I agree Gary,
further evidence of Kopassus'use of terror tactics are evident in West Papua and continued in Aceh even after the tsunami to crush remaining elements of the Separatist movements there.
The US has decided to resume Military co-peration despite strong evidence that the Indonesian military was behind the ambush of a convoy of American teachers returning from a picnic, killing two American citizens.
Our present Foreign Affairs policy with regard to Indonesia is driven by Trade priorities and our poor excuse for a Minister in Alexander Downer who does not see the danger.

Gary I agree with your entire essay and would like to add that:

As in most policy positions involving Indonesia Australia follows the American lead. If the US removes assistance we do several months later. If the US restores military assistance, as it did from late 2004, then we slowly restore assistance.

The Indonesian military, with Kopassus as its most persuasive "mafia", conned military assistance (really bribes) out of the US and Australia for many years as it promised that it would suppress any reemergence of Indonesian communism.

Now no doubt Kopassus paints itself as Indonesia's most effective force against Muslim extremism. The US sees the Indonesia military as a force for free world democracy and who are we (in Australia) to say that the US is ever wrong.

One thing we can be confident of - the ALP will continue its own appeasement policy if it gets into power. Even after the Dili massacre Keating was happy to call Sukarno "father". If Keating had still been PM during the 1999 East Timor crisis a "softly, softly" approach to Indonesian sensitivities might have prevailed.

Although Beazly appears boringly gungho on any military matter, if he became PM he would have to contend with a confused intelligentsia in the ALP/Democrats/Greeens who say "golly we can't use force against the Indonesians! Lets talk alot instead."

So this is saying that, Howard, for all his sins, sorted out the Indonesians in 1999 when I doubt Labor would have. However, this new found love of Kopassus is just part of the "follow the US" cancer that Howard suffers from.

I agree with your general distrust of Kopassus for all the reasons you have given., yet I have heard a quote (author unknown) that said 'its better to have them in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in'.

Kopassus does have a bad reputation, in all areas mentioned, and I believe it is not in our national interest to have them in Australia.

As a close neighbour we do have a responsibility to work together with Indonesia, However lets not forget that Indonesia has a border problem with our closest neighbour , PNG.

It may not be common knowledge that Indonesia claims the entire Island of New Guinea. The atrocities carried out in the western half of the island after the invasion of West Irian are similar in fact to the occupation of East Timor.

My understanding of Indonesias 'military force' is that it is more a 'policing force' and not a 'defence force' as we know it, and Kopassus is the main strong arm of the system.

I dont trust them, and
I dont trust the Australian government either!!

.

Dear Gary,

I was most interested to read your article on Kopassus and the Australian government.
I wonder if you saw my article in "Arena magazine" concerning the Australian governments renewal of ties with Kopassus and the joint military training activities? I would be interseted in any comments you might make. I am but an amateur writer, having only expressed my views through the medium of the written word for two years or so. But I hope to study International relations next year.

willhardiker@hotmail.com

I disagree. All special ops commit human rights violations, whether a democratic nation or not. That is their modus operandi. The what-if hypothesis is waffle, a narrow scenario and incredibly situational.

With all due respect Steel I think comparing Kopassus to other 'special ops' is an insult. If you look at the history of the SAS for example the regiments main objective and role is to minimise civilian losses/ humanitarian violations while successfully engaging difficult targets.

I agree with the article for the most part. However I think it misses three vital points. Firstly Kopassus has not been taken back into the fold unconditionally/ completely. The training and intelligence that the SAS for example shares with it is piece meal/need to know. Thankfully the conservative government has not been naive in its dealings with the TNI (as Keating was).

Secondly Australian/ Indonesian relations are not based around a culture of appeasement anymore (as one poster has pointed out). The Indonesian elite in Jakarta has well and truly woken up to the fact that Australia is not a walk over under Howard. East Timor was a very rude awqakening for Jakarta. Which brings me to my final point.

Operationally the SAS is FAR superior to Kopassus. ADF insiders have acknowledged unofficially that numerous 'meetings' took place between Kopassus and the SAS in Timor and on every occasion the TNI was left severely embarassed. This also reinforces the idea that significant distrust already exists between the ADF and TNI and is unlikely to lead to the intelligence door being left ajar.

Of course the above points fail to include the fact that Indonesia and SBY cannot afford (literally) to be seen to go easy on Kopassus or its 'extremist affiliations'. The IMF, World Bank and US would not tolerate it.