Mending RI-Australia relations will help keep terror risk at bay

Mending RI-Australia relations will help keep terror risk at bay Ross Taylor  ;   The president of the Perth-based Indonesia Institute (Inc)

JAKARTA POST, 01 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

Last week Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and her counterpart, Indonesia’s Marty Natalegawa, flew to Bali to sign a Code of Conduct between Indonesia and Australia that will bring to an end the strained relations between the two countries caused by Australia’s alleged spying on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife. The agreement will also see the upgrading of intelligence sharing, policing and anti-terrorism cooperation. It also comes at a time when plans are underway to commemorate the 12th anniversary of the first Bali bombings in October. While most tourists visiting the holiday island would have given little thought to the significance of the signing of this agreement, the implications are significant for all travelers to Bali and the region amidst concerns of an increasing terrorist threat. This year has seen the approval for the release of over 100 convicted Bali-bombing terrorists and their “helpers” from Indonesian jails. But even more worrying, the recent events in Iraq and Syria have seen increasing numbers of young Indonesians answering the call to create what the emerging and extremely violent jihadist “army” IS (Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) call a caliphate; a demand for all Muslims to help establish a pan-Islamic state. Bring these events together at a time where many young Australians are visiting Bali for the first time, and disturbingly, attitudes towards holidaying in our “paradise island” have softened to a point whereby most Australians don’t even think about security issues any more. Within Indonesia, the Iraq-based IS followers have many political and religious leaders deeply concerned. Already our government has warned of the threat to mainland Australia from returning Australian passport holders who have been fighting in the Middle East. But the threat from Indonesians returning from Iraq and Syria as hardened terrorists is perhaps an even greater threat. It is estimated that at least 100-150 Indonesians are now actively engaged with IS in Iraq and Syria. Simultaneously, the radical Islamic cleric, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, has sent a rallying call to his “true believers” from a jail cell in Java (where he is serving a 17-year jail sentence for his involvement in both Bali bombings) to join in the caliphate in the Middle East; and the world. The expansion of IS in the region, and in Indonesia may, we hope, falter due to the extent of the shocking murder and mutilation of thousands of Christians and Shiite Muslims in the Middle East by IS followers. And the positive news for the region is that the vast majority of Muslims in both Indonesia and Australia are vigorously opposed to IS and their use of Islam to inflict appalling crimes on innocent people of all religions. Recently, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) decreed a fatwa (a religious order) against IS, and over 3,000 followers of Ba’asyir’s Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) have quit the organization over the actions of IS and their followers. In Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has already moved to soften his government’s plan to amend race-hate laws in order to “clear the air” with Muslim leaders whose support Abbott needs in stopping the spread and attraction of IS amongst young Australian Muslim men. But to ensure Bali remains immune from another terrorist attack similar to that which devastated the lives of so many Australians and Indonesians in 2002 and 2005, both countries will have to work together to address this potentially dangerous expansion of IS in our region. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Indonesia’s National Police (Polri) have an outstanding joint record in dealing with terror-related activities. Polri used the sophisticated skills of our AFP to bring to justice most of the Bali bombers. And ironically, Australia’s spying agencies probably have played a key role in providing the Indonesian authorities with information about terrorist activities. Indonesia’s incoming president, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, will be sworn in during October, and he has a good record of dealing with complex and sensitive matters including terrorist activities, having been the mayor of the central Java city of Surakarta. Jokowi knows that an extremist organization such as IS, who has committed brutal acts against fellow Muslims, could present a potential threat to Indonesia’s stability. Jokowi also knows that the biggest “weapon” Indonesia has in defeating the IS activities within Indonesia, is its successful democracy, economic growth and religious tolerance.. Notwithstanding this, he will still be keen to maintain and develop close anti-terrorist links between Jakarta and Canberra. Mutual cooperation following the restoration of the bilateral relationship between Australia and Indonesia, and in the early days of the Jokowi presidency, over terrorism issues could also provide the catalyst for broader and closer business and government relationships between our two countries, despite the new president predicted to be very domestically focused. In the meantime, for tourists heading off to Bali, the good news is that Bali is a far safer place than in 2002 when 202 people lost their lives in one terrible night. But the rise of IS, and the attraction of young Indonesian and Australian men to fight for the “caliphate”, should be a wake-up call for us all, while the need for closer relations between Australia and Indonesia’s new president will be even more critical. ●

Abbott’s pragmatism has set the scene

Abbott’s pragmatism has set the scene Ross Taylor  ;  Chairman of the Indonesia Institute (Inc.) and A Former National Vice-President of the Australia-Indonesia Business Council JAKARTA POST, 07 Oktober 2013

Australia’s new Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, during the recent visit to Jakarta, exercised great humility and pragmatism toward a country that will play an enormous role in our region in the future. The visit had the potential to be a bilateral relations “nightmare”, but with a measured approach by the Prime Minister and guidance and planning by a very professional team at the Australian Embassy the trip is being seen broadly as a success.

But now that Abbott has formally acknowledged Australia’s mistakes in the handling of some aspects of the bilateral relationship, the issue is whether Indonesia needs to do the same?

Indonesia was right to feel very aggrieved over Australia’s handling of the live cattle export crisis, and also be annoyed at some of the more “radical” policies from their then opposition suggesting Australia could pay Indonesian village wardens to “dob-in” people smugglers, and buy back fishing boats, so it was important that Abbott acknowledged the harm that has been done.

The real challenge now is for Indonesia to acknowledge some of the key issues facing its people — at the start of what will be a very “robust” election cycle where nationalism is on the rise — and to recognize that Indonesia also has taken actions that have worked against its own best interests, including building closer relations with Australia and the region.

Indonesia with a fast growing middle-class — estimated to rise from the current level of 45 million people to 135 million in 2030 — faces enormous challenges in a number of critical areas including infrastructure, energy, education, health and in general business where there is a need to improve living standards and opportunities for its country.

There is perhaps no greater example of where a “partnership” approach with Australia could prove highly successful than within the agriculture sector.

Indonesia’s agriculture sector enjoys superb soils, abundant rainfall and plentiful labor; already employing 41 million people. The productivity of farms however, is extremely low with farmers generating around US$3,000 per year per farmer compared to $9,000 in Malaysia for example. Over 70 percent of all fresh produce found in Indonesia’s major supermarkets is imported.

A recent McKinsey Report showed that Indonesia, on current projections, would produce around 185 million ton of food by 2030. Yet with improved productivity that figure could be 310 million tons each year, providing not only enough food for Indonesia’s growing and increasingly wealthy population but also — and this is the key point — being able (with Australian partners and branding) to add-value and export “surplus” foods to third-party countries in the Middle-East and Northern Asia.

But to do this, Indonesia must acknowledge that government red-tape and bureaucracy, including a policy of increasing tariffs designed to protect poor agriculture practices, will only hold back the huge and necessary structural change that must be implemented in this sector. 

So why is Indonesia’s food growing sector so unproductive? Indonesia lacks investment and expertise in rural infrastructure, training of farmers, cold supply chains, technology, irrigation, farm management and also access to good quality seed. 

Australia is very good at all of these things; in fact Australia is arguably the best in the world, so why not put Australian knowledge and skills together with Indonesia’s soil, rainfall, abundant labor and strategic location, so that both countries win?

By working with Australia to transform its agriculture sector, the impact would be enormous for both countries. Indonesia doesn’t really have a choice if it wants to feed its growing middle-class in the future and Australia is perfectly placed to partner its neighbor in this critical area. 

We should start with the cattle industry whereby Indonesia is now buying into Australian cattle stations, and Australian companies are being encouraged to take an interest in feedlots and processing companies in Indonesia. It makes good sense, and together we can meet Indonesia’s beef production needs well into the future whilst building a strong base for Australia-Indonesia “added value” produce to be exported around the region.

So following Abbott’s visit, the challenge is now not only for Australia, but for Indonesia to open-up this critical and large — but poor, over regulated and unproductive — agriculture sector, and in doing so create opportunities for business to form highly valuable partnerships.

The agriculture model can also apply to other critical areas facing Indonesia, including the resources sector, financial services, and manufacturing. It won’t be easy. Doing business here is not simple with, according to McKinsey, at least nine ‘procedures’ and an average of 33 days just to establish a commercial entity.

It will also need Indonesia to address the other “barriers-to-entry” that often act as a significant deterrent to doing business in Indonesia, including protectionist policies, inconsistent regulations and an unwieldy bureaucracy. 

This will be the challenge for the incoming president and government over the next 12 months at a time when the indications are that politics in Indonesia is being influenced by “economic nationalism”.

