Thursday, May 29, 2014

New illustrated interactive eBook called Vanishing Tribes: Unheard Voices from West Papua.

New illustrated interactive eBook called Vanishing Tribes: Unheard Voices from West Papua.


Friends of West Papua,

 A brand new illustrated interactive eBook called Vanishing Tribes: Unheard Voices from West Papua. It's a 70-page online graphic novel created by a collaboration of artists, programmers, academics and activists as a tribute to fifty years of peaceful protest in West Papua. Originally designed for the iPad, Vanishing Tribes is now available for virtually all types of computers, tablets and smartphones. All versions of the eBook are free, and can be accessed through

vanishingtribes.org.

Based on events circa 2012, Vanishing Tribes is a true story about the West Papuan peoples' unstoppable determination to regain their freedom through passive resistance. It's also a fictional story about a young woman's need to find courage, and her role in ending the global conspiracy that continues to enable militarized commerce and genocide in West Papua, a place perhaps as biologically and culturally diverse as the Amazon.

The eBook can be read on three levels. Readers can:
a) scan the story and browse the paintings like an art gallery
b) read the full story which includes more than sixty paintings and illustrations
c) open the embedded footnotes and image descriptions to understand what's happening to the astonishing people who inhabit the world's second largest island.

Readers who want to know more are directed to a wiki where they can verify the facts behind the fictional story, follow links to video evidence of atrocities, and choose from a variety of action ideas to help West Papuans regain their freedom.

Ends

-----


Posted by at No comments:

1) Indonesia probes violations of indigenous rights in contested forests

1) Indonesia probes violations of indigenous rights in contested forests
2) Indonesia’s Ambassador Returns to Canberra

3) Let’s try harder to rebuild trust with Indonesia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Indonesia probes violations of indigenous rights in contested forests

Source: Thomson Reuters Foundation - Thu, 29 May 2014 11:09 AMAuthor Fidelis E. Satriastanti More news from our correspondents
Photo
A Badui tribe member stands in Kanekes village on the outskirts of Lebak regency in Indonesia's Banten province, April 4, 2009. REUTERS/Beawiharta

