Indonesia-Australia Dinna Wisnu  ;  Pengamat Hubungan Internasional; Co-founder & Director Paramadina Graduate School of Diplomacy

                                                KORAN SINDO, 25 November 2015

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

Pagi masih sunyi, belum tampak rombongan pengunjung ke gedung parlemen Australia yang juga merupakan kantor para menteri di Kota Canberra. Kami sudah menunggu perjumpaan dengan Menteri Luar Negeri Australia Julie Bishop. Rombongan tidak kurang dari 25 orang yang merupakan undangan dari Australia-IndonesiaCenter. Dan, sang menteri pun memasuki ruangan. Berbalut setelan jas dan rok serbahitam, Julie mengungkap sudut pandangnya, kementerian yang dipimpin dan negaranya terhadap Indonesia. Hal pertama yang beliau sampaikan adalah tentang betapa pentingnya Indonesia bagi Australia dan betapa gembiranya beliau bahwa kunjungan Perdana Menteri Malcolm Turnbull ke Jakarta untuk menemui Presiden Joko Widodo tempo hari berjalan dengan sangat lancar. Julie mengharapkan bahwa hubungan personal kedua pemimpin negara dapat terbangun lebih baik lagi sehingga jalur komunikasi antarkedua negara tidak perlu lagi melalui masa-masa sulit. Bagi yang mengikuti seluk-beluk hubungan luar negeri Indonesia dengan Australia, komentar beliau mengundang senyum karena ini menggambarkan kejujuran perasaan seorang menteri luar negeri. Saya dapat membayangkan bahwa sebagai suatu lembaga, kementerian luar negeri bergerak berdasarkan rangkaian rencana dan rekam sejarah yang tajam, khususnya ketika menyangkut urusan bilateral. Dan untuk Australia, urusan luar negeri sangatlah penting mengingat bahwa posisi geografis negeri ini cukup jauh dan terpisah di selatan dunia, tetapi ambisi mereka untuk menjadi kekuatan dunia yang diperhitungkan sangatlah serius. Rangkaian pembicaraan dengan Julie Bishop menggambarkan ragam pertimbangan yang dikelola oleh Kementerian Luar Negeri Australia, tetapi dengan jelas pula beliau menceritakan bahwa pada akhirnya ia perlu mengelola juga relasinya dengan perdana menteri. Nada bicara, gaya dan karakter seorang perdana menteri ikut memengaruhi agenda diplomasi yang ia rencanakan. Perihal Australia memang perlu mendapat perhatian serius. Negeri ini memang didiami penduduk dalam jumlah relatif kecil, sekitar 22,7 juta jiwa dan sebarannya cukup luas dalam satu benua. Begitu luasnya wilayah ini hingga menurut mereka yang tinggal di sana, sebuah jalan dikatakan macet apabila jarak antara satu mobil dan mobil lain kurang dari 30 meter. Bandingkan dengan kita yang di Jakarta, betapa sangat kontras perbedaan lingkungan sosial Indonesia dan Australia. Hal itu juga yang membedakan persepsi investor yang ingin menanam modalnya di Australia dan Indonesia. Dari segi ekonomi, walaupun ada kepastian hukum dan efisiensi dalam berbisnis, biaya untuk beroperasi di Australia terbilang mahal, karena minimnya tenaga kerja dan luasnya wilayah. Sementara di Indonesia, walaupun kepastian hukumnya masih terus dipertanyakan (dan masih banyak praktik korupsi), investasi tidak menyusut. Dari satu sisi ini, kita bisa melihat bahwa keunggulan demografi kita masih menjadi daya tawar yang kuat dalam hubungan dengan Australia; namun dari sisi strategi ekonomi regional, kita perlu mengelola hubungan dengan Australia lebih produktif untuk sejumlah alasan. Pertama, Australia-Indonesia perlu