Internet Freedom Agenda: A New US Political Propaganda?

Internet Freedom Agenda: A New US Political Propaganda?
The series of revolt and protest emanating in the Mideast country has brought new concern that internet has become and assumed to be, as Hillary Clinton puts in, “a critical tool for advancing democracy”. Furthermore, she provokes that these tools must be handed to those people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/freedomgov).

This is not a new trend has just occurred and hit certain foreign policy such as US and its Western allies. The event has proved to be gradually efficient to provoke protest (anti-government protest) in Iran, Moldova, and China’s Xinjiang region. It simply demands transparency and democracy as well as freedom of expression and politics. US effort in promoting this internet freedom agenda is also being questioned within its border-must be taken into account in which US has granted little effort ($1.5 million to help circumvent censorship) which is less than what supporters in Washington originally demanding ($4 million). Moreover, the incident of Wikileaks has backfired what so called Clintons initiatives towards implementing and promoting Internet Freedom.

Out of its border, ensuing effort to help Iranian dissidents insisting government transparency, the US government had funded and passed an export license to companies in the name revolutionary tool for Internet freedom. Therefore, the goals behind the Internet Freedom Agenda is not far from being political tool and may not have an agenda at all.

Short Talks about Mideast Country Characters

Short Talks about Mideast Country Characters

• what makes them unique and vulnerable to political reforms

In the short (perhaps) article published by Foreign Policy Magazine, we note there are simple characters that been playing by the incumbent Mideast Government. Why am I writing this, I took consideration about the possibility of democarcy spread in the Mideast region by civil revolution that currently taking places in both places (nearby) Tunis and Egypt and the future Yemen. Perhaps the shortcoming of those governance can be concluded by taking  a short read below.

 

1. SAUDI ARABIA

The country is ruled under the monarch government who didn’t acknowledge elections, parliament, or political parties. The ruler is King Abdullah and his family who exercise unchecked power within the kindom and control of one-fifth of the world’s oil reseres and Isalm’s two holiest sites, Macca and Madinah. The Arab Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, only serve by undertaking some minor reforms of the country’s clerical establishment in 2009, though this may have had more to do with a desire to consolidate his power than any enlightened pluralistic impluses.

The kingdom is known for its most repressive countries on Earth, in which particularly for its 9 million citizens who are prevented from holding many jobs or dricing and are conseidered by law to be legally beholden to their husbands. Practicing any religion other than Islam is banned. Last, torture and detention without trial are commpon place. Morethan 2,000 people were arrested in 2009 along on political charges. Basically, political dissidents are common things usually happen within its border as experienced by Russia and China.

Relations with US are deeply cemented  under cooperation for more than $60 billion weapons deal including fighter jets, helicopers, radar equipment, satellite-guided bombs and missiles;  it was noted as the largest arms deal to another country in US history. Details can be found on: written by Dana Hedgpeth in The Washington Post, “Pentagon Plans $60 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102006518.html .

 

1. YEMEN

Current character of Yemen leadership, term service of Ali Abdullah Saleh. Yemen is known as the world’s least stable counties with ongoing isurgency by Shiite rebels in the country’s south and one of the most repressive as Mideast countries have in common. As the same events happen in Tunisia and Egypt, the demonstrators also have taken to the streets demanding Saleh’s removal as president. The Saleh style of leadership has been autocratic and tolerance of official corruption. Once noted, that he was a  close ally of Saddam Husen and supported Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6868805.ece). Yemen also have been the source of numerous anti-American terrorist attacks, from the USS Cole Bombing in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing) to the 2009 Christmas Day bomb (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39957555/ns/us_news-security/) plot to the 2010 printer bomb attempt (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11729720).

The world news also recorded that US policymakers have decided to help Saleh’s effrts to restore order the country as best preventing further terrorist attack by providing the country military aid and has more than doubled sice the Christmas plot. It is likely to reach $259 millin in 2011 (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/31/americas_other_most_embarrassing_allies?page=0%2C1).

 

1. JORDAN

Thought the government has restored country’s parliament in order to promote democracy, but the process are deeply flawed. The ongoing political reform also goes in very slow pace. The relation between Jordan and US has been located in efforts for counterterrorism as well its constuctive role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Under the Hashemite royal familiy, Jordan has pursued one of the most consistently pro-American foreign policies in the Middle East. It also has been rewarded with more than $6 billion in development aid since 1952 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3464.htm)., Jordan also has signed a development deal worth $360 million (http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=30509) and Us also has provided significant military aid enabling her to buy a new fleet of F-16 fighters in 2007 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-04-us-jordan_N.htm).