JAKARTA (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Indonesia’s Human Rights Commission has launched the country’s first national inquiry into alleged human rights violations related to land conflicts involving indigenous people.
“It is the first inquiry into these (land conflict) cases on a national scale because we have indications of the same patterns (of human rights violations) for these conflicts,” said Sandra Moniaga, a member of the commission, which is known as Komnas HAM, before the launch of the initiative in Jakarta on May 20.
Public hearings will be held in seven regions – Sumatra, Java, Bali-Nusa, Sulawesi, Kalimantan, Maluku and Papua – in addition to a national hearing. Each hearing will involve witnesses, experts, local leaders and advocates from civil society organisations.
Around 140 cases have been reported to Komnas HAM as part of the inquiry.
“We will have a comprehensive investigation (and) secondary data collection from institutions that are concerned with this issue,” Moniaga said.
The institutions include the Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago, the Association for Community and Ecology-Based Law Reform and the National Forestry Council.
The commission aims to complete its inquiry by November and to issue recommendations for action by the country’s next president, who is due to be elected in July.
Nearly 70 percent of Indonesia’s forest - 136 million hectares (336 million acres) - belongs to the state. Land conflicts involving indigenous people date back to the Dutch occupation of the country from 1847 to 1942. Land was frequently claimed as the state’s property without considering the customary claims of native people living in forested areas.
DISPUTED FOREST LAW
In 1967, then-President Suharto issued a forestry law that covered only forest categorised as protected, natural reserves and forest used for production or tourism. The 1999 Law on Forestry did mention indigenous forest, but defined it as state-owned forest situated within an “indigenous law community area”, meaning an area where local people have established mostly unwritten laws and customs over generations.
Activists slammed the 1999 law for excluding the claims of people living near or inside the forests, which resulted in ongoing conflicts.
“The previous laws should be corrected by the ruling government,” said Moniaga, who says the state has engaged in systematic land grabs.
“People usually associate human rights violations with social and political rights, but these (indigenous) people are also suffering from human rights violations. They lost their rights to their lands, they lost their political rights, and most of these conflicts ended up with deaths,” she added
Abdon Nababan, secretary general of the Indigenous People’s Alliance of the Archipelago, agrees with this characterisation.
“We are referring to economic, social and cultural rights,” said Nababan. “These are the same rights being taken away from indigenous people.”
FORCED OUT
Kaharuddin, a member of the Dayak Punan tribe, one of the oldest indigenous communities in Kalimantan, said his tribe has suffered as a result of the government’s policies, from “forced” migration to the granting of timber concessions in the tribe’s customary forests.
“We were forced to move from the forests to settlements by the government in 1972 for the (stated) reason that we were living in too-remote areas. But we are forest people, we would eventually go back to the forests,” said Kaharuddin. Only 63 families are still living in the forests, making the tribe an endangered community, he added.
To make things worse, the Punan tribe’s 22,000 hectares of traditional forest are now threatened by timber concessions.
“These companies ... come to our forests and just leave it damaged. They have destroyed fruit, trees, rattan and rubber which are the main commodities for the Punan people,” said Kaharuddin.
“We Punan people (are) always careful in managing our forests. We usually cut trees every five years, but these concessions with their equipment cut hundreds of trees (very quickly). It’s painful to hear that we are being accused of destroying our own forests,” he added.
KEY COURT RULING
The struggle of indigenous communities to have their land recognised by the state received a boost in 2012 when the Constitutional Court granted an appeal by civil society organisations to revise the definition of indigenous forest in the 1999 forestry law.
The court’s decision, popularly known as MK 35, excluded indigenous forest areas from being categorised as state forests and recognised indigenous people’s ownership of the land in their forest areas.
However, there have been no significant efforts by the government to follow through on the decision.
“On the contrary, it is going backwards after the ministry of forestry and ministry of home affairs issued letters presenting bureaucratic obstacles” to implementing the decision, said Iwan Nurdin, secretary-general of the Consortium for Agrarian Reform.
Nurdin cited a 2013 letter from the forestry minister stating that indigenous forest can remain in the state’s possession if the community’s claim to the forest has not been legalised by regional regulations. Few such regulations have been issued in the past year.
The second letter from the home affairs minister also sparked controversy because it included land owned by traditional royal families in the category of “indigenous law community areas”, a classification that many experts and historians reject.
The implementation of MK35 is being overseen by the coordinating ministry of people’s welfare. The assistant deputy for conflict issues, Marwan (who goes by one name), was only appointed two months ago.
“I am still learning about the cases, but we will find a way to deal with these conflicts,” he said.
Kaharuddin said his tribe simply want their forest lands back. “(They) don’t have to be in good condition. Give us back our forest, we will fix it ourselves,” he said.
Fidelis E. Satriastanti is a Jakarta-based writer with an interest in climate change issues.
For more articles on progress and challenges in developing nations’ efforts to legislate on climate change and forests, check out our spotlight on “Laws and climate action”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/indonesias-ambassador-returns-to-canberra/

2) Indonesia’s Ambassador Returns to Canberra

The return is a step towards the normalization of relations following last year’s spy scandal.