My comments are not meant to present an opinion that is sombong (arrogant) towards this country that — as a young man — stole my heart, but rather as constructive suggestion as to how Indonesia can build on its truly amazing transformation, since the end of the Soeharto reign, and realize the dreams and aspirations of its people. ●

Indonesian people victims of war on Australia’s live-cattle export trade

Indonesian people victims of war on Australia’s live-cattle export trade Ross Taylor ;  Chairman of the Western Australia-based Indonesia Institute (Inc) and A Former National Vice President of the Australia-Indonesia Business Council

JAKARTA POST, 28 Februari 2013

One of Australia’s most respected and insightful Buddhist leaders, Abbot Ajhan Brahm, once said that the problem with seeking revenge is that you become a “victim of your own war”, in that you can often suffer as much “damage” as the person to whom you are directing your revenge. It was good advice and something we all, at sometime, have been guilty of intentionally forgetting. It is also advice that is ironic given that Ajhan Brahm is highly admired and respected in Indonesia, where he holds many seminars and retreats, at a time when Indonesia’s agricultural officials are seeking and carrying-out revenge on Australia’s cattle industry for our appalling handling of the live-cattle export crisis in 2011. As the Indonesian government recently announced further reductions in the quota for live-cattle from Australia, the cattle industry in Australia continues to slip further into despair with numerous stations now up for sale. David Farley, managing director of Australian Agricultural Company (AAC) said recently that the reduction in quotas by Indonesia would result in even greater bankruptcies and job losses for an industry already in serious trouble following our government’s impulsive decision to ban the export of live cattle to Indonesia. The impact of these latest cuts will be dramatic. Prior to the cattle ban being imposed last year, Australia exported in excess of 520,000 head-of-cattle to Indonesia annually. This year the revised annual quota will be reduced to just 230,000. Notwithstanding the appalling treatment of these animals, Indonesia had every right to feel aggrieved over the handling of this issue. Beef makes up a very important part of the Indonesian diet, and to have the Australian agriculture minister announce a total ban on the export of live-cattle to Indonesia without any consultation with our near neighbor sent shock waves through the entire supply chain and left Indonesian officials and ministers embarrassed and seething. It also played into the hands of “special interest groups” within Indonesia who have, for many years, looked for a valid reason to kick Australian suppliers out of the lucrative Indonesian meat market. As a result, Indonesia announced that it intended to become “self sufficient” in live-cattle that can be used for slaughter. This maybe a noble objective but it is also not achievable, and nor is it sensible. Indonesia has some of the finest horticulture land in the world; rich soils with plenty of rainfall along with warm and humid conditions that allows its people to grow a huge variety of crops and effectively become Asia’s food bowl. It does not make any sense to turn over pristine food growing land for the purpose of breeding cattle. Those in the cattle industry have known for years that, as the outgoing Western Australia trade director, Martin Newbery said last month, “Australians are the best cattle breeders and Indonesians, the best cattle feeders.” He is right. For this reason, to have cattle bred in Australia, where we have the land, infrastructure and expertise, then export them to Indonesia where they are placed in feedlots and “bulked-up” not only makes sense, it is almost the prefect supply chain structure whereby all parties win. The Australian live-cattle trade should be booming on the back of Indonesia’s strong economy and population growth, with the industry being used as a model for the development of other major agricultural partnerships between Australia and Indonesia. Instead, we now have a relationship that is untrustworthy and fractured, where Indonesia seeks to “payback” Australia for what it did to a trusted friend, whilst simultaneously harming its own supply network and inflicting shortages and increased prices on its own community. The price of beef at the “wet markets” within Indonesia has effectively doubled since the quota reductions in Australian beef as Indonesia struggles to meet demand from its internal supplies and the black market is booming. So why does Indonesia now want to reduce the quota of Australian cattle even further? The answer is complicated but includes Indonesia’s desire to be self-sufficient in beef supply and thus ensure Australia can never again hold Indonesia to ransom by cutting-off a major food supply source without warning. But there are other more darker reasons behind Indonesia’s actions, including self-interest groups seeking to make enormous profits from such a ban, the rise of nationalism and a distrust in some quarters of Australia’s agenda in developing the much lauded Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) that will provide both countries opportunities to develop far greater business and trade opportunities. What is even more disturbing however, is that Australia’s agriculture minister, Joe Ludwig, seems helpless in addressing this progression into mutual economic self-harm at a time when Indonesia-Australia government relations are said to be at an all time high. Here in Indonesia, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) is nearing the end of his term. This is unfortunate timing for both countries as SBY has a deep and warm respect for Australia, but internally, many Indonesians view SBY as a president who has already “run his race” and perhaps what we are now seeing is a small taste of things to come as Indonesia heads towards electing a new president in 2014. There exists significant opportunities for our two countries to work together to build extensive and mutually beneficial partnerships as we move into “The Asian Century”. The live-cattle export industry should have been an example of how we can develop these partnerships, yet sadly this industry has become an example of what can go terribly wrong when international diplomacy is conducted “on the run” by a minister who had little understanding of Indonesia or the extent of the long term opportunities that would be lost as a consequence his impulsive decisions. Meanwhile, Indonesia continues to remind Australia about what it did and to seek revenge for the shabby treatment from its neighbor; even if this means higher prices and shortages for its own people. This is one trade outcome where everyone loses. ●