Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s visit to Indonesia, starting on 30 September, will set the tone for the bilateral relationship, at least for the first term of the Coalition Government. The stakes are high: Mr Abbott has repeatedly stressed that Indonesia is ‘our most important single relationship’. Pre-election comments about Australian operations in Indonesia designed to disrupt people smugglers have annoyed some Indonesians. But with the election won, calmer language now prevails. And the PM has been relentlessly on message about ties:

Three points. First of all, I have no argument with anyone in the Indonesian establishment or Parliament. My argument is with people smugglers and my point to the people smugglers is the game is up. The game is up. Second point I make is that we absolutely totally respect Indonesia’s sovereignty. Third point I make is that we aren’t going to conduct discussions with Indonesia through the media. Too much damage has been done in the past by megaphone diplomacy and it’s never going to happen under this Government.

Well, let’s hope so. Mr Abbott can expect a friendly and courteous welcome from President Yudhoyono, who’s long been a supporter of the bilateral relationship. For as long as he’s President, SBY can temper the views of individuals such as Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, who seems to have no such concerns about conducting discussions through the media. It’s often said that the next Indonesian President—whoever that may be—is unlikely to be as well disposed to Australia as SBY. That fear may well be exaggerated because pragmatic governments tend to find ways to deal with each other. But Mr Abbott would be wise to put the foundations in place for a strong bilateral relationship while SBY is still in power. Read more

The recent visit by the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Indonesia was concluded with a decision to sell eight Boeing AH-64 Apache Longbow gunship helicopters worth US$500 million to the Indonesian Army (TNI-AD). The package includes pilot training, radars, and maintenance. However, arguments surrounding the purchase echo concerns about Indonesia’s decision to buy 100 Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks. The Apache gunships are primarily designed to attack other gunships, slow low-flying aircraft, or are used for ground attack and as anti-tank strikes. It simply doesn’t make sense when Secretary Hagel says that they ‘will help Indonesia respond to a range of contingencies, including counterpiracy operations and maritime awareness’. So why did Indonesia buy them?

Similar to the Leopard purchase, there seems to be a sense of ‘catch-up’ with the region in Indonesia’s Apache decision. As one analyst notes, Indonesia’s military procurement strategies seem to be emotionally driven, with a desire to keep up with neighbouring countries. But there are other reasons too.

The Army has been eyeing gunships for some time under the so-called ‘Minimum Essential Force’ (MEF). As per President Yudhoyono’s decree, the MEF is a capability upgrade program for TNI to be achieved in three stages by 2024. Moreover, Indonesia’s Defence Minister said that the TNI should have more modern capability, which it has lacked for the last 20 years. In March 2007, the Army revealed its 25 year plan to acquire around 135 helicopters to form eight squadrons. The plan started with the purchase of Mi-35 gunships in 2003 and 2008. Other than the Apache, the Army also intends to procure Eurocopter AS 550 Fennec light military helicopters. Read more

One wonders whose opinions the reportedly more consultative Kevin Rudd sought in advance of his press conference last week, when he speculated about confrontation with Indonesia under a Coalition government. ‘I am very concerned about whether if Mr Abbott became prime minister and continues that rhetoric and that posture and actually tries to translate it into reality I really wonder whether he is trying to risk some sort of conflict with Indonesia’, Mr Rudd said. ‘It’s not a good thing, it’s a really bad thing’.

Confrontation with Indonesia would be an unspeakably bad thing for any Australian government, but it’s difficult to see how that outcome would emerge from a difference of view over asylum seekers. The Australian Navy will always operate with the safety of individuals at sea as their prime concern, and no political direction can alter that. It’s simply misleading to imply that the unhappy and complicated asylum seeker issue could degenerate into war between Australia and Indonesia. The constant influx of boats carrying asylum-seekers makes the bilateral relationship difficult, but so too do differences over live cattle exports, the attitudes of some Australian NGOs on Papua, drug-mules and a range of other issues. The fact is that relations between the two countries remain on a positive track notwithstanding specific points of tension. Read more

In my previous post, I explained how separatist attempts throughout Indonesia’s history have led to Indonesian sensitivities over Papuan separatism today. We take every opportunity to earnestly reassure the Indonesian side of our unwavering support for Indonesian territorial sovereignty, as enshrined in the Lombok Treaty. For their part, the Indonesians pretend to believe us. Of course, they don’t. Why should they? After all, we were the only nation on the planet in 1975 to recognise Indonesian sway over East Timor, a mantra we intoned for more than 20 years, until we were forced to change our tune.

Indonesians see an inherent disconnect between our stated support for Indonesian rule over Papua and our actions, like the granting of asylum to 43 Papuans in 2006, which was enough to see a furious Jakarta recall its ambassador to Canberra. There are sophisticated and educated members of the ruling elite in Jakarta who genuinely believe the bizarre fiction that agents of influence from Australian government agencies are engaged in a covert campaign to destabilise Indonesian rule in Papua. Read more