{"id":20136,"date":"2015-05-04T06:00:20","date_gmt":"2015-05-03T20:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=20136"},"modified":"2015-05-01T16:51:49","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T06:51:49","slug":"indonesia-and-australia-together-apart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/indonesia-and-australia-together-apart\/","title":{"rendered":"Indonesia and Australia, together apart"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n Indonesia recalled its ambassador from Canberra because Australian intelligence eavesdropped on the Indonesian president and his wife.<\/p>\n Now Australia recalls its ambassador from Jakarta because Indonesia has executed two Australian drug smugglers.<\/p>\n The same diplomatic response to two events that have nothing in common: an intelligence gambit that went sour, and the tragic end to two young lives that went astray. What\u2019s the common factor that caused Indonesia and now Australia to withdraw ambassadors?<\/p>\n The answer is simple because it\u2019s big. And the answer has to be simple because it covers so many complexities.<\/p>\n The executions and the intelligence backfire share one vital dynamic: this is about Australia and Indonesia. Name two neighbouring states with less in common\u2014a disparate pair destined to discomfort.<\/p>\n When Tony Abbott predicted that his diplomacy would be more Jakarta than Geneva he spoke more truly than he could have feared. In his short period in office, the ambassador recall score card now stands at one-all.<\/p>\n Abbott’s prediction of less internationalism and multilateralism, as represented by Geneva, had party and political significance, reflecting Liberal hang-ups made explicit by John Howard’s UN rejectionism<\/a>.<\/p>\n Yet Abbott’s embrace of Jakarta expressed Australian interests and regional history. As the latest play of the ambassadorial yo-yo demonstrates, that history is defined by clash and crisis. These two nations have elevated a bit of common pragmatism to a guiding principle: we must live together though we are ever apart.<\/p>\n With emotions high and language hard, a stroll around the\u00a0pragmatic principle is timely.<\/p>\n Walking the most delicate military and diplomatic line during Confrontation, Robert Menzies declared on 4 February 1965: ‘We have to live with Indonesia for hundreds of years and would prefer to live in peace.’<\/p>\n In the warmest speech about Oz I’ve ever heard from an Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono spoke in the Great Hall of the Australian Parliament on 4 April, 2005, affirming the importance of the relationship while stressing the need to deal with each other differently:<\/p>\n ‘Over the years, our relations have experienced many twists and turns, highs and lows. We know from experience that our relations are so complex and unique that it can be pulled in so many different directions, and it can go right as often as it can go wrong. Which is why we have to handle it with the greatest care and counsel.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See such sentiment turned into diplomatese in the Framework for Security Cooperation<\/a> signed at Lombok in November 2006. The pact is rinsed through with UN Charter language as it grapples with the together\u2013apart reality. The first two guiding Principles of the Lombok treaty give the flavour and hint at the history:<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0Equality, mutual benefit and recognition of enduring interests each Party has in the stability, security and prosperity of the other.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Mutual respect and support for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, national unity and political independence of each other, and also non-interference in the internal affairs of one another.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One together\u2013apart reality is that Indonesia can direct Australia’s regional dreams or dominate its nightmares. Writing about this over the decades, the voice of\u00a0Jamie Mackie usually plays across my keyboard<\/a>.<\/p>\n