By Tim Lindsey, University of Melbourne
Australian
prime minister Tony Abbott’s decision not to accept Indonesian president Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono’s invitation to meet at the Open Government Partnership forum
Yudhoyono is chairing in Bali this week leaves the bilateral relationship where
it has been since November – stuck.
While the
Australian government claims all is well between Canberra and Jakarta, the
reality is different. Under Yudhoyono, Australia enjoyed extraordinary access
for years. Now it is on the outer.
The relationship
has not been severed but it is officially downgraded. Australia is regularly
caned in the Indonesia media in a way that hasn’t happened since the East Timor
crisis in 1999. Access to senior politicians is far more difficult and there
are plenty of cases of bureaucrats making things hard for Australians.
Close
co-operation between police and military in both countries was a feature of the
relationship in the post-Soeharto era. It is now, at best, much trickier. At
worst, it is on ice.
Boats policy the sticking point
To a
great extent the impasse reflects fundamental contradictions in Coalition
policy on Indonesia. “More Jakarta, less
Geneva”, Abbott
promised before his election, reiterating the fundamental importance of Indonesia
to Australia. Every prime minister from Paul Keating onwards has now expressed
this view.
Unfortunately,
Abbott’s promise has proved irreconcilable with the Coalition’s decision to go
it alone on asylum seeker policy. Australia would do whatever it wanted to
“stop the boats”, regardless of Indonesian opinion. And Indonesia could take it
or leave it.
Indonesia
clearly sees people smuggling as a regional problem that needs a multilateral
solution. Its repeated warnings against unilateral action have,
however, been ignored.
For a
long time, Yudhoyono contained Indonesian frustration with Australia on boats.
Often described in Canberra as “fundamentally decent” and “our best friend” in
southeast Asia, he has been more enthusiastic about Australia than any previous
Indonesian leader.
Unfortunately,
Abbott’s handling of Edward Snowden’s revelations that Australian intelligence
had tapped the phones of Yudhoyono, his wife and inner circle ended that.
Yudhoyono is notorious in Indonesia for sensitivity on any issue involving his
family.
What
should have happened is not rocket science. Yudhoyono would have expected a
private call from Abbott in the first 48 hours before any public statements
were made in Australia. The call didn’t come in time. The Australian government
decided instead to tell our parliament and media
that Indonesia would again have to take it or leave it. That provoked Jakarta
to angrily withdraw its
ambassador,
formally downgrade the relationship and suspend military, intelligence and
people smuggling co-operation.
While
Yudhoyono may now be more sanguine about the wiretaps, these decisions cannot
be reversed until Australia complies with a “roadmap” set by
Jakarta and
since agreed by Canberra. This is complex and involves developing new protocols
for co-operation – including on intelligence – that the president himself must
approve.
US
Secretary of State John Kerry visited Jakarta in
February to sign
bilateral agreements on human rights and the environment. The Snowden leaks
seem no longer a major problem for the US relationship with Indonesia.
Australia, however, is still negotiating – and just lost another chance to get
things back on track.
Onus on Australia to repair ties
On July
9, Indonesia will hold its presidential election. The successor to Yudhoyono
(constitutionally prohibited from a third term) will be sworn in on October 20.
On current polling, the likely winner will be the popular governor of Jakarta, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo.
Regarded
as a competent and principled administrator, Jokowi has a reputation for good
governance – unlike his nearest rival, the aggressively nationalist Prabowo
Subianto. A cashiered former general and former son-in-law of Soeharto, Prabowo
has been denied a US visa because of human rights abuses,
including admitted torture of students in the late 1990s.
Jokowi
has little experience of foreign policy. His party leader, former president
Megawati Sukarnoputri, was not an easy partner for Australia during her time in
the palace and will be influential if Jokowi wins. Jokowi’s election would
nonetheless offer Australia a chance to reset the bilateral relationship –
which will be much harder if Prabowo wins.
Megaphone
diplomacy must be avoided, and Australia should take the first step, but if
handled sensitively, a reset is do-able. The problem is that any defrosting is
unlikely to be sustainable for long if the Coalition remains inflexible on its
boats policy.
It is
symptomatic of the fundamental contradictions in Australia’s policy on
Indonesia that the reason Abbott pulled out of the Bali meeting is, reportedly,
because Australian authorities were about to intercept another boat. If so, and
if this involves returning asylum seekers in orange lifeboats, that will add to the tensions
with Indonesia. Indonesians have repeatedly indicated displeasure with this
approach.
