Living with a nation’s worm eye view of the world  Meidyatama Suryodiningrat  ;   Chief editor of The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST,  23 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                                                                                       

The late Pierre Trudeau famously said living next to the United States was like “sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly or even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” Forty-five years later, this colorful remark by Canada’s charismatic prime minister endures as an apposite analogy of proximity relations in international affairs. Near or far, big or small, self-perceptions shape reality. Coated in the veracities of geopolitics and economics, these perceptions harvest a myopic discernment that fuels a mélange of xenophobia and anxiety. If Canada felt it was sleeping next to an elephant, then one can only imagine how it feels to be a Singapore — a worm hinged on the rickety branch being looked down on by a colossal Garuda. This completely unnecessary spat between Indonesia and Singapore over the naming of a navy ship has nothing to do with national pride. Yes, Indonesia could have been more sensitive, in the same way that Singapore should not have overreacted. There is a need to understand Singapore’s pervading siege mentality born of its view of itself as an island state encircled by larger neighbors. It reflexively punches above its weight when provoked, or submits when needed. It has internalized the fear, articulated in the past by Singapore’s founding father Lee Kwan Yew, that the city-state could “become a satellite, cowed and intimidated by its neighbors”. Thus we see a survivalist pragmatism in Singapore’s foreign policy, which borders on opportunism when the situation calls for it. Former foreign minister S. Jayakumar in his book In Diplomacy: A Singapore Experience gave a vivid account of the tact needed by a small nation in carving a place for itself among major powers: “Sometimes, initiatives by Singapore are not well received, especially from our larger neighbors, who see themselves as the ‘natural’ leaders of the region or in ASEAN. We have to manage these sensitivities carefully while ensuring that we achieve our substantive objective. One way is for our larger neighbors or even a third, neutral country to reap the public accolades.” It was this diplomatic tact to improve relations with Soeharto that compelled Lee Kwan Yew in May 1973 to pay his respects to the graves of the two marines — Usman and Harun — he had hanged five years earlier. Present day pragmatism now probably dictates a more forceful stance to that of 1973 — one of assertive posturing against a larger neighbor, knowing full well that nothing will come of this spat other than headlines and hard feelings. A worm’s eye view is not an exclusive infirmity of size. Even nations with a large territory, advanced economy and superior military can be equally afflicted. Australia has enough hard power, allies and distance from Indonesia that it has nothing to fear from the archipelago. Yet for decades its neighbor to the north has been viewed with the perception of threat. This perception is held not only within security circles, but is spread throughout the Australian public. In August, The Australian quoted an opinion poll commissioned by the country’s department of foreign affairs and trade, which found almost 50 percent of Australians believed Indonesia to be a threat to Australia’s national security. Just how Australians became convinced Indonesia was an underlying security threat is unclear. Perhaps it started with Konfrontasi in the early 1960s, but more likely it happened because for the first time in its history, Australia — having only to previously deal with the diminutive influences of Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the Pacific islands — now has a rising power to contend with as an immediate neighbor. A neighbor that — perceived from Down Under — is comparative in size, has 10 times the population, is projected to be a major world economy in three decades and in due time will command regional authority as it builds a capable navy. Frequent misperceptions regarding the Indonesia-Australia relationship can be viewed in the context of historical great power relations — the strains between a vested power and an emerging one. Australia claims to welcome Indonesia’s gradual rise as mutually beneficial, but the obviously antiquated Cold War-like perception that saturates the Australian public suggests a deeper anxiety. While it is often observed with neurosis by Australia and Singapore, Indonesia has its own worm’s eye complex, particularly in perceiving China. Indonesia has the perception of being dwarfed economically and militarily by a nation whose rise is still being regarded with wariness despite the absence of any territorial or political dispute between Jakarta and Beijing. Now, in most everything — be it market dumping, security, investment — China has become the natural bogeyman. In the past, Southeast and East Asia built their regions on the assumption that a framework of economic interdependence built on the confidence of cooperative partnerships would avert hostilities. Though open war is no longer an option, deep-seated suspicions have not vanished, even between neighbors and “friends”, as in the case of Indonesia, Singapore, Australia and China. We are also learning that increased interdependence in this age of instant communication often accelerates discord, particularly when reactionary public xenophobia intrudes into the debate on the high politics of national security where economic exchanges often have limited traction. In the end we can only remind ourselves never to take the state of relations, bilaterally or regionally, for granted. Forty-six years of ASEAN does not mean less bitterness among its members, nor does a plethora of bilateral projects make Indonesia more welcome in the minds of many Australians. If Indonesia does see itself as a regional leader, it should have the wisdom to understand its neighbors’ hang-ups, the astuteness to act tactfully when it senses fear in others and the courage to tread softly when everyone knows it is already carrying an increasingly big stick. ●