 

Where the logics begin: Terrorism’ target from Hard targets to Soft Targets

perhaps some of us have heard the recent terrorism attack January 24. For this event media puts headlines “The Moscow Attack and Airport Security’. The Russian government alleged that Islamist militants are responsible for killing 35 people and injured more than 160.

The chronology was recorded well in ‘international relations discussion’ (as my fellow put it in http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Feurope%2F9372022.stm&h=ec59e).

Though it is not published yet whether the suicide bomber was command-detonated by the attacker or traditional suicide bomb as it’s likely happens in Pakistan, and several regions in Mideast. However, this new isn’t the first that hits Russia, Aug 24, 2004, the same suicide bombings also destroyed two Russian airliners (wow, impressive and succesfully destroy the airliners).

what is widely discussed among international analyst are: (1) terrorism is more likely to shift from ‘hard target’ such as embassies, parliament building are being replaced by the easier target ‘soft target’ known as World trade center in NYC, the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai and London Underground (some of us might well familiar with recent bombings in Indonesia hotels). (2) the more liberal democratic country is, the more likely do not posses the ability to provide adequate security for ‘soft target’ (one must be taken noted into terrorism and security studies). Well, at the end I am not gonna put where the logics come from, the answer must be emanated from discussion among us.

Thanks to Stratfor that has put great effort providing the introduction athttp://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110126-moscow-attack-airport-security?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110127&utm_content=readmore&elq=f16a51a2b106476b98eab828f99c6f90.

also thanks to Serdar Yardak for making the update.

update news: Reuters (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/02/08/world/international-us-russia-bomb-umarov.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=world&adxnnlx=1297164332-YiNtLmqk6m2nVsIe42oT0A) release that a video is made by Islamist insurgency stating that Dokku Umarov is responsible to the attack targeted Russian Bussiest Airport, Demodedovo Airport. The site where the video is published (http://www.kavkazcenter.com/) said that the attack is made by his orders. He also stated that the further attack will take place in pursuit of independent Islamist country ruled by Sharia Law. He also stated that the attack was a response to ‘Russian crimes in the Caucasus’. (well this explains all analyst)

Turkish Role in Negotiations with Iran: case study the significance of P-5+1 Talks for Future in Mideast

The P-5+1 is talks between five permanent members of the UN security Council (US, Britain, France, China and Russia) plus Germany, hence, the P-5+1, these country are negotiating with one country Iran. Turkey acts as a host of the meeting. Turkey PM, Mr Erdogan,  not mediate it because it will be difficult for Turkey to stay in this role.­ There’s argument or suspiciousness that Iran using nuclear threat to entangle five major powers as North Korean did. In many ways this suggest something (Friedman, 2011).

Let’s talk a bit what this nuclear has to do with Iran? Iran defends her nuclear and uranium enrichment as dependent energy in the future facing the need of greater energy for domestic consumption. And this creates problem challenging the the five great powers. Respectively, on the other side five major great powers perceives Iranian attempt as a new politically emerging challenger in today global politics.

Iranians may achieve a similar position emanating from the weakest negotiators; they raise bargaining position by creating dynamic and Nuclear power as effective tool. Somehow Iran ambition is identified by regime survival but it goes beyond more than North Korea is (Friedman, 2011).

What United States interest in the region and Iran. Well, she faces a critical choice in which she has somehow been forced to leave international concern and back to the domestic concern. I am talking about US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Friedman expresses that if US continues its withdrawal of forces from Iraq, Iraq will be on its way to becoming Iranian satellite. Predictable, that Iran has ability growing such powerful influence although there are anti-Iranian elements among the region (Friedman, 2011).

Iran is fully aware with the US capability to muffle Iran power. For example Iranians nuclear is five years away from having a nuclear weapon. It’s uranium enrichment activity is barely 15%. This makes the nuclear issue is really not all that important (Friedman, 2011). Iranian is also aware with US air warfare suit. And to some extent, US is militarily much stronger than Iranian. Therefore, Iran comes to the negotiation process with two goals: first, to retain the powerful negotiating hand it has by playing the nuclear card and second to avoid an air campaign by the US against Iran’s conventional capabilities—naval and armored capability.

At stake, this discussion is nothing for the future of the Arabian Peninsula. US intervention is not far by Saudis request (you may refer to Wikileaks cable leaked). And therefore the Saudis will pay the price they need for the peace they want. The meeting itself is more likely to secure geopolitics in the region. The discourse of this geopolitics is another matter that must be emphasized latter on for another discussion.

Here the Turk plays. The underpinning reason for Turks to oppose US invasion of Iraq is because they perceive that US invasion will destroy the balance of power between Iraq and Iran in the Mideast. The Turks position in the region serves as both a leading power in the Muslim world and bridge between the Muslim world and the West, particularly Europe and US (Friedman, 2011).

