australia has always been reliant; first on the UK, then the US.

But that was BT (Before Trump).
Despite this seismic shift there’s no wobble in Australia’s bi-partisan approach.  Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Penny Wong said Australia had to work with the US as it is now, not as it might once have been, or as some of its naysayers claim it’s going to become.
The ANZUS pact which binds Australia, New Zealand and the US was written 66 years ago as the Cold War was sizzling and the Korean war seeding today’s Kim Jong-un crisis.  

Mao Zedong’s People’s Republic was then only two years old - now it’s a well-muscled adult.

Contrary to popular belief ANZUS does not lock America into launching F-35 Lightnings to the defence of its distant buddy (Canberra is 16,000 kilometres from Washington).

Clauses Three and Four say the Parties will consult together should there be a threat and the signatories would ‘act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes’ and report to the UN.

The White Paper’s worthy objectives cover regional prosperity, respect for states’ rights and human rights, more business and less protectionism, security, freedom and resilience.

Overall the compilation by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) with input from 60 experts and 9,200 public submissions has drawn few major quibbles. Some claim this overview shows reality is biting:

‘Navigating the decade ahead will be hard, because as China’s power grows, our region is changing in ways without precedent in Australia’s modern history.’  

Worryingly down-played is Indonesia which gets only 38 mentions, way behind China (112) India (70) and Japan (52).  Many references are bundled with countries like South Korea, India - even Nigeria - or are in data lists.

The usual mantra is recited: ‘Indonesia is a dynamic, democratic, diverse and growing G20 member with the world’s largest Muslim population. Indonesia’s success is of fundamental importance to Australia.’  

Mr Turnbull’s foreword says: ‘We are stronger when sharing the burden of leadership with trusted partners and friends. Is our neighbour in this category?  

Indonesia is also deeply concerned about the rise of China and not just because of its economic clout and strategic influence. Some fear that along with capital to build the archipelago’s infrastructure comes Communism; the bogeyman is a virile force in Indonesian politics. Where would we fit should strife erupt?

There are pluses.  Anti-terrorism police co-operation seems to be going well. Aid projects, scholarships, exchange programmes and soft-power culture shows are fine but few.  The big money and political energy is going into border protection.

Australia’s ‘largest maritime operation in peacetime history’ is underway not in the disputed South China Sea, but in the narrow Arafura Sea between us and them.  

This steel boom is to contain the migration ambitions of 14,000 asylum seekers squatting in Indonesia. A $3.5 billion contract for 12 more patrol boats has just been announced.

This military response to a social problem involving unarmed civilians marks a failure to engage with Indonesia and ASEAN to develop a more humane policy.

The White Paper canvasses refugee and Islamic terrorism in a global context.  The decade-old ‘Quad Alliance’ idea recently revived by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson isn’t mentioned.

Japan, India, the US and Australia are in the Quad as democracies.  Indonesia has been one this century - though not a ‘developed democracy’ as defined by the World Bank. But nor is India on the list.

The Jakarta Embassy says it’s ‘the largest ever constructed by an Australian Government and reflects the depth of the relationship. If the White Paper is a guide the mateship is shallow.   

The ginormous importance of Indonesia in economic and security terms are standards in the lexicon of business boosters.  Rarely raised is why few Australian companies invest; they fear corruption and rules not fairly applied.

Free Trade Agreement (FTA) discussions should wrap-up this year. If a ‘high quality’ (Mr Turnbull’s words) deal is done this will be a breakthrough as protectionist Indonesia is pursuing food sovereignity. Observers are not hopeful.

Where are the policies to put wheels under the words should the FTA stall as it has in the past? Unfortunately not in the ‘first comprehensive review of Australia’s international engagement for 14 years.’

If Indonesia is really so important the next White Paper needs to put the people next door front and centre of foreign policy.  Unwise to wait to 2031; by then the neighbours might have found friends we don’t like.



##.



  



Wednesday, November 23, 2011

TRASHING THE LOMBOK TREATY




The Indonesian military would be determined defenders but at present don't have the appetite or capacity to be invaders.

MARINES IN DARWIN: PROTECTION OR PROVOCATION?




In 2006 the two relevant Foreign Ministers, Alexander Downer and Hassan Wirajuda, signed the Australia-Indonesia Agreement on the Framework for Security Cooperation.

It took two years of negotiations to develop the document, which replaced the 1995 formal defense pact. What’s now known as the Lombok Treaty committed both nations to cooperation and consultation in defence and law enforcement, combating international crime and terrorism, and sharing intelligence.

