Very nice piece.

It is all too easy to focus on the fundamentalist minority - what is ignored, is the very large Indonesian muslim culture that can only be described as progressive - with an attitude much more culturally aware and to the 'left' than the vast majority of Australians give them credit for.

It is refreshing to see an article that takes into account the subtle nuances of international politics. I still shudder, when I think of President Bush actually branding a whole raft of countries as an 'axis of evil'.
This idiocy was only compounded by Howard's deputy sheriff comments. I'm relieve Bush didn't go one further and add Indonesia to his axis.

Nicely wrong TRTL

Woolcott adheres to the typical DFAT "we must be nice to everybody" approach. This is a good veneer for Australian public consumption.

It is true, as Woolcott suggests we should be sensitive to emerging democratic tendencies in Indonesia. However I think what really drives our relationship is realpolitik including force. Indonesia is still largely controlled by the Indonesia military (Indonesia leader "SBY" is an ex General) - hence ruling Indonesians professionally respect force.

Indonesia would not have exited East Timor in 1999 if Australia (and the US in the background) had been nice and accommodating. Most of what Woolcott has written in the past suggests he believes Australia should never have militarily intervened even over the Indonesian Army (TNI) directed slaughter of East Timorese.

The natural tendency of recent Indonesian governments has been to tolerate jihadist Muslims until they have killed a substantial number of foreigners. It is glaringly obvious that Woolcott does not wish to mention the "B word" Bali. Moderate Indonesian governments including SBY have followed a policy of appeasing jihadist Muslim elements like JI (a political threat). These governments have virtually treated JI's leader (Bashir) like a (Gandhi type) elder statesman. It has only been US and Australian political pressure (and money) that has persuaded Indonesia to arrest or kill some jihadists before they kill more Australians.

So while Woolcott has a bilateral niceness position (good for public consumption) this obscures what really drives Australian-Indonesian relations.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Very wrong to pretend our neighbour is something he is not.
A totalitarian, racist, pro-jihad military regime is on our door step and in control of 5% of the continental Australian landmass. That military is 70% self-funding through its ownership of banks, mills, construction companies, sale of arms & munitions, sale of military services to mine foreign companies, and a protection racketeer against small businesses, to name a few of the 'businesses' which TNI officers operate.

President Yudhoyono whose election you highlight as a example of democracy is also General Yudhoyono who was one of the two senior officers in charge of East Timor during its final 6 months of Indonesian rule while "Operation Scorched Earth" was being planned and prepared for.
When Gen. Yudhoyono did 'retire' he became a Minister for internal affairs and oversaw a brutal three year TNI reprisal against Aceh in which most of its schools and hospitals were burnt to the ground. That is why the country was in such bad condition at the time of the tsunami.
Since Gen. Suharto decided to retire and live off the $3b he stashed into personal overseas bank accounts and hundreds of billions he'd pumped into family owned business operations during his 30 years as President; we have seen the TNI cycle through his replacements.

Mr Habibie was rejected for poor economic management; Mr Wahid rejected for going ahead with the East Timor plebiscite; the old school of iron rule by Sukarno's daughter Megawati as she told the TNI to forget about previous talk of human rights and that their first duty was to enforce the unity of the state was welcome but she made a huge mistake on 20/Sept/2001 while in Washington she told GW Bush she would support his war against terrorism, Jakarta saw two weeks of anti-US protests until Megawati renounced the US war, so eventually another TNI General was installed as President again, trained in the US but with a dark history.

Darker is the history of Corporate America working with the Generals, corruption by the powerful few is the root of our woes.

I agree that Australia's stance is far too submissive in many instances - take the case of the Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Japanese fishermen who were caught whaling in Australian/Antarctic waters.

As Japan is a key trading partner, Australia declined to prosecute and simply returned them to Japan, where they were promptly released without charge.

I can't help but feel this kind of attitude breeds contempt for Australia in Japan - you can be damn sure the Japanese wouldn't tolerate it if the shoe was on the other foot.

