Indonesian diplomacy: Much ado about nothing

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta

Never has Indonesian diplomacy shown its clumsiness and short-sightedness more clearly than in dealing with the current issue of 43 asylum seekers from Papua in Australia. In accordance with the laws of the country, the Australian government has given a three-year visa to 42 of them, pending a decision on granting the asylum status they had expected. There is nothing we can do about it, whether we like the law or not.

To quickly recall our ambassador did not seem a well-considered action, as if we were faced with a deep crisis or the threat of war. Indeed, we should have been grateful on behalf of our own people. After all, it is a basic human right for anyone to leave one's country, for whatever reason, as long as there is another country willing to receive them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains the following articles: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" [Article 13, (2)], and "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" [Article 14 (1)]. Indeed, his government may deny that he has suffered persecution. The point is that he perceives himself as having been persecuted.

It is outrageous to accuse the 43 Papuans of not being "nationalistic" or being "unpatriotic". In the first place, nationalism is an outdated and irrelevant concept, particularly in referring to a nation-state like Indonesia. Nationalism was relevant in the age of colonialism or foreign domination and occupation.

The most we can expect from citizens of a nation-state is patriotism, loyalty to, and perhaps love for one's country. But patriotism cannot be taken for granted. One will be proud of one's country or if you like, patriotic, if it delivers the goods, which is general welfare (including security) based on justice, for that is the ultimate goal of the establishment of a nation-state.

The sacrosanct Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and even national unity, serve only as intermediate goals, and therefore just a means to achieving the ideal of general welfare based on justice. Neither is an end in itself. National pride or patriotism can never be promoted or nourished by the waving of the red-and-white national flag, or playing the national anthem and other nationalistic songs, fiery speeches and public ceremonies.

Nationalism or patriotism cannot be expected when citizens suffer from poverty, injustice, and a feeling of insecurity. To be a citizen of a nation-state is not necessarily one's own choice, we become a citizen by birth in most cases.

Still, if one feels dissatisfied with one's country because it fails to deliver the goods, then it is a person's right to leave, as long as there is another state willing to accept him or her whether through visa, green cards, asylum, etc. The reasons for leaving may include some form of injustice or discrimination, or a violation of one's fundamental human rights, whether they be religious, ethnic, racial, or political in nature.

In fact, what the Australian government has done for those Papuans was a humanitarian gesture. And humanity is of higher value than nationalism or patriotism. Indeed, nationalism in our Constitution is also to be understood in the context of humanism or humanity.

Under the present government, which has tended to pamper the rich and the elite but to trample on the poor and the downtrodden, such a feeling of injustice and insecurity is rampant among the common people everywhere, even in the country's capital and other big cities where people tend to take the law into their own hands. The government has not necessarily engaged in gross violations of human rights, but in many cases it tolerates violations of human rights by violent masses, which are no part of the state's security apparatus.

Indeed, geographic proximity does not guarantee easy relations between neighboring countries. On the contrary, it may be a hindrance to good and friendly relations. It tends to give rise to undue expectations. Consciously or otherwise, Indonesians tend to expect Australia to understand Indonesia better than the United States and, therefore, to be more tolerant and less critical toward Indonesia.

Geographic proximity also tends to create certain perceptions. Because of its sheer size in terms of its territory and population, Indonesia is often perceived by Australians as a potential security threat. Officially, Indonesia often expresses its resentment, although at the same time such a perception may be a way of massaging its own ego.

It is comforting that the government has not been encouraged by emotional suggestions to sever diplomatic relations with Australia. Not only would it make it even harder to seek amicable mutual understanding. It would be even harder to restore relations later. Even the summoning of our envoy from Canberra has certainly reduced the chances of cordial communications. It may even be embarrassing to send him back to his post immediately.

As neither side would like to see a further worsening of relations, it would be wise for both sides to cool down, to start normal and orderly diplomatic communications for the sake of mutual understanding, a speedy solution, and the return to normal and friendly relations. Too much is at stake, and neither side will benefit from the continued tension between the two neighbors.

Taken from The Jakarta Post