If we’re questioning the leading role was Turk, but actually the most important actor isn’t present at the negotiating table: Saudi Arabia. Is there anyone would question this anomaly ‘WHY’? Turkey might want to play a full leading peace role either politically and militarily in the Muslim world without risking too much on direct force. However, this task is complicated than it seems. Turkey problem is to reconcile the fundamental issue in the region and help maintaining balance of power between Persian and Arabs.

Then the content of table will consist on US intention to possibly leave the region, avoiding the Iran allying and pro-Iranian Iraq, changes the faith of Saudi Arabia (Iran will come to challenge Saudis power in the region), US intention wants to limit the degree of control and influence Iran has on Iraq and her neighborhood that want threaten the Saudi interest.

It’s sad, that maybe if the US leaves the region, the only actor that provides these guarantees to all parties in the region is ‘Turkish force’.  Question is how’d that be possible? Or will Turks accept this idea? I don’t know, I think it must have been fruitful solution for Western countries by putting Turks at a stake in the region. The only mean for Turks deeper involvement as a host in the P-5+1 is that stabilizing the region and maintaining Persian-Arab balance of power is Turkey’s national interest.

References

George Friedman. 2011. ‘The Turkish Role in Negotiations with Iran’ http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110110-turkish-role-negotiations-iran?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110111&utm_content=readmore&elq=469449dfe88443d9bc368bdc82a649bb

not done yet– waiting for moderation

Conflict and Conflict: never ending story, effortless struggle for transition reformation and revolution

Conflict and Conflict, it’s never ending story and effortless struggle either individually, group, or community. Understanding conflict is required for us to make the right decision for ourselves and construct our views. Being sceptic is acceptable, so is being idealist and realist. However, what can we do about the conflict. in the next years, we’ll be leader for ourselves. then how far we’d be ignorant with the environmetn surround us? global warming, climate change, riots in our neigborhood?

INDONESIA STAYS PUT: THE CASE OF South Korea rescues Samho Jewelry crew from pirates

I accidently encounter this BBC Breaking News (21 January 2011) praising and commenting the succesful South Korea navy commandoes that has rescued the hijacked ship in Arabian Sea. This ship is not only containing its citizens, but also boarding 2 Indonesians and Burmese as crews. The ship is said belong to South Korean-owned Samho Jewelry, we understand that some jurisdiction applied that urges a responsive and aggresive acts from South Korean government; which is good they react fast (according to news as you’ve read on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-africa-12248096).

Understanding the circumstances how hard it might have been, I critically question myself how the other goverment must have been called to provide its citizen safety into priority? I specifically asking bout Indonesia’s government, forget about the Burmese for a while.

Did you remember Indonesia has experienced the hijacked ship, many times that includes the Singapore Ship and Malaysia Ship? I believe we all record how Indonesia’s gov through its beautifully, honour, and outstanding foreign minister by reading various news. Let’s not do the news here, they are getting rotten and pretty nasty when he reveals that he (on behalf of his country) spoke that wouldn’t provide any ransom indicated by the pirates (Somalia Pirates in Aiden Gulf)? All IR knows the negotiation process and diplomacy takes progress there to put our people safety (no matter where they are in top priority), aint’ that right?

That’s why, this news makes me happy and terribly (un)pride about what our country doing despite the lack of capability and technology. God knows, they’re not the reasons for not putting our people safety in number one spot (despite the position, power, and our diplomatic career). If you are IR students, assume you are a leader, what policy that must be implemented to cure this bad ‘IR scholars’ attitude?

As an IR, the progress is ‘acting out’ not just ‘spoken it out and got rotten’. I dont see Realist to react nor liberalism to defend, nor Marxism to blame either one; what I saw is the case is evident, and Indonesia needs to change ‘the leader’ to be more ‘aggresive but also thoughtful and strategic’. You could be the one Flacks.

 

Understanding Australian Society and Culture

Understanding Australian Society and Culture

by Renny Candradewi

1. Australian identity

Identity is an attribute that defines where we live; who and what we are. National identity is a major concern for certain nation to build their well-being. Australian identity has been questioned throughout the years. Somehow her people feel uncertainty about their identity[1]. Whether it exist or how it presents and represent her people.

It is believed that Australia identity has long history of Anglo-Celtic[2]. Between the sholars, as Sydney Professor of English, Elizabeth Webby describes that Australian identity has linkages with family descent from Anglo Celt[3]. In fact, Donald Horne insists that has argued there will be no australian identity, there never has been and there never be something called the Australian national identity[4]. What have constructed the view among Australian people is convenience brought by British colonization[5]. In other word, today’s Australian identity still carries the marks of yesterday’s British’s connection. Most Australian people have been linked with Anglo Celtic culture. Anglo Celtic is a cultural bond to define people who originated from British Isles and Irish.