But Pete/Plantagenet - Indonesia is another kettle of fish entirely. The population is dirt poor, yet its size and variety is something that very few Australians have been confronted with.
It's easy to say 'look here, it's the world's biggest muslim nation! Quick! strongarm them before they get uppity!' but this is a mistake. It is stupidity.

Before I continue - let me say that I strongly disagree with allowing Indonesia to dictate our foreign policy, as was the case with the papuan asylum seekers - that kind of action does breed contempt, and the assumption that Indonesia can interfere with Australian politics.

Take a look at the nations that have governments that have been interfered with by the Americans.
How many of them are friendly to the US today?
Australia needs to show a cordial level of respect to Indonesia without strongarm military tactics.
This 'show them whose boss' crap just gets us in more trouble, and if you can learn anything from muslim militants or 'terrorists' it's that you can't fight the war conventionally. You try force, you get retaliation. You try persuasion, and you get much further.

Unfortunately Australia strongarms the fishermen because they are poor and easy targets who need some kind of dissuading ; whereas colonization which is a crime, the employment and training of jihadist terrorist conducting ethnic cleansing, and the various other colonial abuses of the TNI Generals and Jakarta government for the benefit of Jakarta ; is never even mentioned by the Australian government.

The difference is that powerful American corporations put the TNI Generals into power and share the looting of the colonies; from Exxon in Sumatra & Borneo, Newmont in the Celebes, Conoco Philips in Timor, Freeport McMoRan in Papua; and servicing all of these companies is Bechtel.

Yes, Bechtel, A.K.A. backdoor to the CIA Directors, manufacturer of nuclear power plants for the U.S., and the company that designed and built the Grasberg mine for Freeport McMoRan among others. Also head of the "US Indonesia Society" which works with the TNI Generals to promote Indonesia as a democracy rather than the colonial military power that it is.

You must understand whom & what you are dealing with before you can decide the best course.

Myself, I suggest as members of the United Nations, that we allow the UN conduct the act of self-determination which the people of West Papua have never been allowed to have. You can read what the UN actually said about the false 'Act of Free Choice' in UN GA 2504, and you can read what a real act of self-determination requires in UN GA 1541 both of which you can find at bottom of the http://fandom.net page.

TRTL

I hear what you say. Moderate diplomacy (extolled by Woolcott) is useful day to day and even in a crisis usually operates simultaneously with what I call "national security instruments". I never labeled Indonesia as Muslim. Note that the last shots (intentionally) fired between Indonesia and Australia occured in the 1960s and a resurgence of direct conflict it furthest from my mind.

The problem with Woolcott is not only what he says here but what he represents. He comes from the elitist "privelege and pleasure" school of DFAT that:
- doesn't mention disturbing facts such as continuing military dominance in Indonesia (just below the surface)and
- declines to mention the key issues in bilateral relations since 1999 which have been the Bali bombings and the Bali drug trials.

He has decided to remain a self appointed Indonesia expert (who strongly influenced Keating's 'we are the apologetic whites of Asia' approach (eg. calling Suharto father). While Woolcott's thoughts stood still still violent events happened that his softly softly mindset still cannot come to grips with.

From 1999 bodies like the AFP and Defence moved decisively dragging Downer's softly softly DFAT crowd with them.

An examplle of DFAT's out of touch nature is this. The day before the East Timor independence vote became public I talked to a senior DFAT person who was genuinely convinced that the Indonesian military/militias in East Timor would not turn on the East Timorese people.

I was no expert (only a public servant in the Department of Communications) but I said "Why wouldn't the military/militia's be violent? They always have been before." He looked jaded and embarrassed the next day.

Yes Indonesia is different from us and has more people. It is more a culture dominated by a military Javanese caste than a Muslim country. Muslim groupings (notably al Qaeda linked JI) in the country have always disputed this caste's dominance.

Day to day diplomacy has its place, but should always be balanced by a national security capability, like the AFP and Defence, when things go wrong.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

For what it's worth there are more Indonesian soldiers on leave at the moment that we have soldiers in our defense forces.

Think on it.