The two countries also agreed they would not ‘in any manner support or participate in activities by any person or entity which constitutes a threat to the stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of the other Party’.

Then suddenly last week Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and US President Barack Obama announced that up to 2,500 American Marines would be stationed in Darwin, the largest port in Australia closest to Indonesia. This newspaper described the news as a ‘bombshell’.

Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa had apparently been alerted ahead of the announcement. Did this comply with the Lombok Treaty clause on ‘consultation’? Only if you embrace Australian newspeak where the word has become synonymous with informing others after a cast-iron decision has been made.

That wasn’t the only gulf in interpretation. It seems Australia’s decision to allow heavily armed foreign forces to dig in on the border doesn’t fall into the category of threatening the other's ‘stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity’.

Indonesia appears to differ. Dr Natalegawa, who was educated in the UK and Australia and is no slouch in understanding the subtleties of English, was reported as saying it could create “a vicious circle of tension and mistrust”. In plainspeak this is instability. The Treaty was designed to do the opposite.

Establishing a US base in northern Australia is meant to send a message to India and China, the two growing super-powers. But between those faraway places and the Great South Land lies a lovely archipelago, the world’s third largest democracy. This strategic zone will now have American warships, warplanes, submarines and helicopter gunships on a nearby beach – and Indonesians weren’t asked what they thought.

Perception depends on position. Living a few hundred kilometers northwest of Darwin I have a different view of plans to turn the Northern Territory into an armed camp than when I lived in Perth.

If I was still in my home state (and earlier state of ignorance about Southeast Asia) I might have thought the idea of beefy American soldiers between little me and the land-hungry masses of Asia to be comforting.

Most Australians know about their nation’s empty interior and over-populated neighbours. We’ve grown up fearing the menacing arrows of descending communism believing that only the gallant forces of the Free World could stop the evil Red Tide, just as they halted the Japanese in the 1940s.

But then we matured and it seemed that the gravity theory driving Australian foreign policy had been buried. Wrong. Last week it was exhumed and revived.

It’s been embarrassing trying to explain to Indonesians why a sovereign nation would allow foreign troops to be based on its soil, unless, of course, the host is weak, insecure and subservient to a colonial master.

That’s the obvious logic, and no end of rabbiting on about independent alliances and historical ties will shake local opinion. My friends are just a mite confused – why the US military and not the UK when Australia has the Union Jack on its flag and the Queen’s head on its currency?

It would be easier trying to explain cricket.

The Indonesian media response has been robust with commentators asking how the deal sits alongside the regular pleas for Australians to develop friendly grassroots relationships with the people next door. There’s been much talk of a new Pearl Harbor.

How would Australians react if Indonesia suddenly announced a similar number of Chinese troops being stationed in Bali? Would Canberra accept the “normal bilateral agreement” line? If our Javanese neighbors in suburban Malang invite Ambonese hardmen (the preman usually used for ‘protection’) to settle in and flex their muscles my family would be rapidly reappraising our community relationships.

Does Indonesia have territorial ambitions on Australia? It’s about as impossible to erase this deeply-embedded but absurd fear in the Australian psyche, as it is to convince the electorate that the US will not necessarily dash into the fray should the continent be attacked.

The Indonesian armed forces would be formidable defenders of their land, but don’t appear to have the equipment, funds, or enthusiasm to invade 7.69 million square kilometers. There’s no discernable political appetite for such an insane adventure. Terrorists occasionally add Australia in their visions of a Caliphate but these crackpots are on the fringe of the fringe.

The last test of US resolve in this region came during the 1999 East Timor Referendum crisis when Australia appealed for American involvement. Then president Bill Clinton manoeuvred a few warships but kept them over the horizon. The tension with Indonesia was an Australian problem, and no grunts’ boots were among the international peacekeepers that trod the turf of what is now Timor Leste.

The realpolitik is that future US policy will be based on that nation’s national interests at the time and having a US Marine base in Australia will make not a whit of difference. If Washington decrees these troops will be deployed elsewhere or sent back to their northern hemisphere home, Canberra’s agreements with the US will have no more value than the Lombok Treaty.

In the meantime we Australians have to remain in this region for the rest of our existence. Better Ms Gillard puts her government’s energies into encouraging us to understand and appreciate our neighbours than being matey with the Marines.

If we really must have a US presence, then invite the Peace Corps.

(First published in The Jakarta Post 23 Nov 2011
##