http://www.thejakartapost.com/caption/jusuf.jpg
JUSUF WANANDI (JP/P.J. Leo)
Indonesia-Australia: A boom and bust relationship?
Jusuf Wanandi,
Jakarta
I want to be blunt, honest and balanced in my view on the problem of the Papuan asylum seekers. This is what members of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) stand for.
Indonesian-Australian relations have been affected by this problem. Is Australia to blame for it? In the past I have strongly criticized Prime Minister John Howard as being a gentleman from a small town in 19th century England who was unaware and not interested in what was happening in East Asia, Australia’s strategic environment. That was the period when he ignored Australia’s relations with East Asia, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
That has since changed, and now Howard fully understands where the “arc of instabilities” that can affect Australia is located, namely Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, and the South Pacific. This awareness has become more pronounced after Sept. 11, 2001, as well as because of the number of failing states in the South Pacific.
The most important security and strategic issue for Australia now is the security and well-being of Indonesia, because a chaotic and failing Indonesia would have the most dramatic impact on Australia’s security and welfare. That includes an interest in maintaining the unity of Indonesia, including the security and welfare of Papua as part of Indonesia.
What Australia is dreading most is if Papua gets into real trouble and tries to separate from Indonesia. Australia has enough problems with the weak state of Papua New Guinea and others to the east of PNG, such as Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Fiji and Nauru. The last thing they need is the big and nearby Indonesia getting into trouble because of Papua. So, the accusation from many Indonesian quarters that Australia would like to see Papua separate from Indonesia is just sheer nonsense.
As a democracy, there are NGOs, a few politicians and some in the Australian media who might think of separation as a possibility and try to agitate for that objective. But these are small groups of people, although vocal.
It should also be recognized that the Papuans who asked for asylum have not been treated well in Indonesia. Our Constitution allows citizens to ask for asylum if they so choose. Article 28g of the Constitution and Article 28 of the 1999 Human Rights Law stipulate that anyone has the right to ask for political asylum from another country.
Australia’s mistake was timing, as Indonesia is undergoing a fervor of “narrow” nationalism for a number of reasons: the loss of East Timor in the background, foreign takeovers of national assets after the financial crisis and the globalization process (as is also happening in the U.S., France, South Korea and Thailand).
Economic recovery has not been very successful as unemployment remains high and is still rising, and there is also the fervor of a new democracy where politicians, civil society and the press are all trying to assert their newly found power. The last thing Indonesia needs is another “sensitive” issue on its plate such as this problem of the Papuan refugees. Australia is also to blame for not trying to clearly explain its policy of granting the temporary stay permits before it was officially announced.
This failure to explain has been taken here as arrogant and insensitive. It was not understood that the policy of giving asylum is in accordance with the Treaty on Refugees (which Indonesia has not yet acceded to) that has been incorporated into Australian law. The law also ensures that immigration officials cannot be influenced or pressured by the government (federal or state).
The Australian federal government cannot intervene in the investigation by immigration officers of the Papuans seeking asylum. Depending on whether or not the case clearly suggests the Papuans face the possibility of punishment by their own government, or that their safety and security are at risk, a decision on the asylum request could be made quickly or slowly.
In the case of the 43 Papuans, it is very clear, according to Tempo magazine (April 3-9, 2006), that they have enough reasons to be afraid. And with all due respect, even if President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is willing to guarantee their safety if they return to Indonesia, there is no confidence in the implementation of this guarantee.
In conclusion, it can categorically be said that the Australians are right in their policy on the 43 Papuan asylum seekers. We could argue about timing or the need for an explanation before the announcement.
This episode should provide all of us with a real lesson and serve as an eye-opener that this incident could only have been prevented if we treated our Papuan citizens with respect and empathy, giving them the chance to run their province according to the Special Autonomy Law, educating and training their leaders to enable them to do that, and to wisely use the greater revenue they receive under the Special Autonomy Law. And most importantly, the rest of the country should show that Papuans can be trusted.
The writer is vice chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta.