Indonesia must be part of the asylum seeker solution

As Prime Minister Rudd prepares to meet Indonesian President Dr Yudhoyono (during which discussions about aylum seekers will take place), the Indonesia Institute now re-prints an article first published in The West Australian Newspaper almost one year ago; on 4th July 2012... 

 

 

At last week’s Liberal Party Conference, former foreign minister, Alexander Downer told his party that, “any solution to the asylum seeker crisis must include Indonesia.” 

He is right. 

His leader’s idea that the way to ‘include’ Indonesia would be to simply turn the boats around and dump the hapless passengers back on Indonesian soil, was not only naive but unworkable. It would also cause a major strain in relationships between Australia and our neighbour. 

But what if the asylum seekers were sent back to Indonesia as part of a bi-lateral agreement between our two countries that not only produced a desirable outcome for both Australia and Indonesia, but also placed genuine refugees back at the top of the queue where they should be? 

Our political leaders therefore need to find a plan that would provide a solution to the current impasse, and simultaneously provide Indonesia with a major incentive to accept a new initiative to stop the  flow of asylum seekers and ‘economic migrants’ who are transiting through their country. 

The answer lies in Eastern Indonesia where most of the boats originate. Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) is the official name of this Indonesian province and their governor (premier) is Frans Lebu Raya; not a name familiar to most Australians. NTT is probably Indonesia’s poorest province and its officials are desperate to seek-out investment that would create economic growth and jobs for their population which, interestingly, is predominately Christian. 

It is this poverty, combined with its location, an abundance of fishermen, boats and isolated villages that makes this province so attractive to people smugglers and a launching stage for so many asylum seekers wanting to enter Australia.  

So how would we involve Indonesia in a strategic and co-operative way to ‘stop the boats’? 

The first step would be for Australia to propose to the NTT Governor, and to the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, that we jointly build a major detention processing centre in the NTT capital of Kupang. Australia would provide the money, the technology and expertise and Indonesia would provide the labour in which to operate the facility. 

Such a centre would provide a significant boost for the local economy by creating a large number of jobs for local people. The ‘multiplier-effect’ of this facility would be enormous, with the need for many different skills, from bakers, food suppliers and carpenters to nurses, gardeners and plumbers; the list goes on. 

Once established, all asylum seekers arriving into Australian waters would initially be received at Christmas Island and then within days transferred to the Kupang facility in Indonesia, and thus effectively sending the passengers back to their original transit point. 

Asylum seekers would then be detained and processed in Indonesia.  

The effect would be immediate and the people smuggling business model would collapse within weeks. 

The benefits for Australia are obvious, but for Indonesia the impact could also be hugely beneficial. Not only would the creation of the processing facility in the NTT  increase employment in the region, but within weeks, the flow of asylum seekers moving into Indonesia from other countries to its north and west would also slow dramatically as people learn that Indonesia had become the ‘journey end point’ rather than a transit point to Australia. 

Such an initiative would face challenges. There would be issues that would need to be addressed for this plan to be attractive to Indonesia and be acceptable to human rights groups. Let’s consider the major ones: 

·         The ‘danger’ for the NTT region is that this plan could be too successful, and within 12 months the Kupang facility could be almost empty. This potentially would see the loss of the very jobs for local people that made the project attractive in the first place.  

To overcome this eventuality the Australian Government could, as part of the original deal, offer the NTT a minimum fixed funding commitment irrespective of how many asylum seekers were held in the facility. In other words, should the flow of asylum seekers ‘dry up’ completely, then the excess funds that were budgeted for managing the facility would be directed through AusAid into community and infrastructure programs thus ensuring that, irrespective of the operation of the centre, local people would benefit from Australia’s investment in this region. 

This would be expensive for Australia, but without a longer-term financial guarantee for the province there would not be the incentive for the Indonesian Governor or President to agree to such a plan. 

·         Commensurate with the centre’s operation, Australia would need to agree to at least double its intake of genuine refugees, many of whom are waiting patiently in Malaysia and Indonesia now. 

Such a move would provide a significant incentive for people to observe the correct pathway and use the formal channels. For those who still wish to transit through Indonesia illegally in the effort to reach Australia, they would face the guarantee of ending back in a processing centre in Indonesia (Kupang). 

For Human Rights activists and The Greens, who would no doubt claim that such treatment of asylum seekers was inhumane, there would be a fair response available: Just don’t take the asylum seeker route. Make a formal application to immigrate to, or seek refuge in, Australia and the new process will deal with your claim far more expeditiously.  

The asylum seekers can make a choice and take responsibility for their actions. 

·         Indonesia’s domestic politics would also come into play under such a scheme with opposition parties inevitably claiming that the president had ‘cow-towed’ to Australia by agreeing to establish a processing centre in Eastern Indonesia. 

For this reason the support of the provincial governor and his regional parliament would be critical. The argument that such a scheme would also have a major impact on Indonesia’s own difficulties with the number of asylum seekers using their country as a transit point, would help the project gain support. 

This proposal would not be easy. Diplomats would also need to address the issue of what to do with asylum seekers who by-pass Indonesia and head direct to Australia from other countries? 

Indonesia and Australia have shown that with goodwill, trust and co-operation our two countries can achieve great things together. The virtual elimination of the major terrorist groups such as Jamiah Islamiah in Indonesia is just one example of the highly successful way in which we can work together towards a mutually beneficial outcome. And we can do it again.  