Put
simply, we cannot have it both ways. So long as Australia’s policy on boats
remains unilateral, it will be very difficult to restore the relationship with
Indonesia to its former state. Just as things start warming up, something will happen:
another boat will appear or the Australian navy will find itself straying into
Indonesian waters again.
Regional power on the rise
Indonesia
is rising, and knows it. For all its problems, ratings agencies forecast it will be the seventh largest
economy in the world by 2030 and fourth by 2050. It has 250 million people and
a middle class growing by around nine million every year.
Indonesia
has the world’s largest Muslim population and Muslim leaders played a key role
in brokering Indonesia’s successful transition to stable multi-party liberal
democracy. It is the superpower of the Association of South East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) and the strategic key to security in Southeast Asia. How important are
we in the region by comparison?
No
regional arrangement on asylum seekers can be effective unless Indonesia leads
it, but Australia seem to be drifting away from its most important
international relationship. Is it sensible for Australia to keep trying to go
it alone?
Tim
Lindsey is chair of the Australia Indonesia Institute in DFAT, but this article is
based entirely on his personal views. Tim;s article originally appeared 7 May in The Conversation.
You say there are "plenty of cases of bureaucrats making things hard for Australians". You need to be specific. Business has not felt any effect as yet (but may be prejudiced by the possible long-term implications of the suspension of CEPA negotiations). Business goes on - not with ease, but not affected by whether or not there is an Indonesian ambassador in Australia.
ReplyDeleteReading many reports, one gets the impression that these illegal immigrants are refugees from Indonesia. But Indonesians with problems stay home. However these illegals have long-since escaped their problems on the other side of the world and have an aim of getting to Australia. They are passing through Indonesia, and Indonesia does little to stop them. Indonesia does not want the problem of course, any more than Australia does. Why should Australia be forced to take in all those who make it to Australia? Third country settlement is totally legitimate.
Peter Fanning
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI think instead of referring to human beings who have not committed a crime as 'illegals' or a 'problem', we should avoid using discursive and dehumanising language. Third country re-settlement in a place like Cambodia is a heinous breach of international obligations and constitutes chain-refoulment: illegal under international law. I can't imagine that refugees have escaped their problems and are living trouble free in Indonesia, considering Indonesia has no domestic legislation that protects let along recognises refugees. They merely tolerate a single UNHCR office.
Most plane arrivals with improper travel documentation are deported due to a lack of legal and known mechanisms under which to claim asylum. They are thus stopped in their tracks at that point. Indonesia is far more tolerant than Australia, with 10,000 refugees and asylum seekers living in detention or in the community, but officials have repeatedly said that Australia as the destination country, should bear the most responsibility and act multilaterally. Indonesia could of course build Australian funded processing centres but Australia has not floated this because it would encourage people to the route and because Indonesia has shown no desire to sign treaties that would oblige it to protect refugees.
Australia has always displayed unilateral tendencies, pressuring Indonesia to adopt our asylum seeker policies for years and when that began to fragment in the wake of the spying dramas, pushing boats back. This has created much tension because, as PM Abbott knows, it's insulting and reactive and Indonesia opposes it. We are making asylum seekers someone elses problem; countries with far less resources and human rights.
Indonesians with problems do not stay home. There are 6000 West Papuans living as refugees just across the border in PNG. If localised sectarian conflict turned into full scale civil war and persecution Australia would be the first port of call for those fleeing. Indonesia also has vast numbers of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) who, for sectarian or disaster reasons were forced to relocate but who are not escaping war and political persecution.
We should be forced to take more refugees. It's really quite despicable that instead of increasing refugee intakes, we lowered it and established even crueler policies. We have so much and we can afford to share, but with a new budget that pits Australians against Australians, what hope do we have to champion outsiders' legitimacy?
Lauren Gumbs
Good article from Tim Lindsey. The question now is where does the relationship go from here. Is anyone really interested?
ReplyDeleteDan Elliott
Abbott did the right thing in stopping the boats. What he failed to do was to increase Australia's refugee intake which Australia could have done with ease. That would have also helped us and the people who are desparate to find a new home. Australia doesnt want to turn into a mean, cold and nasty country..or does it?
ReplyDeleteAgus-Jakarta