It's very interesting reading Woolcott as he was around when the invastion of East Timor happened, when Fraser was PM and not Whitlam as often claimed. 183,000 people were murdered over the next 24 years by people just like SBY, we didn't liberate them in the end we were invited in.

We love them when they want to shoot "terr'ists", hate them if they let asylum seekers through. Rant at them if they lock up drug smugglers on one hand and turn in other drug smugglers to be shot on the other hand.

It is always stated that it is the largest Islamic state but so what Richard? China is the largest communist state but we don't say that anymore, we don't say that India is the largest Hindu state and so on.

By constantly saying it is the largest islamic state we are allowing the old Howard dog whistle to prevail and inciting fear against people who are not hurting us.

As for the fishermen - it's like good old colonialism when people where locked up for stealing bread, now we lock them up for stealing fish.

Do you know we have spent about $3 billion locking out refugees, $3 billion killing muslims in several countries, $300 million or so stopping "illegal" fishing and fishing and refugees cause us more grief than slaughtering human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do the fish know who is allowed to catch them I wonder? If they did would they jump off the Indonesia hooks?

Today they issued a warning that they'll kill anyone who supports Israel.

Very good sick pschomania BS. The sooner we cut off ties with them, the better

Indonesian fishermen poaching and overfishing in Australian waters should have their boats seized, set fire to and sunk; and then they should be jailed for life. Many Australians think penalties in Indonesia are inhumane and harsh, so the only way to put these people in their place is to retaliate in kind. What a shame we have a such despiccable neighbour.

In fact I see no reason to even acknowledge Indonesia as a neighbour - it is beneath contempt. We only need to focus on important countries in our region like Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and India. Indonesia is too irresponsible, vain, arrogant, unstable and temperamental to even bother with. The sooner we sever relations, the better.

Amazing! Ten posts and not one mention of the mythical 'pro Jakarta lobby' Mr. Woolcott was regularly accused of being a member of.

When illegal Indonesian fisherman are caught they are given medical treatment, free board and lodging AND pay. It is ,in contrast to their normal life, a wonderful holiday---see you next week, we'll be back!
All on the tax payer's back.
Their boats should be burned and they should be returned pronto to their homeland with all costs taken from aid we give their country.
That may make a big difference.

Indonesia is, of course, the largest Moslem country. But Islam Politics in the archipelago is often perceived as monolithic. Traditional and modern outlooks are traditionally represented by Nadhlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah but there are also others Islamic groups such as Ahmadiyah (this groups was attacked by Islamic Defender Front for deviating Islamic school). Fundamentalist groups, as Western media frequently referred to extremist, is not a typical characteristic of Islam in the country.

Militancy and radicalism in Islamic groups manifest in bombing and others violent acts emerged coincidentally in the period of democratisation.

I disagree with Pete assessment that Javanese military is culturally dominant. Javanisation was associated with Suharto vision of leadership and military was his authoritarian's backbone. But Suharto never intented to uplift Javanese people at large. Interestingly, after the downfall of Suharto and the introduction of regional autonomy law, ethnic and religious identity have been very crucial in local politics.

Is it really important for Australia to maintain a good relationship with Indonesia? It seems very important for Australia to have a good relationship with Indonesia, particularly on the basis of regional security.

I am presuming that the Indonesian foreign policy is coloured by the idea of mantaining national stability. Nasional integrity, therefore, is always voiced relentlessly. This is a paradox, i think. While the Indonesian politicians talk about the importance of national integrity, the project of nationalism, which has been shaped by colonial experience, is at peril. Perhaps, it is because nationalism itself was mantained during two period of authoritarian regimes.

Zapata

I don't know where you come from but I appreciate your comment.

I've yet to see an Indonesia commenter on OLO who is not a nationalist or, at least, an idealist. In that respect they have the same weaknesses/strengths? as we Australian commenters.

Given:

- Suharto has never been put on trial for his militay supported corruption and vast human rights abuses;
- his senior officers (many still serving) likewise never received real penalties.
- military corruption continues as a economic pillar;
- the military is seen as an elite career path
and
- SBY a former general owes much of his success to his extensive Indonesian military connections and US miltary ties while living there,

I can see why Indonesian commenters attempt to ignore this grim reality that the military is still the most powerful force in Indonesian politics. They write about what SHOULD be happening, rather than what IS. They are justifiably fearful of saying otherwise.

