The Age, March 15, 2006
Remaking the mistakes of East Timor
By Scott Burchill
Denying the aspirations of West Papuans ignores the grim history of Timor.
Those disheartened by the immensity of the struggle for freedom in West Papua have
a new reason for thinking that East Timor provides a blueprint for the future,
notwithstanding the obvious differences between the former European colonies.
Australian Government ministers and diplomats, including the infamous Jakarta lobby,
seem determined to stand on the wrong side of history again. Their spectacular moral
and political failures that contributed so much to East Timor's 24-year immiseration
are today being repeated in policy towards Indonesia's eastern province. They have
clearly learnt nothing from the tumultuous events of 1999.
Recall their earlier modus operandi. Australians who campaigned for independence
and against human rights abuses in East Timor were defamed as "racist" and
"anti-Indonesian" for supporting "a lost cause which raises false hopes, prolongs
conflict and costs lives" (Richard Woolcott). Civilian massacres that reached
genocidal proportions were only "aberrant acts", Indonesia's takeover of East Timor
was "irreversible" and it was "quixotic to think otherwise" (Gareth Evans). The policy
was clear: "we're not going to hock the entire Indonesian relationship on Timor" (Paul
Keating).
Fast-forward to a recent US-Indonesia Society lunch in Washington, addressed by
former ASIO head and now Australian ambassador to the United States Dennis
Richardson. Canberra's man in Washington began his short and patronising speech
by outing himself as an unapologetic member of the Jakarta lobby.
Richardson claimed the Jakarta lobby comprised "government officials, academics
and some in business (who allegedly) conspire together to pervert Australia's true
national interests for those of Indonesia". It is an imaginary and disingenuous charge
but a convenient straw man for those who have much to be ashamed about.
There is no need for any concept of conspiracy when the interests of two parties are
mistakenly thought to be coterminous. The Jakarta lobby has argued for good
relations with the regime in Jakarta - especially its vicious and unaccountable military
- regardless of the appalling crimes it waas committing in Aceh, East Timor or West
Papua. For Richardson and his ilk, however, terrorism is only ever perpetrated by
Islamists and never the state, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
After claiming in his speech that Indonesia "is working hard to address issues in
Papua", without supporting such an assertion, Richardson made some even more
extraordinary remarks in response to questions.
First, he argued that "Papua is part of the sovereign territory of Indonesia and always
has been", a claim that would have made his audience - including Indonesia's
ambassador to Washington Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat - blush with embarrassment,
to say nothing of any Dutch observers or Australian World War II servicemen who
might recall a different history.
Next, Richardson attacked those supporting freedom in West Papua in strikingly
similar tones to those used to demonise Australians for assisting the East Timorese
in their struggle.
He said it was "possible to ask the question whether those whose raison d'etre was
(the independence of) East Timor has now become Papua and perhaps those critics
cling to an Indonesia that no longer exists. For them to accept the Indonesia of today
and to actually reinforce the positive developments in Indonesia is to deny them their
raison d'etre."
It is an interesting line of attack. Criticise people because their concern for human
rights violations extends beyond the boundaries of one territory (East Timor) and into
others (Aceh, West Papua, etc) - who could be ashamed of such a raison d'etre? -
and then argue that because Indonesia is now a procedural democracy, no further
claims of widespread abuses are valid.
These remarks display an ignorance of how far Indonesia still must travel before it can
claim to have developed a democratic political culture. Civilian control of the military is
but one of several prerequisites yet to be seriously addressed. And as Richardson
well knows, it was activists who campaigned for freedom in East Timor and across the
archipelago who led the call for democratic change in Indonesia while he and his
diplomatic class held hands with the dictator Soeharto, thwarting the very changes he
now wants to champion.
Even more concerning is Richardson's failure to either notice or care about the
deterioration in conditions for the indigenous inhabitants of West Papua since
Indonesia's alleged democratic transition. Where are the "positive developments" for
them?
Finally, in words borrowed from a former Labor prime minister who found East Timor to
be an irritant in his personal odyssey with General Soeharto, Richardson is equally
adamant about the insignificance of atrocities committed against the republic's
Melanesian people: "I certainly don't believe that policy approaches to Indonesia
should be held hostage by the issue of Papua."
There is little chance of this happening under a Coalition government. As the 43
asylum seekers on Christmas Island have clearly demonstrated, John Howard and
Alexander Downer are more committed to West Papua's retention within the Republic
of Indonesia that those unfortunate enough to live in the territory seem to be.
Dr Scott Burchill is senior lecturer in international relations at the School of
International and Political Studies, Deakin University.
Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd.
|
