POLITICS: Post-Suharto Era Prompts Aust. Policy Re-think

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - Sonny Inbaraj

DARWIN, May 31 1998 (IPS) - Australia is re-thinking its support of total Indonesian control over its 17,000 islands and 300 ethnic groups following the resignation of Indonesia’s longtime strongman, President Suharto.

And, according to some analysts, the Australian government’s official position on Indonesia seems out of place in the post- Suharto Indonesia despite the official view from Canberra that it would be terrible for stability if East Timor and other regions broke away from Indonesia.

Indeed Paul Dibb a consultant for the influential Defence Studies Centre was quoted in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ as saying that “a stable, secure, unified Indonesia is vital to Australia’s national interest.”

“It’s been an enduring strategic concern of a succession of Australian governments – we absolutely don’t want to see a ‘Balkanisation’ of Indonesia. And it’s something we have to make absolutely sure doesn’t happen,” added Dibb, the author of Australia’s 1997 White Paper on Defence.

It was the Suharto government’s ability to maintain civil order and cohesion through strong economic growth that underpinned Australia’s support for Jakarta regime. But while there was support for Suharto’s political abilities and his economic achievements, the methods of his government were often embarrassing for Canberra and violated human rights.

Despite this, Australian think tanks have always advised governments of the day to remain on good terms with Suharto, thus locking Canberra into an uncritical position.

The United Nations never has recognised Indonesia’s 1975 annexation of East Timor, which is estimated to have cost the loves of more than 100,000 East Timorese – or more than one-third of the population. Like East Timor, West Papua, or Irian Jaya as it is called by Jakarta, was annexed by Indonesia after West Papuans voted to join the republic in the Act of Free Choice under U.N. auspices. International critics, however, called the Act of Free Choice a “farce” because the process was controlled by the Indonesians.

The current population of West Papua is placed at around 900,000 and, although hard figures are difficult to come by, it has been estimated that as many as 300,000 West Papuans have died as a result of the Indonesian occupation since 1969.

Analysts opine that Australia’s position on Indonesia is now outdated in the light of new political realities. Even the United States is without difficulty today in articulating the necessity for political reforms and new initiatives on East Timor and other troubled territories.

Last week, the chairman of the Human Rights subcommittee of the U.S. Congress, Chris Smith, met new Indonesian President Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie and pressed for the release of all political prisoners in Indonesia. He also sought the opening of a dialogue with the people of both East Timor and West Papua on a “just solution to their political status.”

“Australia has no reason to fear the break-up of Indonesia any more than it had cause to worry about the dismantling of the former Soviet Union,” said “Australian Financial Review” senior writer Brian Toohey. “Apart from the fact it is not in Australia’s power to ‘make absolutely sure’ the break-up of Indonesia does not occur, it could well be in Australia’s interests for this to happen.”

“A more democratic Indonesia is likely to emerge once it no longer has to repress significant sections of its population.”

The head of the Indonesia Project at the Australian National University, Harold Hill, said Jakarta might find it positively useful to shed one or two of its troubled and prickly parts – East Timor and West Papua. He believed that increased autonomy, for instance for East Timor, could be a bargaining chip for Indonesia to put on the international table.

“Indonesia will be relying much more than before on foreign capital flows. So it’s going to have to rely on more international goodwill. So it may be the best strategy to let some of them [the troubled parts] have more autonomy,” Hill added.

“There is an opening now. In East Timor, for example, Suharto was so identified with the 1975 invasion that it was a closed issue as long as Suharto was there. Now there’s an opportunity.”

Signs of a more mature approach to the prickly parts of Indonesian archipelago, and the realisation that changes to the boundaries of the Javanese “empire” are unavoidable, seem to be emerging in the post-Suharto Indonesia.

Muslim leader Amien Rais, the main leader of the popular movement against Suharto, has been quoted as saying the right of self-determination of the East Timorese people must be respected.

The leader of the 25 million-strong Muhammadiyah group told reporters that a referendum in the territory needs to be held as soon as possible under the auspices of the United Nations and the international community.

“The right of East Timor to self determination should be respected in the true sense of the word,” Rais said. “If after two or three years, my sisters and brothers in Timor still insist in having a state, they could effect a referendum under the supervision of the United Nations.

“If the majority in East Timor want to separate from Indonesia and have their own country, that should be respected On the contrary if the majority want to be integrated with the Republic of Indonesia, the international community, too, has to respect that.”

Rais, who last week announced his intention to run for the presidency, told Portuguese radio RDP-Antena 1 that jailed East Timorese resistance leader Xanana Gusmao “deserves to be released because he is respected by his own people.”

Xanana, the former leader of the Falintil resistance forces, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992. His sentence was later reduced to 20 years.

Labour leader Muchtar Pakpahan, who was released last Monday, is now leading the campaign in Indonesia for Xanana’s release.

“I asked the Minister of Justice to include East Timorese and West Papuan prisoners and he said ‘Yes, step by step’. We consider Xanana a political prisoner because his aim is political, whether or not he was involved in violence,” Pakpahan said.