meningkatkan kinerja perekonomiannya lebih dari sekadar business as usual, namun dengan harapan yang realistis. Masalahnya, peningkatan kinerja tidak hanya bisa dari satu sisi tetapi harus bersama-sama. Karena kemajuan dan pertumbuhan ekonomi satu negara, khususnya Indonesia, akan memengaruhi pertumbuhan ekonomi Australia juga. Namun, kita juga perlu memahami bahwa kerja sama tidak selalu dalam bentuk afirmatif, tetapi juga dalam bentuk kritik. Misalnya, Indonesia perlu memahami mengapa Australia mengecam masalah hukuman mati yang dilakukan beberapa waktu yang lalu, dan sebaliknya Australia juga perlu memahami mengapa Indonesia mengkritik kebijakan antipengungsi yang sangat keras. Menjaga saluran diplomasi kedua negara tetap dingin walaupun hubungan memanas sewaktu- waktu, adalah pekerjaan rumah kedua negara yang harus terus menerus diperbaiki. Bila kita melihat sepuluh tahun ke belakang, ada banyak kejadian diplomatik yang membuat hubungan kedua negara merenggang untuk beberapa saat. Walaupun tidak membuat dampak ekonomi yang serius, para pemimpin yang berkuasa di Indonesia- Australia masih belum dapat menemukan mekanisme komunikasi yang cocok untuk menyelesaikan ketidaksepakatan di antara dua negara. Para pejabat kedua negara mungkin perlu belajar dari para akademisi dan aktivis sosial yang tetap dapat menjaga hubungan baik terlepas dari ketegangan yang terjadi. Kedua, percepatan hubungan perdagangan Indonesia- Australia masih kurang cepat dibandingkan Indonesia dengan negara-negara lain. Apakah ini baik atau buruk mungkin sangat relatif dari sudut pandang apa dan siapa yang melihatnya. Apabila kita melihat dari neraca perdagangan sejak 2010-2014, Kementerian Perdagangan RI mencatat pertumbuhan dagang kedua negara hanya meningkat 3,36%. Dan dalam dua tahun terakhir, Indonesia mengalami defisit. Apabila dibandingkan dengan China, angka pertumbuhan dan volumenya sangat jauh sekali, di mana negara kita meningkat 6,6% dan volume ekspor nonmigas kita juga lebih besar. Bagi Australia pun sama; volume perdagangan dengan Indonesia hanya sekitar 2% total nilai perdagangan mereka di dunia. Saya mencoba bersikap optimistis untuk melihat bahwa neraca perdagangan itu menunjukkan hubungan Indonesia dan Australia masih memiliki peluang yang terbuka luas dibandingkan, misalnya, dengan China. Kita masih berharap hubungan perdagangan dengan China tetap meningkat, walaupun mungkin beberapa tahun ke depan perdagangan itu akan mencapai titik puncak atau klimaksnya hingga kemudian ia akan turun. Ini pernah terjadi dengan hubungan perdagangan kita dengan Jepang, Amerika Serikat, atau Eropa beberapa dekade lalu. Oleh sebab itu, menggali lebih jauh Australia yang secara geografis relatif dekat tidak saja dapat mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia, tetapi juga dapat membuat kestabilan politik regional dan melepaskan sejumlah kebergantungan terhadap negara lain. Australia sedang berambisi juga meningkatkan nilai tambah dari produk-produk andalan tersebut. Saat ini mereka juga sudah menyadari potensi mereka untuk ”memasarkan” keahlian mereka di bidang logistik, teknologi, dan komunikasi. Untuk itu, meskipun mereka mengatakan bahwa Indonesia penting untuk agenda ekonomi mereka, de facto Australia justru memilih untuk lebih giat mendekati negara-negara Asia Timur seperti Jepang, Korea, China termasuk dalam mendorong