• Video

• Contact Us
• |
• Search our Site

AUSTRALIA AND INDONESIA: BUILDING A NEW RELATIONSHIP
by Laurie Brereton MP
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs

ASIALINK SEMINAR
MELBOURNE - 31 May 2001

It is a pleasure to speak this evening at this Asialink Seminar and the launch of Dr Damien Kingsbury’s new book South East Asia: A Political Profile.

If I recall correctly, I first met Damien at Dili’s Turismo Hotel in August 1999 as we both served as UN observers of East Timor’s independence ballot. The following year, Damien edited and contributed to an excellent collection of essays entitled Guns and Ballot Boxes. This provided both accounts and analysis of the ballot and its surrounding politics. It documented the pro-Jakarta militias and the efforts of the Indonesian Army’s attempts to subvert democratic process culminating in the burning of Dili and East Timor’s massive refugee crisis.

Damien has now produced this much broader work, this political profile of the South East Asia region. It’s a very ambitious project, and one that, in my view, the author can be very proud of. The time available tonight prevents me from doing justice to his comprehensive treatment of this vast subject. It ranges far and wide, and at the same time pays close attention to both detail and nuance across our diverse neighbourhood.

Damien’s discussion of the sources of political legitimacy and authority, including the issue of so-called “Asian values” is particularly thoughtful. So too are the chapters on the origins and contemporary political dynamics of the South East Asian states. It’s a book that I can warmly recommend for tucking in the kitbag of anyone planning extensive travel in South East Asia.

Cleverly Damien has in his introduction used the fictional character Ni to highlight the often-neglected human dimension of models of political and economic development.

Ni’s gives us the paddy field perspective of hundreds of millions of people across the region, irrespective of regime, of development model or of plan.

As Damien observes: “There is much, probably most, of South East Asia … still actually close to Ni’s experience. Many people still live in societies little touched by modernisation, while most are caressed so gently by it they are barely distracted from the concerns and aspirations that preoccupied their forefathers and mothers. Millions of others, though, have been caught up in the rising tide of modernisation and industrialisation, swept up and deposited in factories, schools and offices, living in often teeming cities with marginal infrastructure.”

I don’t need to tell this audience tonight that improving the circumstances of the vast majority of people through sustainable development remains the great challenge for South East Asia. But this reality is so often lost amidst the headlines of the latest political turmoil. As Damien concludes it’s practical outcomes that are important.

This book makes a significant contribution to scholarship and is a real aid to helping us in understanding our South East Asian neighbours. It’s part of what I hope will be a broadening of Australian debate on developments in South East Asia and Australia’s relations with our region. It seems to me that for far too long discussion and debate on these issues has been dominated by an all too narrow circle of academic, media and bureaucratic contributors.

Broad debate and a range of perspectives are particularly desirable as we consider our approach to future relations with our nearest Asian neighbour, Indonesia. I want to make this most difficult foreign policy challenge is the focus of my remarks tonight.

Indonesia is, of course, again in all of the headlines. As you know, Indonesia’s Parliament (DPR) last night voted by overwhelming majority to convene a special session of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) to hold President Abdurrahman Wahid to account for his administration. If Wahid’s defence to the MPR session is rejected, it will effectively mean impeachment for Indonesia’s first democratically elected President. And there continues speculation that the President may yet seek to declare a State of Emergency.

Many commentators are providing a running commentary on these dramatic events. I don’t propose to join them, it’s not my job. Moreover, the resolution of this crisis is a matter for Indonesia.

That said there is a great need for Australia to be engaged in dialogue with each of the elements of Indonesia’s political scene. We should take every opportunity to encourage restraint and respect for the rule of law. This week, Vice President Megawati Sukarnoputri called on her supporters to remain calm. It’s to be hoped that President Wahid will do likewise and refrain from any actions that run the risk of inflaming tensions. But the outcome of these events is a matter for Indonesia alone.

Tonight I want to look beyond the current political crisis in Jakarta and instead speak about the longer-term relationship and especially the broad approach a Beazley Labor Government will take in dealing with Indonesia.

It’s a subject that’s been a major focus for me as Labor’s foreign affairs spokesman these past five years. Earlier this month I undertook my seventh visit to Indonesia as Shadow Foreign Minister. Subject to developments in Jakarta, I anticipate visiting Indonesia at least once more before Australia goes to the polls later this year.

And why this focus? Well, fundamentally because Indonesia -- a nation of 220 million people, the world’s largest Muslim country and our nearest Asian neighbour -- is critically important to Australia and our engagement with Asia. This is not a relationship we can be disengaged from or indifferent to. It must always rate amongst our top foreign policy priorities.

A peaceful, prosperous Indonesia offering its people greater opportunity, and respect for human rights and less risk of conflict and poverty, is very much in Australia’s interests.