The alternative will be a continuation of the current debacle with many lives being lost, many desperate people being exploited and Australia and Indonesia held at the mercy of the people smugglers.

 

Ross Taylor is the chairman of the Indonesia Institute (Inc) 

4th July 2012

 

Australia's regional issues may not always a priority for Indonesia

When Julia Gillard visits Indonesia’s president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) early in July, she will be met by a president who will extend a level of warmth and courtesy for which he is renowned.

Behind the genuinely smiling face will be thoughts that are probably going to be about issues other than those concerning Australia, including the diplomatic stoush with Singapore over the shocking haze that now covers the island state due to ‘man-made’ Indonesian forest fires in Sumatra, and the impact on Indonesia’s 95 million citizens who live on $2.00 per day, following his government’s decision to reign-in the unsustainable US$20 billion annual fuel subsidy bill by increasing prices by 40%.

The great challenge therefore, for Ms Gillard will be to convince Indonesia, and a president in his final term, that the asylum seeker issue is critical to both countries. As one senior Indonesian official recently told me:

“Indonesia is as underwhelmed about the asylum seeker crisis as Australia is overwhelmed by it.”

It was an interesting observation as generally Australia does spend a lot of time worrying and focusing on ‘Indonesian issues’ that are either political irritants (such as asylum seekers and drug smugglers) or Bali-holidays gone wrong. The trouble with these issues is that they are simply not a priority for most Indonesians.

What does interest the Indonesian government, apart from the fuel and forest fires issues, is finding jobs for the millions of young people now moving through their education system; health reforms and ensuring Indonesia’s economic ‘miracle’ not only continues, but matures into a strong and sustainable growth cycle.

Another major focus within Indonesia - and an issue that continually escapes the minds of most Australians – is the need to ensure that Indonesia remains a strong and stable democracy despite the rise of fundamentalist and religious violence in a number of provinces.

Of course Indonesia is willing to co-operate with Australia in matters such as asylum seekers - which has now become a lucrative ‘industry’ within Indonesia - but the reality is that Indonesia has its own problems with asylum seekers and refugees who can easily enter this huge archipelago via any one of thousands of entry points. Australia generally has only one.

We should not forget that the only reason Indonesia hosts so many asylum seekers is that they are using Indonesia as an entry point to their ultimate-and easy-target: Australia.

Meanwhile, if the PM really wants to engage with Indonesians’ and to find an issue that seriously ‘interests’ them, look no further than West Papua. And for SBY’s government the real regional issue of serious concern to his country is the ‘Free Papua Movement’ – an organisation that is supported by a number of Australians.

Writing in Asialink, presidential advisor Dewi Fortuna Anwar wrote that, “...There is still a strong belief in some Indonesian circles that the separation of East Timor from Indonesia resulted ...from pressure from Australia”.

It is of little surprise therefore, that any comments about – or demonstrations in support of – West Papua here in Australia are watched very closely by Indonesia. Ms Gillard understands clearly that the West Papua independence issue would have the potential to severely strain relations with Australia at a time when Indonesia will be electing a new – and perhaps not quite so friendly – president in 2014.

At a business level we continue to enjoy close and harmonious relations between both countries. But it is not enough. Indonesian business people have long since developed extensive relations to its north. Singapore, Japan, Korea and now China have huge investments in Indonesia and two-way trade is growing rapidly.

Australia has been understandably obsessed by the China story and as a consequence we have missed many opportunities to build closer and more extensive business, political and cultural ties with Indonesia.

Ironically, as commentators in Australia express concern as to how we have ‘neglected’ Indonesia, it is actually hard to find anyone in Indonesia who feels that they have been ‘neglected’ by Australia. Not because they are being understanding and sympathetic to our self-indulgent view of the bi-lateral relationship, but rather Indonesia has long since moved on and developed stronger and more extensive ties to its north.

This may be why Indonesia acted with extreme caution when we announced the placement of US troops into Darwin. Indonesia has built strong ties with China and it wishes to maintain these links without being forced to choose between two great powers, China and the USA.

At a ministerial level Australia and Indonesia enjoy warm and cordial relations. The challenge is to ensure these good relations - particularly at the leadership level - are maintained and developed in the post SBY era as from 2014.

Part of that process needs to be a much stronger and deeper engagement with Indonesia - for our own sake. A good starting point would be for us to quickly address the very disturbing decline in Indonesian language studies here in Australia that has seen student numbers fall by almost 40% in recent years.

We also need to make it easier for young Indonesians to undertake working holidays here, and whilst increasing the intake of young travellers from one hundred to one thousand a year is a good start, the process remains very complex and simply too hard for many Indonesians.

When Australia finds itself hosting more work & holiday young people from Bangladesh than Indonesia, we really need to be asking why?

We also need to admit that the handling of the cattle export issue to Indonesia in 2010 was an unmitigated disaster that has overshadowed the enormous opportunities open to Australia to partnership with Indonesia in building our agriculture industries using Indonesia’s fertile land, abundant labour and location combined with our branding, technology, science and farm management skills to create huge third-party exports to feed the rest of Asia.

Meanwhile, Australia is right in focusing and worrying about ‘things Indonesian’, but we should understand that the focus needs to be on matters that are important, not just to Australia, but also to Indonesia in terms of broadening and deepening of the bi-lateral relationship.  

Ross Taylor is the chairman of the WA-based Indonesia Institute (Inc).

June 2013