For Indonesia and Australia religious labels hardly stick due to:

- other dominating influences (in Australia its money)
- degree, or otherwise, of religious faith; and
- lack of international consensus about a given religion.

On Islam - I recognise that there are large and mild Islamic movements in Indonesia. Unfortunately the Islamic movements that make the biggest impression on Australians are the ones that do damage eg JI.

I don't see Australia as a Christian country - in the sense that relatively few attend Church or observe religious customs (pagan Christmas rituals and Easter bunnies don't count).

I and no doubt, Wahabist's, would not consider Indonesia a truly Muslim country. One reason is that positive tolerance of large non-Muslim minorities (Buddhists, Christians) owes much to efforts towards "national unity" and is not standard Muslim doctrine.

So our views differ.

Regards

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete,

Thanks for your response. I will write in response to your view on military. Indeed, i am not denying that the military is still an important faction in Indonesia's democratisation process. Yet its strenght and influence are not strong as it used to be. Looking at dynamic of local elections in the country, it appears that elite in Suharto's period who maintained to survive (not always military officers) when the regime collapsed, penetrated into new democratic institutions.

Regarding the Suharto trial. It is not merely about military group dominated the attempt of seeking justice in Indonesia. Political elite who survived from '1998 reform movement' still protect him not because they consider him as leader, i am afraid but its rather avoiding any possibilities of the trial which lead to the investigation of their involvements (human rights violations and corruption).

In this context, however, it is pertinent to reflect the relationship between Suharto and the Indonesian military. In the 1980s, political strain occurred between Suharto and the military which was soon dealt with by dismantling disobidient senior general from top positions. This period was rather interesting as this friction perhaps could move the pendulum toward moderate Islamic groups. Suharto then relied his support from Islamic groups which was harshly repressed by his military supporter in mid 1980s.

As you may have noticed, the trial of former president of authoritarian regime in the transition is never a smooth process. Chileans are still struggling to bring Pinochet to the court and Marcos fled overseas after his dirty trick of killing Aquino's husband led to his downfall.

Indeed, very sad that a radical group which does not represent society at large could have been perceived as a single representation. But i think this is not Australians fault. I believe that on the ground level, Indonesians who have been live peacefully with other aussies could have a completely different views. I was wondering how media represent the country and news or little coverage about jihad could/would have been used by right-wing for their political interests.

cheers
z

Zapata

You asked about Australian media representation of jihadist issues.

Most news sources are mainly typically sensational with a short attention spans.

The "National Security" section of the Australian (the only national newspaper) is probably the best readily available representation of this issue - as it relates to Australia.

Its at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex1/0,5745,natsecurity^^TEXT,00.html

You'll note its less about Indonesia and more about jihadists (often second generation Australians).

Pete

"There will always be tensions between principle and morality on the one hand and expediency and the constraints imposed by existing realities on the other. Often in foreign policy, decisions have to reflect an appropriate balance between conflicting interests".

Come on, Mr Woolcott this is pure sophistry. We know on which side - principle or expediency - you stood for 23 years over East Timor. You have always backed expediency as the guiding principle of Australian foreign policy - not balance.

Also you say we should embrace and learn more about Indonesia and Southeast Asia, but when we do learn about human rights abuses in the region you would be the first to condemn us as lacking in knowledge and balance. The knowledge you want is only limited knowledge in which human rights abuses and crimes against religious minorities are silenced as representing the views of racists and the uninformed.

Renewing Keating's 1995 Agreement on Mutual Security would serve no purpose whatsoever. Be honest, how much use was this Agreement when it was put to the test over East Timor in 1999? This suggestion above all else demonstrates how out of touch your thinking is. It seems you're still thinking it's 1974 and you're running round Jalan Thamrin in a batik shirt. Indonesia knowledge yes, but running around like Soeharto was the greatest thing since sliced bread no thanks.