Conversely, an Indonesia facing continued political and economic crisis, communal conflict and human rights abuse can have very adverse ramifications for Australia.

It is of concern to me that many, indeed most, Australians fail to appreciate the scale of Indonesia’s difficulties ­ there is all too little understanding of the poverty and suffering being experienced as a consequence of the continued economic crisis and humanitarian disasters caused by regional conflicts.

The vicious religious and ethnic conflicts of Maluku and Kalimantan are comparable in their toll with anything witnessed in the Balkans. The conflicts in Aceh and Irian Jaya hold the threat of new humanitarian crises, and all the while tens of thousands of East Timorese refugees remain in the camps of West Timor.

Indonesia currently has some 1.2 million internally displaced people, a number that will grow if regional conflicts escalate. And there’s almost no international media coverage of this reality on Australia’s doorstep.

In my first year as Labor’s foreign policy spokesman I called for a fundamental review of our approach to relations with Indonesia. I urged Australia to break from our former focus on high level, one-to-one political relations and instead prepare ourselves to deal with Indonesia’s post-Suharto era. This required, I said back then, Australia to engage in dialogue with all elements of the Indonesia’s political spectrum. It also required us to put human rights and democratic processes at the core of this new approach.

Of course, the Howard Government didn’t do this. They remained focussed on President Suharto, then President Habibie, and especially focussed on our bilateral defence cooperation, which peaked just prior to the East Timor ballot in August 1999.

Since that event, the bilateral relationship has been allowed to drift and unravel.

Our Prime Minister decided to play politics on the question of whether he or President Wahid should be first to visit the other’s capital.

This was despite Australia knowing that Wahid was always going to pay a high political price for visiting Canberra. John Howard could and should have been more accommodating in his approach. Instead a game was played against a democratically elected Indonesian President who bore no responsibility for the killings in East Timor.

And the Howard Government has shown no real ambition for this bilateral relationship. Foreign Minister Downer hasn’t visited Jakarta for nearly eighteen months ­ not since January 2000. Prime Minister Howard hasn’t visited Jakarta since October 1997 ­ when President Suharto was still well and truly in power.

More recently, the Coalition’s inclinations are well captured by Tony Abbott’s reference in the Bulletin magazine to our neighbour as, and I quote him, “the bloody Indonesians”. And this, the public language of a senior Minister and close confident of the Prime Minister.

It’s not hard to see the value our Government places on relations with Indonesia. It’s as if they see domestic political advantage for themselves in disengagement. And they may well play more politics with the relationship in this year’s election campaign. They’ve already publicly asserted that Labor wants to take the relationship back to the days of Suharto. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now I don’t doubt that there are some elements in Australia who would like to turn the clock backwards. I’ve seen it recently suggested by one colleague, that Labor in office would simply repackage our old approach. Of course, what Kim Beazley and I are on about is not rebuilding the old relationship. The constant theme of our approach has been that of building a new, broadly based relationship with the new Indonesia.

When Kim Beazley visited Jakarta with me in April last year, he highlighted the task of building this new relationship between neighbours, neighbours in geography he said, neighbours in democracy.

We are dealing here with a country undergoing a very difficult transition. Democratic processes are evolving against a backdrop of enormous difficulty and political turmoil. The threat of a new financial crisis must not be underestimated. Australia should be very active in lobbying the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to adopt a flexible approach to Indonesia’s plight.

This year 52 percent of Indonesia’s national budget is spent on debt servicing, compared to less than seven percent for health and education combined. This dreadful debt burden is exacerbating social and political tensions. It’s limiting the ability of Indonesia’s Government to stimulate growth and fund vital social safety net measures. A significant proportion of the country’s debt should be classified as “criminal debt”, as loan monies were effectively stolen by powerful political figures, officials and their business cronies. Total World Bank loans to the Suharto regime amounted to nearly US$30 billion. Of this the World Bank acknowledges a third was stolen leaving a shocking burden on the people of Indonesia.

Australia needs to recognise the scale of these difficulties as well as the political and social consequences. At the same time we need to be polite yet forthright in encouraging respect for human rights. We need to be absolutely supportive of efforts to strengthen the rule of law. Australia has already provided a measure of assistance to Indonesian’s human rights commission, Komnas HAM, for legal reform and institution building. This is extremely worthwhile, but we should also look to build in other areas of civil society including non-government organisations and trade unions.

Australia should not be unwilling to explore a resumption of defence cooperation with Indonesia’s armed services, but this should be focussed on activities like maritime surveillance, fisheries protection, helping combat people smuggling and, most importantly, on encouraging the Indonesian military to develop greater respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Prior to September 1999, there was an ill-considered and ultimately counterproductive focus on military cooperation as the leading edge of the bilateral relationship. Future military-to-military cooperation should be pursued as but one part of a much broader and better-balanced approach.

No one should under estimate the potential difficulties that may arise during the next few years. The conflicts in Aceh and Irian Jaya may be very testing of our bilateral relations. For our part, Australia will need to be very clear in acknowledging Indonesia’s territorial sovereignty. There can be no ambiguity about that. At the same time, however, we must be quite forthright in urging peaceful dialogue and negotiation. We must be prepared to warn against moves for solutions through military means. This would be folly for Indonesia.

Substantial political autonomy for these troubled regions together with a real commitment to bring to account those responsible for human rights abuses can hopefully to provide a basis for conflict resolution.

In dealing with these complex and difficult issues, we in Australia need to gain a much better understanding of Indonesia’s political dynamics. And vice versa. Both sides need to work hard at broadening our political understanding. On a number of occasions since the East Timor crisis Indonesian friends have in all seriousness asked me the following question: ‘Just what are Australia’s further territorial ambitions in Indonesia?’ The fact that such questions can be asked demonstrates the work that must be done to break down suspicions and misconceptions.

In promoting understanding, we need a new boost for established bodies like the Australia-Indonesia Institute. We need to broaden their membership and scope. And we need to foster serious political dialogue. In this regard Australia and Indonesia would do well to inaugurate a broadly based Political Leadership Dialogue comparable with that established by Australia and the United States. It needs to be a bipartisan and inclusive dialogue including leading political figures from all of the main political parties, from business, from the universities, the judiciary and legal profession, human rights bodies, non-government organisations and the media. We need to gather in past and current contributors to this relationship, but most importantly we need to engage the emerging leadership of both countries, the people who will be making decisions in ten, fifteen and twenty years time.

A broad Leadership Dialogue would make a significant contribution to building mutual understanding and avoiding misconceptions.

We also need to look again at the diplomatic infrastructure of our bilateral and regional relations. In April last year, I floated the idea of establishing a ‘Council of the Arafura Sea’ embracing Australia, Indonesia, East Timor and PNG. It struck me then that with the emergence of an independent East Timor and Indonesia’s democratic transition; there was much merit in looking afresh at the architecture of our neighbourhood. Of course we have existing bilateral mechanisms like the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Dialogue and our Ministerial consultations with PNG. But I think it worthwhile that we look at further regional machinery to facilitate cooperation and help us manage the diverse problems of our neighbourhood.

The Council idea got a positive reaction in Jakarta and President Wahid subsequently raised his concept of a Western Pacific Grouping. But there has been a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm from the Howard Government. And I don’t expect much progress on this during the remainder of this election year. But the question of a new sub-regional architecture is something that an incoming Labor Government would be keen to pursue.

More broadly, we should explore what we can do to help Indonesia deal with its humanitarian and development challenges. This year’s foreign aid budget allocates $121.5 million to development and humanitarian assistance to Indonesia. It’s just under the same real level as in 2000-2001, but includes a $5 million allocation previously spent under Emergency and Humanitarian Programs. According to the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, assistance to Indonesia is now 14 percent lower in real terms compared to 1995/1996.

It seems to me that the Howard Government doesn’t see many votes in aid for Indonesia. On the contrary, they appear all too sensitive to Pauline Hanson’s attacks on foreign aid, especially in respect of Indonesia.

This is just the sort of politics that Australia needs to avoid ­ the politics in which Indonesia and our relations with our nearest Asian neighbour are seen through the lens of political focus groups and Indonesia of the Suharto years.

We need to build a new relationship, one in which we recognise and are sympathetic to Indonesia’s enormous challenges. Dr Kingsbury concludes his chapter on Indonesia with this question: Is it possible to govern Indonesia under a democratic political system? I don’t think any one knows the final answer to that, time will tell. But from Australia’s perspective we should be committed to do everything we can to help Indonesia make democracy work. The price of failure would be severe for Indonesia, and for Australia too. We must pursue a new relationship, one that puts people to people ties and respect for human rights at its centre. And in both countries we need to bring people along with us. Foreign policy can’t be pursued without regard to public opinion. That makes it all the more important for those of us in political life to be responsible and actively promote well-informed and mature debate.

And that, in conclusion, takes me back to Damien Kingsbury’s fine book for the foundation of good relations with the Indonesian people, and with all the other countries of our region, is a commitment to mutual understanding. South East Asia: A Political Profile is a significant contribution to educating Australians about our South East Asian neighbours. Studies like this are the foundations of informed foreign policy debate. We need many more of these from as wide a range of perspectives as we can get. I hope that this fine volume will merely be the first edition and I warmly commend it to you.