Australian national identity is a social imaginary shaped by the bonds emotion and feeling with Britain. Relate to historical accounts by many Australian novelists, as Malouf, that Australian is related to political and familial ties with Britain and its long history[6]. Such attachment is evident within Australian social identity.

Another notion would suggest that there’s a growing concern towards Australian identity that has been multiculturalized. Australia has been known for its complex ongoing democracy in todays modernized world[7]. It never really escapes from British influence and commonwealth as it never refuse the evidence of democratic process within its political system. This brings their identity into confusion. What happen is, neither one has been chosen by to define the character of Australian itself. Rather than choose one another, Australian identity has been a consolidation of both political circumstance. It promotes a political and ensures social cohesion of an emerging, though not completed yet, a multicultural and democratic nation[8]. So, if there’s question raising about how Australian social or imaginary identity is, the answer will focusing on how the cohesion exist between the Empiral and historical heritage and changes that exist within them[9].

1. Australian position in Asia

In the 1980s and early 1990s, Australian foreign policy and world leader’s opinion are focusing her position towards Asia countries. Previously, history accounts Australia as a distant prison and British Empire lookout. Increasing population happened in 1850s is caused by the gold rushes and through nativists (European Australian-born) and nationalist movements of the late nineteenth century[10]. This has brought about a vague and problematic national identity. Somehow, most Australians accepted their belonging within imperial frame. Thus allow them to join in many Empire wars, one notorious example was World War I.

To this cause, it appears that Australia’s identity is intentionally constructed to distinctively different from Asia countries. Within it, manifested what we have known as a White Australian Policy. It is stated that it policy against Chinese immigrants and laborers[11]. This largely is due to the collapse of British power and European closure towards strangers. This is also due to the brutal treatment of Australians by Japanese military occupation on Thai-Burma railway[12].

During the Cold War, Australian policy inclines to capitalism due to the rising communism in the other hand. This paves Australian ways to alliance with US military alliance which signifies the Australian identity as white and Western[13].

However, Australian policy succeeded racialized policy by 1972. It is when social democratic Labour government under Gough Whitlam recognized limited indigenous rights and calms and declared Australia a multicultural society[14]. This is the first time, Australian politics accept the notion of multiculturalism although there was little agreement about what that might mean. At this time of year, Australia has been closer to Asia. There’s permitted increasing immigration from Asian Australians coming to Australia.

After accidence of September 11, Australia government perceives the danger of difference as threats to security. Australia has strictly restrained any incoming immigration originated from Pakistan and Afghanistan that were identified as enemy[15]. This by mean has set Australia position quite distant from Asia and raise criticism from Asian country leaders.

 

Reference

Dixson, Miriam. 2002. Identity in Australia: Issues and Strategies for the Early to mid Twenty-first Century. Armidale : University of New England British Australian Studies Association, 2002.

Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.

 

---

[1] Miriam Dixson, (2002), Indentity in Australia: Issues and Strategies for the early to Mid Twenty-first century, British Australian Studies Association, Armidale, p. 238

[2]Ibid., p. 238

[3] Ibid., p. 238

[4] Ibid., p. 238

[5] Ibid., p. 238

[6] David Malouf dalam Miriam Dixson, (2002), Indentity in Australia: Issues and Strategies for the early to Mid Twenty-first century, British Australian Studies Association, Armidale, p. 244

[7] Op.cit, p. 239

[8] Ibid., p. 240

[9] Ibid., p. 240

[10] Jan Jindy Pettman, (n/a), Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia, p. 160

[11] Ibid., p. 161

[12] Ibid., p. 161

[13] Ibid., p. 162

[14] Ibid., p. 162

[15] Ibid., p. 166

 

Understanding Australian Politics : National politics, foreign policy, national interest

Understanding Australian Politics : National politics, foreign policy, national interest

by Renny Candradewi

1. Permanent Interest

There several aspects of Australian interest rests on maintaining a constitutional issues and policies to impose rules onto indigenous people. It is believed that Australia is facing a long history of legitimacy, racialized politics, economic reform after 2008 global financial crisis, and quest of national identity[1]. In addition to that, what Australia is currently struggling is to combat terrorism and maintaning tied relationship with United States[2].

In its international relations, Australia uses its assets – economic, strategic and cultural – as well as an international reputation as a responsible, constructive and practical country. The values which Australia brings to its international relations are the values of a liberal democracy. These have been shaped by national experience and given vigour through cultural diversity. They include the rule of law, freedom of the press, the accountability of the government to an elected parliament, and a commitment to a ‘fair go’[3].

As a nation with global interests, Australia deals with countries in many regions. The countries which most substantially engage Australia’s interests are those which are influential in shaping Australia’s strategic environment, as well as being significant trading and investment partners. Foremost among these are the three major powers and largest economies of the Asia-Pacific region – the United States, Japan and China – and Australia’s near neighbour, Indonesia. Significant Australian interests are also engaged in Australia’s relationships with the other states of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the European Union and its member states, the Republic of Korea, and, in the South Pacific, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea[4].

1. National politics

The issues of legitimacy where indigenous people and non-indigenous people could share a common citizenship and how their rights are fully claimed[5]. There’s circumstances in which non-Australian live with guilt for the absence of national identity[6]. The presence of minor ethnics has been overlooked by the regime, and their struggle continues till the past recent years. They effortless keep struggling to attain an equal rights and protection from national government or regime. However, their dispossession undermines the construction of future national identity[7].

Racialized politics remains intact with Australia social structures. It also constructs today immediate Australian politics. Although this racialized politics are gradually decline but the its presence is still evident among non-Australian and Aboriginal people.

However, Australia still remains closure to some certain Asia countries and Asia continents, with continuously build strong and tied relationship with US and European regions.

1. Foreign policy

The purpose of Australian foreign policy is to advance the national interest of security and properity of Australia and Australian. The actualization of its foreign policy has been dealing with Australian interest in globalization and global scope of geopolitics. Second, Australia is continuously promoting political freedom as an egalitarian country.

The recent issues have dealing with effort to combat terrorism militarily and politically. Terrorism has been a very serious issue for serious bombing in Bali, Indonesia in the past 2002, war in Afghanistan, and War in Iraq 2001.

Australia foreign policy also focuses on engaging stronger relationship with Asia and most significantly with China, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia. First, China, is known for its rapid growing on economic and exports. China is the major trading partners for Australia so is Japan in more liberal international market. Second, Indonesia and Australia previously have an oil and territorial disputes in East timor. As a nearest neighbor country, Australia is trying to cooperate in more moderate ways by political visit in the year presidency of Wahid and Soekarnoputri’s.

1. National Interest

Security and prosperity of Australia and Australian. National interest somehow reflected by how national politics is and domestic view are portrayed. Let’s begin with the reflection of national identity towards Australian policy. How this factor is likely to influence the cultural politics and policy of Australia.

Some critics emerge due to the controversy between liberal democracy that promotes equality among people and freedom of individuals and indigenous people that seems overlooked. Australia policy seems to move towards pragmatic model in which they would follow policy that to them is beneficial. Australia always seeks to firm relations with the West and therefore, they seem to adopt and pursue British, United States, and other European countries.

Especially with Britain, Australia continues loyal to the British Crown with our head of state derived from the hereditary line of the British monarchy. Australia has the Union Jack as an integral part  It is believed that their policy has been shaped by those interest also, and their influence and interference are evident[8].

Addition: Australian National Identity and Today Issue

National identity between non-Australian and Australian citizenship, will be discussed below. It took until 1967, the citizenship rights and national census of Australian people takes into account the Aboriginal people. Prior to that, they were not even calculated and counted as original inhabitants or citizens. It was not until the High courts’ Mabo vs Qold decision in 1992, that the legal fiction of ‘terra nullius’ was not recognised by the common law[9]. Australia’s legal system finally acknowledged that Australia was not an empty continent. Prior to this, Aboriginal people simply did not exist within the eyes of the law as a sovereign people. The Australian Constitution still does not recognise the sovereignty of Indigenous Australians.

Non-Indigenous Australians still struggle today to come to terms with this past history of colonial dispossession, neglect and erasure. The impact of this history on Aboriginal peoples’ lives is experienced continually in the present[10].

Problematic questions will be: How might Indigenous Australians view national identity? What purpose has their exclusion from ideas of the ‘Australian type’ served both in the past and today?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Anonim. 2007. Australian in International System. Australian Year Book 2002. [Online] Australian Bureau of Statistics, August 20, 2007. [Cited: October 30, 2010.] http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/e1504510e33b7b60ca256b3500035ca2!OpenDocument.

CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA: National Identity. Cousins, Sara. 2005. the Monash University National Centre for Australian Studies course, developed with Open Learning Australia, s.l. : Monash University Press, 2005.

Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.