By 
Indonesia’s ambassador to Australia has returned to Canberra after six months, as the two countries take steps 
towards normalizing relations in the wake of last year’s spy scandal.
Ambassador Nadjib Riphat Kesoema was recalled by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in November last year after documents released by Edward Snowden revealed Australia had attempted to tap the phones of Yudhoyono, his wife, and several close colleagues in 2009.
The bilateral relationship spiraled downwards following the revelations, with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott refusing to apologize and Indonesia halting all intelligence and military cooperation.
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and her Indonesian counterpart Marty Natalegawa have been discussing diplomatic protocol between the two neighbors since December last year.
On Monday, a spokesperson for the Indonesian president, Teuku Faizasyah, attempted to hose down the importance of the ambassador’s return, reportedly saying it was “only a step towards normalisation of bilateral relations.”
“Cooperation is related to the agreement of a code of conduct [on surveillance to be agreed between the two countries].
“The ambassador is returning to Australia very much to send a message that we are making progress in the discussions on the code of conduct … and it’s also an incentive to speed up the normalisation process. If we have someone there [in Canberra], I think it also has an impact on the way the discussions proceed,” Faizasyah said.
It has been reported that Yudhoyono phoned Abbott earlier this month about the prospect of normalizing relations by August. The Indonesian president is likely to want to see relations thaw before his term ends in October; however, it is unclear whether or not Australia will give way on spying protocols.
In November last year Tony Abbott ruled out agreeing to a no-spying code of conduct between the two nations. Yudhoyono risks losing face to the Indonesian public if he returns relations to normal without any compromise from the Australian’s.
Anti-Australian sentiment boiled over in Indonesia last year with Australian flags burnt outside the embassy in Jakarta. A crude cartoon depiction of Abbott masturbating was also published on the front page of local broadsheet Rakyat Merdeka.
Total bilateral trade between the two countries is worth around A$11 billion ($10.2 billion) annually, much of which comprises Australian agricultural exports to Indonesia. Despite the fiery rhetoric, trade doesn’t appear to have been affected; for example, Indonesia’s planned relaxation of rules on cattle imports is expected to see live exports from Australia soar more than 70 percent this year.
Australia’s unilateral policy of returning boats carrying asylum seekers to Indonesia is another issue that has also raised the ire of the Indonesians, but it is highly unlikely Abbott will compromise on what is such a key domestic policy.
Natalegawa slammed Australia earlier this month after it emerged that the Australian Navy added three asylum seekers to a boat before turning it back to Indonesia. The three men had been taken off a prior boat to be given emergency medical assistance. Australian Navy vessels also violated Indonesian waters in January this year during an asylum seeker related operation, later apologizing for the breach.
It is unclear whether or not Australia’s asylum seeker policy will play a role in the diplomatic negotiations to resume ties. It is also uncertain if Australia will be willing to make minor concessions to help the outgoing president save face. Canberra may just choose to wait for Yudhoyono’s impending departure.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Let’s try harder to rebuild trust with Indonesia