agenda Trans Pacific Partnership dan ASEAN Plus. Jadi jangan heran bila pebisnis Australia dan pemerintahnya cukup lihai berdalih tentang mengapa mereka tidak mencoba berinvestasi di Indonesia bagian timur, meskipun dalam anggaran belanja 2015-2016 diumumkan bahwa Australia akan membuka kantor konsulat jenderal di Makassar. Lagilagi hitungan mereka adalah nilai ekonomis. Bagi Australia, jauh lebih menjamin ketika berbisnis dengan Jawa dan Indonesia bagian barat karena pasarnya lebih besar dan tenaga kerjanya cukup terlatih. Ketiga, dalam konteks ekonomi- politik regional dan dunia, kita melihat kecenderungan atau fenomena Australia (dan juga negara lain) yang mencoba memisahkan antara persekutuan secara politik dan persekutuan ekonomi. Contoh adalah dukungan Australia terhadap Bank Infrastruktur Asia yang dipelopori China. Sikap Australia itu bertentangan dengan sikap Amerika Serikat sebagai sekutu politik internasional yang menolak bergabung dengan bank tersebut dengan sejumlah alasan. Terlepas motif yang melatarbelakanginya, kita saat ini tidak dapat secara linear mengasosiasikan bahwa negara- negara yang secara politik searah akan sejalan juga di dalam garis ekonomi. Contoh lain adalah kerangka kerja sama ekonomi yang sedang kental dikembangkan di Australia adalah Indo-Pasifik dan MIKTA (Meksiko, Indonesia, Republik Korea, Turki, dan Australia). Keduanya melibatkan Indonesia. Penyebutan Indo- Pasifik diharapkan dapat mengubah mentalitas negaranegara dunia bahwa ke depan yang lebih dinamis bukan lagi Asia-Pasifik, melainkan negara- negara di lingkar Samudra Pasifik dan Samudra Hindia. Orientasi kerja sama ini adalah maritim. Sementara melalui MIKTA diharapkan bahwa urusan pertemanan lebih mudah dikelola, karena negara anggotanya sama-sama peduli demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia (HAM) meskipun mendukung juga inisiatif pengurangan hambatan perdagangan dan kegiatan ekonomi antarnegara. Artinya bahwa Indonesia sebenarnya tidak sendirian dalam ”menghadapi” Australia. Jika di mata sejumlah pihak di Indonesia ada pendapat bahwa Australia di bidang politik lebih cenderung membuat kesal (annoying), artinya upaya dari pihak Indonesia untuk mengubah cara pikir Australia juga perlu dikelola dengan baik. Australia tidak mungkin menyelaraskan langkah dengan Indonesia bila mereka tidak dibantu untuk memahami irama derap langkah Indonesia. Sebagai kesimpulan, saya ingin menegaskan bahwa hubungan Indonesia-Australia sebenarnya ada dalam tahapan penting dan kepentingan ekonomi maupun strategis adalah pengikatnya. Namun, tataran praktis hubungan ini masih perlu dikelola dengan lebih intensif dalam kerangka strategi makro yang tertata. Masih banyak peluang kerja sama selain masalah ekonomi yang dapat kita kembangkan bersama, seperti masalah pengenalan kesenian dan budaya, pendidikan, pembangunan sumber daya manusia. Sektor-sektor itu adalah beberapa kunci yang menurut saya harus dibangun karena akan menimbulkan rasa saling percaya dan menghormati satu sama lain; bukan sebatas antardiplomat tetapi justru antarmasyarakat awam, termasuk generasi muda dan pebisnis. Tingkat perkembangan seperti itu perlu dicapai agar tercipta dasar-dasar ikatan sosial dan budaya kedua negara yang dapat mengikat ikatan politik yang relatif lebih labil akibat dinamika politik kekuasaan di dalam negeri kedua negara. ●