 

---

[1] Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. Australian National University

[2] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-195

[3] Anonim, 2007, Australia 2002 Yearbook, [Online] http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/A00516A67F17B5A2CA256B3500035CA0?opendocument accessed 30 October 2010

[4] Ibid.,  p.2

[5] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-180

[6] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-195

[7] Ibid., p. 184

[8] Sara Cousins, 2005, National Identity, National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University, p. 1

[9] Ibid., p. 2

[10] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-195

 

 

Australia’s relations with Asian countries: Indonesia and China

Australia’s relations with Asian countries: Indonesia and China

by Renny Candradewi

1. “Positioning Australia di Asia”

Australia foreign policy also focuses on engaging stronger relationship with Asia and most significantly with China, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia. First, China, is known for its rapid growing on economic and exports. China is the major trading partners for Australia. Second, Indonesia and Australia previously have an oil and territorial disputes in East Timor[1]. This working paper will only focus on Australia relations with China and Indonesia to her significance in building relations with Asia in general.

Australia positioning in Asia has been dynamically changing depends on the ruling elite of its national politics. History has noted that the origin of Australia, Australia is shaped against British colonization, its indigenous people and Asia previously. Particularly, the first parliament of Australia has invented policy what has widely been known as “Australian White Policy”. It is a consolidating effort of separate colonial legislation against Chinese immigrants[2]. This policy instituted a racially and culturally exclusivist immigration politic to keep the nation white preferably to British; which this also means that Australia implemented a closure policy against stranger, peculiarly Asian.

However in this more globalized era, Australia has acknowledged the rapid growing of several and most of Asian countries. This occurrence has urged Australia to engage her economic towards Eastern front, which consists of South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and most significantly China.

This event is evident within the framework cooperation of ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) held in 2006 that also involved not only Australia, but also several countries of Europe. Another turning point of the changing of Australian policy can also be traced back through the action to counter terrorism during year 2001 and the current of United States foreign policy to ensure world peace.

As the political elite of Australia changes will also consequence on her foreign policy orientation. For instance, John Howard is widely known to have a close tied with Bush Administration especially to tackle down terrorism and regards Asia as the main source of threats towards its national policy, while we are familiar that Kevin Rudd is moderately open to Asia.

Australia position in Asia was during 1980 was quite ambiguous, Mahathir (Malaysia) had promoted Asian values to exclude Australia from their region. It is believed that this background reason is quite fruitful to suggest that Australia must remain excluded from Asia[3].

What is necessary to be noted about Australia relations with Asia, is, Australia has suffered a trauma of Japan successes in World War II and a severe treatment in Tha-Burma Railway[4]. Today Australia relation and Asia can be observed indirectly through its white paper and current relations with certain big state in Asia such as Malaysia, Indonesia, China, and Japan. This relation is changing to be a better shape. For example, Australia had been in long and hard relations with Malaysia. But currently this relation changes significantly. The visiting of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi in Australia is noted as the mark for outstanding and open political relations[5].

Australia engagement with China is relatively active in economic and reducing barriers and tariffs that’s essential to conduct trade between two nations. Later this issue will be discussed below and so is Indonesia.

1. Relations Indonesia and Australia

The locus of Australian relations with Indonesia rests on earlier 1940’s history during Soekarno presidency. Diplomatic ties ensuing Indonesia independence was significantly crucial. This tie then gradually declined during Soekarno ambition to make West Irian belong to Indonesia. Australia facilitated mediation against Netherland to support Indonesia independence[6].

Soeharto presidency marks the gradually declining in the bilateral relations ensuing Indonesia annexation towards East Timor in 1975. This action is criticized by Australian public which eventually forces Australian government to deliver Timor issues in United Nations Security Council. The critic is believed to be inherited from Indonesia military action that has caused five Australian journalists died. Since then, Australian public and press has increasingly become sensitive towards any Indonesia’s policy towards East Timor[7].

Instead of conflicting relations with Australia during the first two crucial presidency in Indonesia’s history, Australia has established a bilateral cooperation on their basic aspects of economy, trade, education, culture, and security such (1) standardization through mutual understanding Concerning cooperation on Standards and Conformance,(2) trade reflected through Agreement, A trade agreement between the republic of Indonesia and the Commonwealth of Australia agenda no. 346, (3) culture through Cultural Agreement between the Government of republic Indonesia and the government of Commonwealth of Australia. (4) Economic through Exchange of Letters. (5) Territory by Establishing Certain Seabed Boundaries[8].

 

1. Australia Relations with China

According to her White Paper, Australia perceive china as the new state with rapid growing economy that must be addressed by Australia elites at the most considerable level. Australia cannot neglect China capabilities and how this will open to a new trade agreement that would benefit Australia. Cooperation between China and Australia is enhanced in the mining and energy sectors. he agreements cover projects worth more than $10 billion in total.Seven of the ten agreements relate to resources and energy. This demonstrates the dynamic relations between the two countries in this sector, and the strong complementarity of the two economies[9].

China has invested in Australian mining industry and energy industry. This becomes evident in  Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy .

Australia and China has a long history account in relations of two countries. The first Chinese Consul-General to Australia arrived in Melbourne in 1909, but it wasn’t until 1921 that Australia established representation in China through a trade commissioner, an effort that was disbanded the following year[10]. Australia’s first diplomatic mission in China opened in 1941, but closed again only eight years later after the Communist victory over the Nationalist Kuomintang and the subsequent establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Cold War fears of Communism characterised Australia’s relations with China over the next two decades, with Australia refusing to recognise either the Communist government of the PRC in Peking (Beijing) or the Nationalists in the Republic of China (Taiwan). In 1966, under Prime Minister Harold Holt, a diplomatic mission was established in Taipei. Seven years later, when the Whitlam government established diplomatic relations with the PRC, the Taipei embassy closed and an embassy was opened in Peking[11].

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

n/a. Fact sheet 247 – Australia’s diplomatic relations with China. National Archives of Australia. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx.

Anonim, 2010. Australia And China Strengthen Clean Energy, Economic Cooperation. GovMonitor: Public Sector News and Information. [Online] June 21, 2010. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/asia/australia-and-china-strengthen-clean-energy-economic-cooperation-34049.html

Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.

The Hon. Alexander Downer, MP. 2005. Australia’s Engagement with Asia. FORMER MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AUSTRALIA. [Online] December 1, 2005. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2005/051201_asialink.html.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LECTURE

Positioning Australia in Asia?

Is Australia part of Asia?

China remains paling penting bagi Australia, disamping negara2 barat seperti Inggris dan Australia. Hubungan itu sangat penting, karena China dipersepsikan sebagai suatu Negara komunis yang aktif secara politis, dan kebijakan politis yang berani menantang Amerika serikat.

Source of Consideration

Geographically, Australia is at the foot of Asian, isolated, marginalized, remote (terpencil). Banyak orang menganggap Australia sebagai bagian (secara kultural dan sosial) merupakan bagian dari negara dan kebudayaan Barat.

 

Chronoligal Historical Relations

Before great depression: Asutralia see Britihs empire, and adopt the entire British policy, which means she never looks or tends to Asia policy (importance). They reinforce their position in terms trade, defence, and immigration

Early ’30, Australi see Asia and Pacific for trade to help Australia from depression (John Latham going tour to East Asia).

 

Historical Relations

Middle and late 1930, dispute with Japan in 1936

Japan expansion to Manchuria, china create worries to Australia

Until 1945, relations decreased by war

After WW II, Australia support sifnificant diplomatic effort for independence in Asia

Historical Relations

Impact of the WW Ii to Japan

Cold War

Australian involve in Wars in Asia on behalf of Western Policy (Korea, Indo China0

Impac relations to seee China

 

Hubungan emosional Australia dan negara barat selalu erat meskipun terkadang bersifat samar (ambiguous)

Support militer Australia selalu berperan sebagai aktor marginal dalam berbagai perang (foreign policy) Barat.

 

Historic relations to Asia

Eurpean Colonial Thinker

Australis were guarding the last part of the world, in which the higher races can live and increase freely, for the higher civilisation’ (Charler Henry Pearson’s in nationala Life and character)

Artinya, Australian secara civilisation, lebih tinggi daripada (negara Asia lainnya)

 

Important Policy

White Australian Policy (1901-1973)

Fundamental principla of national life

 

Progress and Engagement

1980’s, Constuctive engagement (Gareth Evan)

Belief that Asia would play a new role for Australia

Based on suggestion on report from academics

Dibb report in defense, garnaut in trade, Ingleson on Asian language, Fitzgerald on immigration.

This suggestions are coming from Australian ministers, ato ahli akademik dari masing2 sektor.

---

[1] Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.

[2] Ibid., p. 161

[3] Ibid., p. 161

[4] Ibid., p. 161

[5]The Hon. Alexander Downer, MP. 2005. Australia’s Engagement with Asia. FORMER MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AUSTRALIA. [Online] 1 December 2005. [Dikutip: 23 November 2010.] http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2005/051201_asialink.html.

 

[6] Leo Suryadinata. 1998. Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia di Bawah Soeharto: Bab 6 Hubungan Indonesia dengan Australia dan Papua New Guinea. Jakarta: LP3ES. p.116-124.

[7] Ibid., p.. 115

[8]dephan.gov.id

[9] Anonim, 2010. Australia And China Strengthen Clean Energy, Economic Cooperation. GovMonitor: Public Sector News and Information. [Online] June 21, 2010. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/asia/australia-and-china-strengthen-clean-energy-economic-cooperation-34049.html

[10] n/a. Fact sheet 247 – Australia’s diplomatic relations with China. National Archives of Australia. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx.

