The Australian
Opinion. Danger in mixed signals
By Paul Kelly
01nov00

INDONESIA'S most eastern province is called Irian Jaya, by the way. But rarely, it seems, in Australia, where Irian Jaya is already West Papua, a term used, incredibly, by our ministers, including John Howard and almost universally in the media.

It symbolises how far the cultural dynamics have shifted that politicians, when defending Indonesia's sovereignty over this province, call it West Papua, thereby implicitly conceding the independence cause.

When Australia's defence green paper was released four months ago there was anger in Jakarta over a map with the label West Papua on the territory Australia once called Irian Jaya. Of course, it was a mistake, but it was revealing. In Defence Department documents you
expect the right name for provinces that belong to neighbours whose capability and intentions will shape much of your defence policy.

Irian Jaya is going to become a hot spot. It is a mistake for our politicians to use the words West Papua, but the situation has gone beyond this. The Indonesian army is organising pro-Jakarta militias on the ground in Irian Jaya. It is putting in place a military and political strategy that suggests two things: the prospect of more violence and Jakarta's determination to hold Irian Jaya. This province is a Sukarno nationalistic legacy. Its history stretches back before the Suharto era to its acquisition in the 1960s in a highly dubious act of "free choice".

Howard and Alexander Downer have every reason to be sensitive about Irian Jaya. The Australian-Indonesian relationship is broken. Howard and Indonesia's President Abdurrahman Wahid can't manage to visit each other's countries. The Howard Government, trying to restore a functioning relationship with Jakarta, has been frustrated at each turn by a mixture of anti-Australian sentiment and administrative bungling.

There is a new claim in Jakarta that Australia wants to turn Irian Jaya into a free West Papua. It captures the essential problem: this issue has its own dynamic and is beyond the control of our political leaders. The signs are unmistakable. In Canberra yesterday, Greens Senator Bob Brown hosted a media conference for John Koknak, a Free Papua Movement leader. They want Australia to put pressure on Jakarta for a vote of self-determination for Irian
Jaya, the next stage in the dismantling of Indonesia. It is a repeat of the successful East Timor strategy. Koknak said that if Indonesia refuses to negotiate, "the choice is to fight".

Brown said Australia's involvement was essential, "if further bloodshed is to be avoided". Once the bloodshed does increase, so will the campaign. The popular appeal in Brown's pitch can't be underestimated. He predicts that the "fair-mindedness" of the Australian people will support the West Papuan cause just as it did with East Timor. Brown called upon the Coalition and Labor to change the present bipartisan policy of acceptance of Indonesian
sovereignty and embrace self-determination.

Much of the trade union movement, as distinct from the Labor caucus, has already moved to this position. In Melbourne last week ACTU vice-president Greg Sword announced he was signing a memorandum of understanding with the West Papuan movement. Significantly, Sword claimed the reason was "so that further bloodshed is avoided". Sword is also ALP federal president but felt no need to stick by ALP policy.

At this point the political leaders pulled the plug. Shadow foreign minister Laurie Brereton fired off an immediate statement on West Papua and spoke to Sword. Brereton's points were: that ALP policy accepts Indonesian sovereignty; that West Papua is not a repeat of East Timor; that such actions won't lessen tensions in West Papua and will only damage Australia's relations with Indonesia; and that the ALP will pursue human rights abuses in West Papua.

Brereton, who forced a change of ALP policy on East Timor, comes to the Irian Jaya issue with a credibility dividend since he has hardly been crawling to Jakarta recently.

Two days later Downer warned of a bloodbath in West Papua if the outsiders fermented the independence cause. Howard said: "We have always taken the view that West Papua is an integral part of Indonesia and we won't be advocating anything designed to undermine
the authority of Indonesia."

The problem facing Australian governments is that they know privately that Indonesia might not be able to hold Irian Jaya because it provokes too strong a backlash due to its military
brutality. Australian governments must be alive to the charge of the independence campaigners that Australia can't make the mistake of recognising Indonesian sovereignty beyond a point when it is no longer tenable. Any such point, of course, is a long way off, if it is ever to be reached.

The battle lines over the West Papuan cause are being drawn in this country: the churches, non-government organisations and unions are ready. The parallels with East Timor are a source of hope for pro-independence activists.

The moral case for West Papuan independence may be strong. But the strategic case for caution is overwhelming. To support the dismantling of another country or a process to achieve this dismantling would be an unfriendly act at best and, more accurately, it would be seen as the action of an enemy.

Anybody who thinks this is not how Indonesia would think and react is a super-optimist. Nationalism, along with democracy, is on the rise in that country. The consequences of turning Jakarta into an enemy will be unpredictable, but they are likely to be nasty for
Australians.

In this situation the issue won't be about restoring a workable relationship between Canberra and Jakarta; it will be about trying to prevent a slide into a hostile relationship. The Coalition and Labor face an exacting foreign policy management issue in which they need to engage the public.