Australia’s turn-back boat policy : There is always a choice

Australia’s turn-back boat policy : There is always a choice Sunan J Rustam  ;  The writer, who obtained a law doctorate degree from Indiana University, works for the Foreign Ministry

JAKARTA POST,  27 Januari 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                      

When Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa identified three main challenges facing the Asia Pacific in 2014, one of them was at home — a trust deficit in bilateral relations between Indonesia and Australia.   A new spat over spying has taken its toll on the two neighbors, bringing their relations to a new low. Indonesia summoned its ambassador from Canberra, froze security and defense cooperation and made it crystal clear that Australia had to follow a six-point roadmap if relations were to return to normal. Australia has been reluctant to do so and in reply exercised a policy of turning back boats carrying suspected asylum seekers. Australian Border Protection Command (ABPC) recently interdicted, boarded, towed, forced and steered boats carrying suspected asylum seekers to Indonesian waters, heaping more pressure on diplomatic relations between the two states.  The media reported Australia had apologized while Indonesia emphasized it would protect its sovereignty at all costs and reiterated its rejection of Australia’s policy.  The incident may have been resolved diplomatically. Nevertheless, given the nature of the issue, it will not be long before a similar incident takes place. Next time, things could turn ugly, with two navies possibly facing each other to protect their interests, as happened in the Ambalat spat between the Indonesian and Malaysian navies a few years ago. The Australian government argues that denying these particular boats is permissible under international law, provided the policy does not endanger the safety of the people on board.  In practice, exercising this act can be challenging, if not daunting, considering the length of distance and the minimum preparations these boats have made.  Many times the media has highlighted the poor condition of the people onboard these boats. They are either in urgent need of help or are unaware of their situation. It is unclear how the ABPC rendered its decision to turn back these boats, particularly when the people on board were in a poor condition.   The Indonesian government says the turn-back boat policy does not solve the issue as it will only create an endless vicious cycle. It does not take a genius to understand how the cycle works if all related states — be it origin, transit or destination states — practice the same approach.  It is the people on the boats that will suffer the most should the turn-back policy be adopted by all related states. Given the aforementioned conditions, there are at least two main issues at hand. First is sovereignty — being the acts of boarding, towing and forcing boats to another state’s waters — and second is the humanitarian issue — with regard to the safety of the people aboard the boats.  On the first issue, towing and forcing boats out of one’s waters may be justifiable under international law, particularly under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) where both states are parties, but certainly a clear violation thereof is if such acts are stretched to steering into another state’s territorial or contiguous waters. The rule of the thumb of the international law on sovereignty is that consent of the relevant state is mandatory — consent that is clear and explicit and does not rely on the doctrine of acquiescence or an assumed one.   The ABPC should first secure Indonesia’s explicit consent before the former decides to tow, force and steer boats to the latter’s waters.  The requirement of consent continues that before boarding the boat, the ABPC must also obtain explicit consent from the relevant flag state. Thus, if the boat is under the Indonesian flag, then the ABPC not only must secure boarding but also steering consent from the Indonesian authorities.  In the absence of such consent, the Indonesian authorities have every right with the necessary means under international law to protect the country’s sovereignty and interests. In some extreme cases, it is considered an act of war to board a foreign boat without the consent of the relevant flag state, let alone infringing another state’s waters.   With regard to the second issue — humanitarian concerns — the UNCLOS mandates member states to render assistance to any person or boat found in danger on the high seas. Further, a regional arrangement is called upon coastal states to ensure safety on and over the sea.  The 2013 Jakarta Declaration on addressing the irregular movement of persons and the 2002 Bali Process on people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime were among the answers to the call.  Alas, these answers are now only pro forma due to the standoffs between the two major players. Taking into account the final destination of these boats, Australia carries a relatively higher burden to render assistance compared to that of origin or transit states. Australia may continue the turn-back boat policy, but Indonesia’s strong protests indicate that this issue is not cricket. Although Indonesia is not designed to be invasive in character, history has shown that when it comes to an infringement of sovereignty, its people will defend their territory at all costs. As a matter of choice, Indonesia has set out the six-point roadmap as a prerequisite for the resumption of cooperation on security and defense, including on the irregular movement of persons. It is not clear whether Australia will agree and go along with the prerequisite, but looking at its response by exercising the turn-back boat policy, including the alleged infringement of Indonesia’s sovereignty, one can assume it will be long before cooperation on the irregular movement of persons takes full effect.  In the meantime, flocks of boat people, including women and children, will continue to stream into the region. Similar incidents will likely to occur in the future. Do we have a choice to resolve the issue? Yes we do.  In his book, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono argues that there is always a choice for everything. I could not agree more with the President and in the current context the choice is clear — it’s either with us or against us. ●

Envoy’s ‘holiday’ raises concerns for RI-Oz ties Ross B Taylor  ;   The President of the Western Australian-based Indonesia Institute (Inc), A Former Government Trade Director based in Jakarta