[11] n/a. Fact sheet 247 – Australia’s diplomatic relations with China. National Archives of Australia. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx.

 

 

Australia’s Relations with United States

Australia’s Relations with United States

by Renny Candradewi

Since the World War II, relations with the United States have assumed an increasingly prominent position in the construction of economic and security policy in Australia[1]. Events that mark this increasingly strong relation encompass various Australia support to US military aggression in Iraq by 2001, so is her NATO ambition currently in Afghanistan.

However, this relation also becomes subjected to criticism and scrutiny. This strong support to maintain a strong relation is emanating from the character building of Australian political elites, which is Australian Labor Party. As noted previous, the former Australia Prime Minister John Howard has been a very close ally to United States. He supports Bush’s Military Agression towards Iraq in year 2001 and military intervention in stabilizing Afganishtan politics vis a vis with Taliban. In year 2010, Untied States has her military base in few regions in Australia (Western Australia about 370 kilometers north of Perth, Pine Gap). This joint action has been a further defence cooperation for both countries to maintain a close tie[2]. However, US never allows even its key ally, not excluding Australia to buy the highest aircraft F-22 raptor[3].

The implication to lean too much on US foreign policy will include long term impacts on Australia position in the region, economic position, and political independence (for instances)[4]. Some economic pay offs that must be addressed by incumbent Australian government: (1) exclusion from regional cooperation in ASEAN, (2) exclusion from grouping ‘ASEAN+3’ as the major economic partner in region, and (3) further explanation. However, this tie is on its way to working out where elected Prime Minister, Julia Gillian, has visited several state within its neighborship including Indonesia in 2010. Indonesia is widely known to produce security threats and the spread of terrorism within Asia Pacific and Southeast Asia[5]. Australia and United States has this common interest to counter any terrorism attack emerging from Middle East and (as regarded) Moslem country such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines.

A bilateral economic relation between Australia and United States has been running unevenly. Australia is currently undergoing trade deficits with United States. Her main export is only in the sensitive matter that is a subject of restriction and trade barrier[6]. This economic position before US becomes debatable. Meanwhile, there are several arguments that to follow US foreign policy, Australia must prepare herself from losing another percentage in economic agreement with East-Asia and Southeast Asia economic cooperation[7]. If only Australia would engage in export and import with US, Australia would run her deficit.

One fundamental success in Australia foreign policy is the significant improvements in Australia’s access to the United States is in the context of multilateral negotiations[8]. The Australia foreign policy engagement with US opens more multilateral market cooperation that enables Australia to enter North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

In the security matter, Australia calls for security integration in the Pacific region that involves the collaboration with New Zealand. This notion has been inevitably linked with US security interest to secure the rest of the region so is to maintain its dominancy[9]. The problem that occurs in reshaping Australia’s foreign policy is that she usually reflects US’s global geopolitics in priority at the same time neglects to keep in Australian (genuine) interest. For example, what has been known as ‘Howard Doctrine’ expresses Australia position to keep continuing act as ‘deputy sheriff’[10].

In maintaining strong relations with US, brings consequence to exclusion. This seems Australia remain isolated and far from its Asia neighbors. There’s one ultimate reason that follows this relationship with US, it is there’s no other alternative to undertake such a strong foreign policy but to highly rely on US foreign policy. As Pacific Review strengthens that Australia has no better security option than to sustain and cultivate the American security tie[11].

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Beeson, Mark. 2003. Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland. University of Queensland: Queensland, p. 112-131

Lockhart, Greg. 2000. We’re so alone: Two Versions of the Void in Australian Military History., p. 389-396

WT Tow, 2000. Deputy Sheriff or Independent Ally? Pacific Review, pp. 275-288

 

 

---

[1] Mark Beeson, 2003, Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland, p. 112

[2] Anonim, 2007, The Age, US Military Base in Western Australia, [Online] The Age, February 15, 2007 [Cited: November 30, 2010.] http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-gets-military-base-in-australia/2007/02/14/1171405295243.html

[3] Anonim, 2007, ibid.

[4] Mark Beeson, 2003, Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland, , p. 335

[5] Leo Suryadinata. 1998. Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia di Bawah Soeharto: Bab 6 Hubungan Indonesia dengan Australia dan Papua New Guinea. LP3ES, Jakarta. p.116-124.

[6] Ibid., p. 116

[7] Ibid., p. 117

[8] Ann Capling, 2001 in Mark Beeson, 2003, Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland, p. 117

[9] Ibid., p. 119

[10] Ibid., p. 120

[11] WT Tow, 2000, Deputy sheriff or Independent Ally?, Pacific Review, p. 277