AT a conference on people-smuggling in Jakarta in mid-February, retired lieutenant general and former trade minister Luhut Panjaitan suggested Australia needed to reclaim “trust” if it wanted to ­rebuild relations with Indonesia.
Not surprisingly, Panjaitan, a veteran of the invasion of East Timor, reminded the small audience of the loss of trust Indonesians felt over the events of 1999.
His comments following the revelations of Australian eavesdropping on high Indonesian officials, including the President and his wife, raise a fundamental question over the future of the relationship: What foundation and expectations should Canberra and Jakarta set as they seek to ­restore ties after another confidence-sapping crisis?
The question is just as pertinent for strategic and defence ties as it is for the broader bilateral ­relationship. The pool of goodwill, even among Indonesian military officers deeply familiar with Australia, can be shallow and evaporate quickly in a crisis.
It is fair to say expectations have not been managed well by either side in the past and not enough has been made of the ­opportunities for closer defence relations in the good times. The rhetoric of trust and friendship — a flimsy rationale for relations between nations — has obscured the necessity for a sturdier base to the relationship tied to a clear understanding of shared strategic interests. Those shared interests dictate Australia could and should do a lot more in the realm of ­defence co-operation and engagement in the years ahead.
Panjiatan’s reference to trust is interesting, because trust was what the chief of the Australian Defence Force, General David Hurley, appealed to when he visited Jakarta in August 2012.
Hurley told an audience at the Indonesian Defence University that Australia and Indonesia needed to seek a true “strategic partnership”, an outcome that was already starting to unfold with the defence relationship in “perhaps its best shape ever”.  Hurley then went on to tell his audience that this state of affairs was “built on implicit trust”.
“This trust leads to the ideal of a genuine ‘security community’, even a community of two nations, which forms the backbone of a strategic partnership,” he said.
It is highly unlikely that for the foreseeable future a country as historically wary of foreign interference as Indonesia will embrace the implicit trust necessary to fulfil this aspiration.
The realities of diplomacy generally leave little room for such sentimentality. They have changed little since Lord Palmerston declared, as British foreign secretary in the 19th century, that his country had “no eternal allies and no permanent enemies”.
“Our interests are eternal, and those interests it is our duty to follow,” he said.
It is precisely the nurturing of a sense of common strategic interests that will permit the creation of a strategic partnership — in fairness, a point Hurley more or less alluded to in his 2012 speech with a reference to the need for “shared values and clearly defined interests”.  And, indeed, those interests will in the future need to be much more clearly defined and articulated and carefully cultivated through frequent interaction at all levels of the strategic relationship.  
Many shared interests are ­obvious, concerning the security and stability of maritime and mainland Southeast Asia. There is a range of actual and potential threats of a traditional and non-traditional nature of concern to both sides, such as transnational crime, terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass ­destruction, security of the maritime environment and territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
But while there is an undeniable logic to the idea that a sense of shared interests offers the most solid foundation for future strategic ties, it is not always readily apparent to either Jakarta or Canberra what they should be when it comes to the details and how to act on them once they are agreed.
Indonesia places high value on its sovereignty and autonomy, which can limit the extent of co-operation with foreign powers, including its ASEAN brothers.
Still, the two defence organisations have come a long way in ­recent years in broadening and deepening the apparatuses for high-level dialogue. Annual leaders summits were established in November 2011. Then, in March 2012, the two countries inaugurated the so-called 2+2 meeting of foreign and defence ministers, followed by the first annual defence ministers talks in September.
These ministerial meetings now sit alongside the High Level Committee, which brings together the respective chiefs of defence forces, which convened for the first time in April 2013.
Collectively, these forums offer a solid foundation for encouraging greater strategic understanding once the crisis in relations provoked by leaks about Australia’s intelligence activities passes.
There are signs the recovery is not too far off. Different arms of Indonesia’s military organisation have had different responses to the freeze in relations — some headquarters or services have seen it as no more than a temporary setback and quietly continued co-operation, while others have frozen all contacts with uniformed and civilian Australian officials.
At a gathering at the Australian ambassador’s house in March attended by Defence Minister David Johnston, his Indonesian counterpart, Purnomo Yusgiantoro, made light of the problems in bilateral relations by using the ­analogy of a dispute with his neighbour over loud singing.
Indonesian military officers and defence officials have quietly reassured Australian friends and counterparts that things will return to normal in time.
One sign of an improving ­atmosphere is that planning is under way for the possibility of a visit to Australia by Indonesian armed forces commander General Moeldoko later this year.
But once relations are back on track, Canberra needs to step up the levels of defence co-operation and engagement to match, and add substance to the increased tempo of strategic dialogue — a point that should be borne in mind by the drafters of a new defence White paper.
In his October 2012 speech, Hurley outlined an impressive array of activities that had been quietly built up in recent years, ­resulting in the “highest tempo ever” of professional exchanges and visits, education and training, and exercises and operations.
Special forces training alone in 2012 included two exercises in Indonesia and Australia, language training exchanges, parachuting skills and explosive detection dog training. A mobile training team from Australia put 100 junior ­Indonesian army officers through combat training on Java and the 30 best were brought to Australia for further combat training.
But more could still be done. Defence co-operation and engagement still does not penetrate Indonesian, and for that matter Australian, military or political life deeply enough. Moreover, the levels of some Australian activities are inconsistent with the rhetoric in policy and defence documents.
The state of the Defence Co-operation Program offers one example.  In contrast to the hundreds of millions of dollars Australia spends on hedging strategies aimed at Indonesia, DCP spending in 2013-14 was just $3.7 million, less than half the amount of the peak in 2004-05.
In contrast, DCP spending in Papua New Guinea was $27m in 2013-14. This was more than the total amount of funding for all of Southeast Asia.
The logic of DCP activities, which include programs to support capacity building and education, training and study visits, is that they help Australian and Indonesian personnel build familiarity in working together and, foster increased understanding.
This cultivates habits of co-operation among junior service personnel and senior officers, making it easier to solve problems or conduct more complex exercises and operations when the opportunity or need arises. It is also a valuable contributor towards stimulating a sense of shared interests. It might, in time, even help build the elusive sense of trust.
Donald Greenlees is a PhD candidate at the Defence and Strategic Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He is based in Jakarta.
Posted by at No comments:

1) SBY visit to Fiji seen through West Papua prism

1) SBY visit to Fiji seen through West Papua prism
2) For the freedom of our brothers and sisters

3) A 'fortress Australia' approach won't help relations with Indonesia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/245795/sby-visit-to-fiji-seen-through-west-papua-prism

1) SBY visit to Fiji seen through West Papua prism

Updated 13 minutes ago


An academic specialising in Indonesian politics and history says the President's planned visit to Fiji next month can be seen through what he calls the West Papua prism.
Fiji has announced that Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will visit Fiji next month for the second annual Pacific Islands Development Forum meeting in Nadi.
Dr Richard Chauvel of Melbourne's Victoria University says Indonesia is keen to forge closer ties with Pacific countries.
However he says Jakarta has stepped up its lobbying in the region since the Melanesian Spearhead Group began considering a membership application by West Papuans.
"The way the (MSG) Foreign Ministers visit (to West Papua) was hosted; you'll remember (PNG Prime Minister) O'Neill was in Jakarta when the MSG meeting was held. But clearly it has longer term strategic ambitions beyond its difficulties in West Papua."
Dr Richard Chauvel of Melbourne's Victoria University.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=269893
2) For the freedom of our brothers and sisters
Padre James Bhagwan Thursday, May 29, 2014
Last Wednesday, a day before the United Nations Committee of 24 met in Nadi, to discuss — among other issues — the reinscription of Maohi Nui (French Polynesia) on the list of territories for decolonisation, the Pacific Conference of Churches again called on regional governments to support the decolonisation of West Papua, Guam and Rapa Nui.
The theme of this regional seminar of the Committee of 24 is to accelerate action on the implementation of the 3rd International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.
The Pacific is represented on the C24 by Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
"We recognise that this might be a difficult position for some governments to take but the Pacific people must be treated with justice," said PCC Desk Officer Peter Emberson.
The PCC statement read, "For the freedom of our brothers and sisters in Guam, Kanaky/New Caledonia, Maohi Nui/French Polynesia, Tokelau, West Papua to chart their own political future, we call on our Pacific peoples in all walks of life to stand up, speak out and be actively be engaged in their struggle."
"The right of peoples in non-self-governing-territories, whose countries are ruled by colonial administrations, to determine their own political future is enshrined in international law.
"Similarly, the duty of the colonisers or administering powers to prepare the indigenous peoples in these territories to exercise their right to self-determination is also mandated by international law … underpinning the legal instruments and administrative protocols established to ensure and safeguard freedom is a grave moral responsibility.
"Lest we forget, many of us who now live and have our being in independent Pacific countries were once, not too long ago, also governed under colonial rule.
"Our freedom was purchased by the commitment, very often the sacrifice, of entire generations of our forebears and at great cost."
The support of the struggle for the self-determination of Maohi-Nui, Kanaky, Guam, Tokelau and Tanah Papua is on the PCC member churches' radar, following the 2013 PCC General Assembly in Honiara, Solomon Islands.
In Fiji the Executive Committee of the Fiji Council of Churches last year resolved to support the churches and people of West Papua in their struggle for self-determination.
"We continue to receive reports of torture, violence and atrocities against the people of West Papua and these actions by Indonesia must stop," said Mr Emberson at a media conference where the statement from PCC was issued.
I have shared the story of West or Tanah Papua before — its colonisation by the Dutch, a brief moment of independence in 1961, the invasion by Indonesia and the United Nations two grave sins — allowing the transfer of control of West Papua to Indonesia in 1962, albeit with an agreement of future self-determination; and endorsing the manipulated plebiscite "Act of Free Choice" in 1969, where, "instead of overseeing a free and fair election, the UN stood by while Indonesia rigged the vote.
