Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Walking the tightrope with Indonesia

By Gary Brown - posted Tuesday, 11 April 2006


Indonesia’s displeasure with Australia’s granting of three-year temporary protection visas to over 40 West Papuan asylum seeker “boat people” who arrived here recently is entirely understandable.

Having been forced to disgorge its East Timorese conquest a few years ago, Jakarta now fears that a similar process might see it mulcted of the western half of New Guinea island as well.

Jakarta acquired West Papua in the early 1960s only after much sabre-rattling by the former Indonesian dictator, Sukarno. Australia acquiesced in this annexation, which was legitimised later in the decade not by a vote of the people but by a stage-managed so-called “act of free choice”.

Advertisement

Australia also acquiesced in Jakarta’s rape of East Timor. For over 20 years following the 1975 Indonesian invasion, governments of both persuasions parroted the line that Indonesia’s sovereignty over the country was legitimate. Canberra afforded Jakarta diplomatic recognition and support, even though the policy was never popular at home.

Then, when the Suharto dictatorship began to disintegrate in the late 1990s, Australia (under John Howard) abruptly changed its approach. As is well known, we led the INTERFET military mission to East Timor which cleaned up the worst of the mess after the Indonesian military and its sponsored militias went on a rampage following the East Timorese vote for independence.

What Jakarta fears is a similar backflip from this or some future Australian government. Though John Howard and Kim Beazley have been loudly supporting Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua, people in Jakarta can hardly be expected to forget that similar assurances over East Timor were effectively abandoned almost overnight. And they are deeply concerned that another Australian backflip will reignite secessionist tendencies in other parts of Indonesia - especially Aceh, where a tenuous peace has only just been achieved after decades of conflict.

In our free society there are people and groups which actively promote the idea of West Papuan independence despite official policy to the contrary. It is difficult for some Indonesians, who have had limited experience of this kind of pluralism, to believe that this is possible without at least tacit government approval. And it is easy for other Indonesians, who see domestic political advantage in playing the nationalist card, to exploit this perception.

Without a doubt the West Papuan issue is a very difficult one. One can indeed curse the colonial powers who saddled many states with awkward boundaries, the legacy of which still disturbs the peace in more places than just West Papua. It would certainly have been better if West Papua had never been part of the Netherlands East Indies, because Indonesia claims is that it is the legitimate successor state to that colonial entity, and that (whatever the case with Timor) West Papua is legitimately a part of Indonesia.

But both places are distinctively different from the mainstream ethnic and religious composition of most of Indonesia. West Papua is a predominantly Melanesian area, with far stronger ethnic and cultural links to Papua New Guinea than to Indonesia. Bahasa-speaking Muslims are seen as an alien element by many West Papuans. Despite minimal external support, an independence movement has existed there for many years.

Advertisement

What is Australia to do? Indonesia is our neighbour. Having at last emerged from the grip of vicious and corrupt dictatorship, it is trying to build a functioning democracy. It needs our support in this endeavour. Australian actions which might fuel secessionism are always going to be resented in Jakarta.

But our granting of protection visas says to Jakarta that we believe these people needed protection: that they were not safe if returned to their homeland. This implicitly articulates an (accurate) Australian belief that Indonesian rule in West Papua is still marred by significant human rights abuses. And, despite the history, on ethic and religious criteria the Indonesian claim is undeniably questionable.

At the same time, and even ignoring the adverse consequences for our bilateral relations with Indonesia, the idea of an independent West Papua has few attractions. Such a state would be weak, weaker even than our former Melanesian colony, Papua New Guinea, and like PNG it would look to Australia for support once independence was achieved. I welcomed East Timor’s liberation (and still do: Jakarta’s only right to that territory was the right of naked military conquest) but there is no denying that it too is weak, and subject to significant domestic problems.

If West Papua becomes independent, we will have two weak former Indonesian provinces on our doorstep and, moreover, a seriously compromised relationship with Indonesia. In the worst case, Indonesian fears might be realised, and the country could be racked by renewed civil war and a return to authoritarian rule. That, surely, is in no one’s interest.

Clearly we are walking a tightrope over West Papua. We can hardly sit on our hands, as we did for too long over East Timor, and allow abuses to occur without some form of effective protest. But neither should we do anything which might destabilise Indonesia’s fragile democracy, which is still far from securely or completely established.

I think that the government has so far walked this unpleasant tightrope about as well as could be expected. There was little option but to grant the West Papuans protection: it is hard to believe that in existing conditions there they could ever be safe had they been sent back. But really there was little option but to simultaneously support Indonesian sovereignty. The claim may be questionable, but we are too far down the track now to try and reverse history.

However, it is not just Canberra but Jakarta that has to walk the tightrope. In particular, there is an urgent need to rein in the security forces in West Papua, to prevent further abuses, to create conditions where people who argue for independence (without resorting to force) can be safe. Moreover, Jakarta has to accept that our political system cannot and will not suppress those groups in Australia which support West Papuan independence, and that our courts and tribunals (which actually made the rulings on the present asylum seekers), far less our media, are not controlled by our government.

This issue is not going to go away. It will require both sense and sensitivity, and a willingness to forego some short-term advantages, from all concerned to manage it successfully. But it is possible, and there are long-term benefits on offer. For Australia and Indonesia, stable relations with an important neighbour; for Indonesia, undisputed sovereignty over its present territory; for the West Papuans, a place in a stable and democratic Indonesia where they can live with dignity, rights and without fear.

But for this to happen we are going to need to see some real diplomacy. I think the government has made a start. And the Indonesians too have done likewise. Their protests were inevitable, but they could have done much more than temporarily recall their ambassador. Through actions such as opposing a boycott of Australian imports and facilitating the memorial service for the Australian personnel killed on Nias during tsunami relief work last year, Jakarta is signalling that there are bounds to its displeasure. But this is only a start: let us hope that all parties carry on as they have begun and safely navigate these treacherous waters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

35 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Until June 2002 Gary Brown was a Defence Advisor with the Parliamentary Information and Research Service at Parliament House, Canberra, where he provided confidential advice and research at request to members and staffs of all parties and Parliamentary committees, and produced regular publications on a wide range of defence issues. Many are available at here.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Gary Brown

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Gary Brown
Article Tools
Comment 35 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy