RETURNING THE BOATS - WHY INDONESIA IS NERVOUS The Greens and the sickening ALP Senator Kim Carr, cant engage with the reality of the boat people situation. Contemptible traitors to the national interest. Here is a very perceptive analysis by Greg Clancy on the issues in our very correct policy of turning the boats back to Indonesia. BEGINS The Indonesian government’s response to the recent revelation that Australian naval vessels entered Indonesian waters during “stop the boats” operations included a curious demand that Australia cease returning boats destined for Christmas Island. Leaving aside the obvious fact that Indonesian boats have violated Australia’s territorial waters for a decade or more, it is understandable that Indonesia, like most countries, would be concerned by any unauthorized shipping entry into the country’s waters. However, adding the demand that boats not be returned to Indonesia – meaning they are to continue to Australia – exposes a significant flaw in the Indonesian government’s policy in dealing with all elements of the people smuggling business operating within its dominion. This flaw is the clear indication that Indonesia is now facing a potential embarrassment, in addition to some localized internal social disruptions, should attempts by Australia to return the boats be successful. The request by Indonesia is both unreasonable and hypocritical. Further, it demonstrates the danger a nation risks in allowing activities of dubious legality to operate within its territory on the shaky basis that the adverse effects of these activities will be palmed off to someone else, while some short term benefits are raked in by corrupt officials. Indonesia has allowed an illegal and corrupt people smuggling and trafficking industry to thrive within its borders for many years. The power and influence of the foreign criminals who dominate the industry is excessively protected and this presents a poor image for a nation endeavoring to cast off the detractions of the Suharto years, while presenting itself as a modern society offering exciting investment opportunities. Allowing the people smugglers and traffickers to do unrestricted business in Indonesia was a huge mistake. Allowing these same people to demonstrate a lack of basic respect for their host nation by dragging it into business dealings of a pirate mentality is politically dishonorable. The return of the boats will impact within Indonesia in several ways – and none of it is positive. There are the migrants, flooded with promises of what the good life in Australia will bring. The money paid to people smugglers is not a cost, they are told, it is an investment, and the financial benefits will be amazing. The trek from distant places is nearly over and one short boat trip will secure the people smuggler’s next business deals. Then disaster. They meet an Australian patrol boat and rather than being taxied to their destination, as has been the custom, they hear discussions about fuel and provisions and the boat is then on a reversed course back to Indonesia. One may guess at the emotions of the migrants as landfall looms, but extreme anger, frustration, disbelief, revenge and a powerful sense of abandonment will do for a start. These same people, a few days earlier, had been model temporary residents in Indonesia, their behavior governed by the uncertainty of living in a foreign land under a vague status and an unwillingness to risk achieving the final leg of their journey. The people smuggler who arranged the returned boat will experience something quite different. Had the boat sunk and had all the occupants drowned, new business from the migrants’ home towns could diminish. But the smuggler can get around this. Loss of life on the journey is always a risk, and the people smugglers usually have little respect for their clients. The system works on up-front payments, and in the fine print of the unwritten contract, final delivery is not guaranteed, and refunds do not apply. The returning boats, however, reverses what may have been a successful marketing plan. Now the migrants may change from being totally submissive to openly hostile, and the consequences for the people smuggler may be both uncertain and dangerous. Further, the accommodation he has received from Indonesian authorities will be under threat. Any disturbances in a community holding migrants destined for Australia could potentially, and unpleasantly, reveal the truth of the entire operation, and international attention may focus on just why it was allowed to operate with apparent immunity. Returning the boats has created a panic within the Indonesian government. Australia’s serious problem with unauthorized migrant arrivals could have been solved with Indonesia’s cooperation at any time in the last decade. This did not occur, but it is important to understand a cultural factor that has been of Australia’s making. The Asian view of Australia’s failure to stop the boats under the Rudd and Gillard governments is one of fundamental weakness. No Asian country would allow a similar situation to develop. Therefore, the cultural view concludes, if Australia is stupid enough to allow the boats to arrive without difficulty, it should pay the price. Looking at this, it becomes more understandable that Indonesia could turn a blind eye to the activity on its soil. Had Australia acted as any Asian country would, the boats would have stopped years ago. There is a comprehensible logic in the Indonesian argument. Australia has brought the problem upon itself through weak government and individual ministers too frightened to make a decision in the national interest. The problem for Indonesia is the manner in which the trade appears to be terminating – by the migrants being returned. In resolving the issue, the options have a clear order of preference. The first is Australia taking the initiative, which it has failed to do. Had this occurred, any difficulties with Indonesia would have been avoided, and the problem would have quietly slipped under the political horizon. The second would have been Indonesia advising the people smugglers they had six weeks to remove all migrants by boat to Australia, after which any remaining migrants would be removed from Indonesia at their own cost. Now a change of government has offered a third option – reverse the previous government’s ineptitude, and do what all other countries do – act in the national interest. The implications from the impact of the returning migrants are unsettling and may incur adverse publicity for the nation. Plus there is created the unwanted prospect of probing by investigative journalists who, having ignored the problem in the past, now smell a good story. It is true that Australia has been responsible for the problem – weak government means important national issues may remain unresolved. But Indonesia could have assisted, and chose not to, the upshot being the current ill-prepared defensive position issued by Jakarta. Threatening Australia by ordering a cessation of the policy under which the boats may be returning is unhelpful and raises questions as to who Indonesia really respects more – its near neighbour and trading partner, or a bunch of sleazebag criminals who remain in the country by paying off officials. The most appropriate option for Indonesia – right now – is to recognize the significance of Australia’s change of government. That should then be followed by promptly issuing a positive response in resolving the problem by advising the people smugglers the game is up. Joining with Australia to end the trade will have a far more appropriate future outcome for Indonesia. Demanding that Australia cease returning the migrants will result in a firming of the belief, held by many observers, that Indonesia both facilitates the trade in people and actively supports it.
Posted on: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 12:22:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015