Declaring that the Papuans were too "primitive" to cope with democracy, the Indonesian military hand-picked just 1026 "epresentative" Papuans, out of a population of one million, who were then bribed and threatened to kill them and their families if they voted the wrong way.
So strong was the intimidation that despite widespread opposition to Indonesian rule, all 1026 voted to remain a part of Indonesia.
With the advent of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP) and the International Lawyers for West Papua (ILWP) politicians and lawyers are beginning to engage with the issue.
Through the PCC, churches in the Pacific and by extension their members will also begin to learn and engage with the case of West/Tanah Papua and other self-determination struggles.
The issue of Tanah or West Papua weighed heavily on my soul in my recent visit to Indonesia.
I was profoundly affected by the stories, which I had heard from West Papuans, and videos and pictures of human rights abuses by Indonesian forces based in Tanah Papua, which I had seen online.
The response I received from a member of one particular Indonesian NGO when asked about Papua was that it was very large and rural, so working there was difficult.
I was concerned by inferences that the challenge was because the people of Tanah Papua and indeed much of eastern Indonesia, including Sulawesi, West Kalimantan and Maluku are "primitive".
Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, those are the Old Javanese words written on the foot of the Garuda Pancasila, Republic of Indonesia's national symbol, which mean "Unity in Diversity." However, this is not necessarily the case. I was to learn that there is a level of prejudice towards eastern Indonesia as it is also the least developed part of the country, thus people native to that area are viewed as primitive.
Ironically it is eastern Indonesia which provides much of the natural resources for Indonesia's economic growth, while the western part receives the profits and development.
A 2001 report by Minority Rights Group International, states that the extreme development gap between the island of Java and most of the outer regions, the effect of the government's policy of transmigrasi or forced migration, and its political manipulation of religion have been strategies by the powerful to their commercial interests in these areas, even if it has meant prolonging conflicts.
Self-determination for West/Tanah Papua in this wider context is therefore not just political empowerment but also socio-economic empowerment.
As I spoke with other Indonesian NGOs, community workers and activists who were more aware of this context and great divide between west and east, I became more aware of the preconditions for self-determination in West/Tanah Papua.
The lack of access to quality education — most children only attend school until they are 10 years old, according to one source, health-care and infrastructure adds to the already documented human rights abuses by the Indonesian military.
It is a stark illustration of the MRGI report, quoted above. By keeping the people of West/Tanah Papua poor and disempowered, unable to become a cohesive movement for self-determination due to poor communications technology and vast distances, the status quo remains and the people of West/Tanah Papua will always be at a disadvantage should any negotiations eventuate.
So how can the playing field be levelled?
Donor agencies need to channel funds to education, healthcare and infrastructure development.
Churches need to not only resound the call for self-determination but get involved through education, health-care and communications mission work. These were an important part of our growth towards our own self-determination.
We must also challenge our leaders, as constituents on a national level, or within our faith communities and social groups to step up to the challenge of advocating for self-determination in its fullest sense to be embraced.
After-all, if we were in the same situation, would we want any less?
"Simplicity, serenity, spontaneity."
* Reverend James Bhagwan is an ordained minister of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma. The views expressed are his and not of this newspaper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) A 'fortress Australia' approach won't help relations with Indonesia
Hamish McDonald
Periodic frictions with our closest neighbour would once have dissipated, but our historically benign image has been tempered in recent decades. Rebuilding links will be crucial

Zinc, aluminium, bronze, copper and steel. These are said to reflect Australia's national identity, if you read the blurb about the new $230m Australian embassy complex now rising on a large site in Jakarta.
Its offices, residences and recreation facilities will be clad in one or other of these metals, which also reflect another aspect of Australia’s profile in Indonesia: the new embassy is designed to be as impervious to terrorist attacks as possible – a car-bombing at the existing building caused carnage at its gates in 2004.
A side effect of the "fortress Australia" approach, though, is that virtually all Australian staff at the embassy from ambassador down will live in the complex, in a gated Australian community, a far cry from the days when diplomats were scattered in bungalows and apartments around town.
For two of the most different societies ever to find themselves geographic neighbours, Indonesia and Australia have been surprisingly warm towards one another. Periodic frictions ever since the republic was declared in 1945, only 44 years after the brash new federation came into being, have rarely deterred close relations.
Tony Abbott and Julia Bishop are the latest in a long line of Australian politicians to declare the relationship has been neglected and underdeveloped. Behind them is the usual crowd of pundits warning, as many have before, that Indonesia needs us much less than we need Indonesia: heading towards 300m-plus in population, its economy growing like topsy into the world’s seventh largest in 15 years, centre of Washington’s new attention to Southeast Asia, it will have many suitors.
Yet both the politicians and the pundits feel obliged to put a transactional value on the relationship: the growing middle class and its appetite for our beef, financial services, university degrees and holidays; assistance in countering refugee flows and terrorists; buffering Chinese power.
Where is the warmth? Only rarely do we get a voice like that of economist Ross Garnaut, who points out that with a friendly Indonesia, Australia will never be isolated from Asia.
Beneath the president and prime minister, and their foreign ministers, is a toxic layer of domestic-model politicians in both countries, ready to make the most of any sign of distrust or deception. Even that top-level wisdom has been strained by the Edward Snowden revelation that the Australian signals directorate tapped the mobile phones of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, his wife, and senior ministers.
In earlier times, tension would dissipate, because of Australia’s benign image, the early support for Indonesia’s independence in influential sections of the Australian community, the embrace of Indonesian language study in our schools, some pioneer mining and other businesses, and the 20m-strong audience for Radio Australia.
That historical narrative has been tempered by the East Timor and West Papua experiences, Indonesian language study has dwindled close to extinction and shortwave radio has been displaced by wi-fi. As for business, Indonesia has made itself a perilous investment zone, inhabited by nationalist ministries and corruptible police and judges.
To give them credit, Abbott and Bishop are opening new pathways into Indonesia. One is the new Colombo plan, which will place some bright Australian students in Indonesian universities. Another is a new national centre for Indonesian studies at Monash university.
Yet they are also choking off or narrowing others. The closure of the ABC’s Australia Network ended a nascent effort to replace Radio Australia as a window into Indonesian households − to portray Australia as a place to study, park savings, take a peaceful holiday, or pick up ideas.
The scrapping of AusAid as a separate organisation, folding its activities back into the department of foreign affairs and trade, killed a well-known brand name – not least in its main area of activity, where its aid projects like support for village schools stood somewhat separate from hard national interest.
Over the years I have taken part in many Australia-Indonesia forums, where the elite-level participants on the Australian side generally end up asking why others − businessmen, students, tourists − aren't as excited by Indonesia as they are.
There are some things that could make Australians sit up − a touring exhibition of Indonesia’s marvellous modern art would be one − but it will probably take a major strategic decision by Australia’s political leaders.
Indonesian should be the language taught by all our primary schools. If students and their parents want to add other languages, studying one generally helps with another. It helps that Indonesian is structurally simple, easily pronounced, written phonetically in Roman script, and usable at almost any level. Use of Skype conversation and student exchanges make it a live, fun experience for the young, as seen in schools like Leongatha in Victoria’s dairy country.
We should make this decision not because it will help win export deals or get high-paying jobs, though maybe it will for some people, but because of strategic choice: this is where we live and these are the neighbours we need to understand.

• Hamish McDonald’s new book Demokrasi: Indonesia in the 21st Century is out now
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)