JAKARTA POST,  20 Januari 2014

                                                                                                                       

The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott last week arrived back in Australia after holidaying with his family in the French Alps over the Christmas holiday period. Meanwhile Indonesia’s Ambassador to Australia, Nadjib Riphat Kesoema, continues his “holiday” in Jakarta as a result of being recalled by his government over Australia’s response to the spying revelations late last year. This “ambassadorial holiday” is now in its eighth week; a worrying sign that the bilateral relationship is becoming more ambivalent as the weeks roll by as both countries focus on domestic issues dominated by Indonesia’s upcoming presidential elections and the new Australian government’s challenge to restructure their economy. In the meantime, Australia has now admitted breaching Indonesia’s territorial waters whilst turning asylum seeker boats back to Indonesia; an announcement that will almost certainly see Pak Kesoema have his stay in Jakarta extended. But the reality facing Australia and the Abbott government is that despite the quick apology over this latest incident and the ongoing rhetoric about the need for “close and meaningful relations” between Indonesia and Australia, many Australians still see Indonesia from a very Anglo Saxon perspective and with an overriding suspicion about their northern neighbor.  Indonesia admittedly still has huge challenges as a nation including corruption, lack of infrastructure, poverty and the critical need to control any rise in Islamic militancy through the archipelago. A close relationship with their neighbors, including Australia, is important to Indonesia’s path to becoming an economically strong — and socially stable — nation. In terms of regional security, Australia has an enormous investment in this long-term outcome. The reason Australia hands-out aid money to Indonesia is, as a prosperous and first-world neighbor, they want to be benevolent but also aid money works in Australia’s national interests. Yet every time my fellow Aussies don’t get what we want, the calls are the same: Withdraw aid if Indonesia causes us problems. It’s a bit like the parent who threatens to withdraw funding to their son or daughter at university every time they have a family disagreement. It’s patronizing and selfish.  In business and commerce both countries enjoy close relations, but the two-way trade is still comparatively small. For some years now Indonesia has been looking north for trade and investment opportunities, whilst Australia is focused on China and “their very best friend in Asia”, Japan. We talk often about building stronger trade links including the restoration of the live cattle trade with Indonesia.  There are some positive signals coming out of Jakarta but we still see the rebuilding of this vital trade from a perspective of, “We sell; they buy”, and the current malaise affecting the bilateral relationship will affect the significant opportunities for creating genuine partnerships with Indonesia to build a fully integrated supply chain where Brand Australia could add-value to beef for reexport, from Indo-Australian operated companies in Indonesia, to other countries through Asia and the Middle East. There is probably no better example of how close “partnerships” can benefit both Indonesia and Australia than the model developed by our respective national police forces. The Australian Federal Police and Indonesia’s National Police systematically “demolished” terrorist groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah who were responsible for the Bali bombings. These two organizations continue to enjoy close and effective relations, working on a range of important issues including training, people smuggling and terrorism.  But this relationship needs close government cooperation to be restored soon in order to maintain the effectiveness of our joint policing that also helps keep many Australians and other foreigners safe whilst holidaying in places such as Bali. The political malaise that continues may not dominate the public’s thinking at present, but the ramifications of a longer-term cooling of our mutual relationship will not only impact on Indonesia, but all Australians as well.  The recent spat with China over their ongoing dispute with Japan was a good example of where Indonesia and Australia — as regional partners — could have voiced our valid concerns jointly to China in a far more diplomatic, yet impactful, way. But it was not possible to do that when the core relationship and trust between our two nations was not there. Indonesia and Australia need each other as we both walk the otherwise lonely regional path between our economic dependency on China and our security allegiance to the USA and Japan. In a recent article in The Australian Financial Review newspaper, former Australian Labor Party leader, Mark Latham wrote that Indonesia is “just a two-bit player” and the best strategy for Australia would be to keep them, “at arm’s length”.  Notwithstanding these misguided comments, sadly as Indonesia becomes more inwardly focused during the 2014 election year, “mutual ambivalence” may become an undesirable feature of our bilateral relationship. The reality is however, both countries need each other, and the future security of the region and our respective futures are inextricably linked, despite our differences. ●

