The Australian Federal Parliament Joint Houses Committee on Treaties is currently holding an inquiry into the new Australia-Indonesia security treaty. What follows is the main part of my submission to that inquiry:
My comments are made in a personal capacity, and are not representative of the views of the University of Sydney. I comment as someone who has travelled to and researched on Indonesia for thirty-five years. Indonesia is probably the most important country in the region for Australia, both in terms of its size, strategic position and its vast, largely unrealised potential as the fourth-largest country and third-largest democracy in the world. In the last four decades I have seen many fluctuations in the relationship between our country and Indonesia, but consider that the current period is a low point in the relationship. The Australian public views Indonesia in a very negative light, and Indonesians view Australia in a more negative light than has been the case previously.
There are a number of key reasons for the poor state of the relationship. Some of these can be ascribed to the fact that Indonesia is viewed by Australians chiefly in the context of the “Global War on Terror”. This lens has been applied by the Australian media, which since the fall of Suharto presents Indonesia as a place of “danger”. While there is no denying the activities of a small circle of terrorists in Indonesia, this is a group who would make up no more than .000001% of the population. Levels of public safety and the danger of violent crime in Indonesia are much better than in countries such as South Africa, or even in many parts of Australia.
Broadly speaking, sections of the media focus on negative portrayals of Islam and presents Indonesia as a source of jihad directly threatening Australia. Positive aspects of Indonesia are down-played or ignored, and the country is not treated in the comprehensive manner that the UK or the USA (both also sites of major terrorist acts), or even China and India, for example, are portrayed. While Australian politicians have shown a nuanced understanding of the relationship, rather than attempting to counter this negative focus on terror, they have not done a lot to counter the negative images in the media images. The Australian government’s level of travel warning on Indonesia also unfairly exaggerates the danger, and should be at no greater level than the warnings for India or South Africa.
In this context, I consider that the Agreement continues the focus on terror, and thus makes no positive contribution to changing the framework of the relationship.
I have no particular criticism of the content of the Agreement, since it largely restates or supports activities and agreed views that are already in place. I do not consider, however, that the supporting material accurately explains the context of the role of the Indonesian military and the context of jihadist activities in Indonesia. A recent book by Professor John T. Sidel of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious Violence in Indonesia (Cornell University Press, 2006), summarises the state of our knowledge of religious violence. He advances the argument that we need to view jihadist activities in Indonesia as belonging to a particular narrow period (2000-2004), and as the product of distinct political and social developments in that country, not simply as some kind of ‘franchise’ of other bodies. He argues convincingly that the jihadist activities were the result of a reversal of political fortunes amongst advocates of Islam after 1999, rather than a rise of Islamicism in mainstream Indonesian politics. He also points out that violent terrorist activities were usually undertaken with either direct support from members of the Indonesian military, or at least by elements of the military turning a blind eye when they had foreknowledge of bombings. Such support came from different motives, ranging from sympathy with the terrorists, to attempts to undermine the country’s political leadership, to internal factional disputes and rivalry with the Police. An agreement that includes active collaboration with the Indonesian military in order to combat terrorism should thus be seen at best as naïve. Recent rumours of a council of generals preparing to stage a coup indicate that the military still remains the biggest threat to Indonesia’s fragile democracy.
In summary, I do not see this agreement as achieving much for improved Australian-Indonesian relations. The resources involved would be utilised much better in cultural and social programs that improve both direct relations and perceptions between the two countries, in particular into countering negative images of Indonesia in the Australian media, and negative images of Australia in the Indonesia media. Only through better social and cultural relations on a people-to-people level can we achieve solid and lasting security.
Comments
"He argues convincingly that the jihadist activities were the result of a reversal of political fortunes amongst advocates of Islam after 1999, rather than a rise of Islamicism in mainstream Indonesian politics. "
That is arguable, considering the rise and influence of Muslim-agenda political parties (such as the PKS). These groups also use and feed off militia proxies (such as the FPI and MMI) who terrorise the nation. The parties pretend there is no connection between the two, but that is untrue.
People tend to forget that President SBY has a minority party in the parliament and has to appease these groups in order to pass legislation, which is occuring at a sluggish rate. The 'Islamists' are still obsessed with trying to ban Playboy and pass an anti-pornography bill, which is already catered for in the nation's criminal code. SBY has been deathly silent about these things, all of which will set Indonesia back several decades.
Muslim parties cannot seriously challenge the Presidency, but they can stall reform, which they are currently doing quite successfully in conjunction with the nationalist parties, they currently have the SBY govt over a barrel.
"An agreement that includes active collaboration with the Indonesian military in order to combat terrorism should thus be seen at best as naïve."
Correct, but never underestimate the level of jealousy and hatred that the Javanese can generate, the deal has been done in order to provide political balance to a situation which has seen unprecendented favouritism to the police, that's all, it is token and nothing more.
"The resources involved would be utilised much better in cultural and social programs that improve both direct relations and perceptions between the two countries, in particular into countering negative images of Indonesia in the Australian media, and negative images of Australia in the Indonesia media. "
All such programs will be hijacked and pilfered by vested Indo government interests. All Indo-media is controlled by local tycoons who are closely connected to the govt of the day, many outlets are mere political mouthpieces of their owners, spouting nationalist rhetoric in order to divert the Indo population from the real issues, such as corruption and poverty eradication. The average Indonesian doesn't even watch the news, they are far more interested in watching soccer, boxing or local soap operas.
A better way is to provide subsidised high school exchange and tertiary education programs for Indonesians to come to Oz and be educated by our institutions; that way, they can actally see for themselves what this country is like as opposed to receiving a diluted version.
Posted by: naga | February 19, 2007 06:38 PM
you may aswell call yourself a religous mercinary this site is a disgrace to the five jourilist that were killed under the indonesian governments orders i should know one of them is a relative of mine. You preach acceptance when indonesians have anything but that for us having pre-historic man flick lit matches at me on my last holiday there cemented the fact that they are culture of animals. The only people that stand to benifit from this assimliation which is what you basically propose is indonesians and corporate australia benefiting from poor inept indonesians. I am disgusted that my hard earned tax dollars helped victims of tsunami when i could have fed a vagrant australian whith it.
enough of being the better person unless they take hold of there own country and people, i wish not to help them as do many australians feel.
you should perhaps investigate how many indonesians are in our jail system and for what reasons and their sentences handed out before you wish to better relations between us.
no-one wants to help people who have killed there family regardless of political parties the people of indonesia choose there president all should be accountable.
i wish they would die as race with very little value to the world.
regards and unhappy victim of indonesia.
Posted by: rohan clement | February 5, 2007 04:58 PM