Indonesia, Oz : Joint obligation for a better era Budiono Kusumohamidjojo  ;  Senior Adviser at the Center for European Studies, University of Indonesia

JAKARTA POST,  09 Januari 2014

                                                                                                                        

I was requested in 1986 to write an article about the Indonesia-Australia relationship for the Australian Journal for International Affairs. My article, titled “Indonesia-Australia Relationship: Problems between Unfamiliar Neighbors” was published in December 1986. I closed my article with the following words, “[…], regardless of who in the neighborhood protects whom, an old Chinese proverb might contain the wisdom as noteworthy for Indonesia as well as for Australia in dealing with each other. It says, ‘It is better to have good neighbors than faraway pals.’”  That wisdom still rules today, particularly when it comes to global circumstances much more complicated than that of three decades ago. The problem with both countries now is that they have been sunk by the simple logical perception they should have of each other.  The leaders of both countries, with a few exceptions, tend to view each other from a stereotype that they do not know where it comes from. It is a long-held open secret that Indonesians generally tend to think about Australians as a bunch of arrogant people, while lots of Australians view their northern populous neighbor as dumb folk.  As a matter of course, no in-depth and productive dialogue can develop among two groups of people that treat each other with little respect as such. Nevertheless, the leaders of Indonesia and Australia should be aware that while both countries are moving deeper into the second decade of the 21st century, they have one big interest in common: The global challenge with its complex consequences that they should better cope with by means of reasonable cooperation rather than squabbles based on shallow superficial considerations.  In such a perspective, the recent furor shot by the “Snowden bugging” affair would look ridiculous in the frame of Bismarckian “Realpolitik”. Mutual eavesdropping is merely craftiness in the practice of relations among nations, which would turn into a messy cardinal sin only if you get caught red-handed. That is a maxim that even rules for pairs of untrue husband and wife. It is therefore about high time to turn sharp minds to the direction of a well considered prudence for the sake of a better future to be dedicated to the people of both countries. The leaders of Indonesia and Australia perhaps need to pay attention to the natural behavior of their own people. On the one hand, Indonesian youth would love to study in Australia, while its upper-middle class would hop to Australia to enjoy a culture that is nearby but “is not ASEAN”. On the other hand, Indonesia and, particularly Bali, still remain very high on the list of Australian travel destinations.  Bearing in mind that politics between the two countries have long suffered under cultural prejudice by which people generally judge each other along the uncreative adage of “they are not like we are”, the governments of Indonesia and Australia, regardless of which political party they belong, should start with the very basic endeavors: the building of mutual understanding. With the lack of mutual understanding, trust would only be a hollow idea, while in the absence of trust, it is futile to conduct constructive dialogue. As the building of mutual understanding would not be a gift from heaven, Indonesia and Australia must work together along long-term and short-term agendas.  For the long term, we need to start soon with a programmed and routine exchange of youth and students, while at the more academic level, joint and exchange studies should be conducted among higher learning institutions. In a more pragmatic framework, both governments should establish a joint government commission to draw up and deal with an agenda that lists ongoing problems to be handled. Amid a global economic recession, such an idea would likely bump against a defense saying that “we don’t have the money” or “we have other pressing priorities”.  Nonetheless, if the Indonesian and Australian governments and their people regard a better future to be in their own interest, then both parties need to be aware about two logics: first, any better future is worth an investment. Second, amid their various international priorities, Indonesia and Australia should put their bilateral relations among the top of their priorities, because they cannot escape the fact that “we are natural partners”, just like the then Indonesian foreign minister Dr. Mochtar Kusumaatmadja stated in 1986. Learning from what the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin said to the Finnish Ambassador Juho Kusti Paasikivi during the World War II in 1939: “we cannot do anything about geography”, Indonesian and Australian leaders must realize that they cannot escape from being geo-natural neighbors and therefore better work together toward a better future for their peoples rather than squabbling under an unproductive shadow of the past.  ●