Indonesia needed only the slightest excuse to reject any nominee that Australia might make for its ambassador to Jakarta. If it had not been for the earlier forced withdrawal of Hermann Mantiri as Indonesia’s ambassador to Canberra, it is likely that Miles Kupa, Australia’s nominee for the Jakarta post would have gone ahead. As it was, Mr Kupa’s nomination fell foul.
There are some parallels. After Mr Mantiri’s nomination last year, some of Mr Mantiri’s comments downplaying the Dili massacre were uncovered. This set off a storm of protest in Australia among proponents of self-determination for East Timor. This led to the then Australian Government privately urging Indonesia to withdraw the nomination. This happened and a career diplomat was sent instead. After Mr Kupa’s nomination, the Indonesian press gave extensive coverage to earlier Australian media reports of a confidential paper Mr Kupa wrote in 1988 that condemned the business activities of the family of President Suharto. This resulted in political pressure in Indonesia for Mr Kupa’s nomination not to be accepted. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, suggested that Australia should rethink the nomination.
This led to Mr Kupa writing to the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, withdrawing his name from nomination. In doing so, he said he regretted that Mr Downer had not been “”made aware of this earlier “leak” prior to the nomination”. One might well ask why Mr Downer had not be aware of the earlier leak, either in the ordinary course of being well-informed about press coverage of Indonesian matters, or through proper briefings from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Something is amiss here that Mr Kupa’s suitability for the nomination and possible reaction to it was not thoroughly vetted beforehand.
It has given Indonesia an ideal opportunity to regain lost face over the Mantiri affair. More unfortunately, however, it has once again soured relations with our second-nearest neighbour. It is crucial now that the Government is very, very careful about who is nominated next. The nominee’s background must be thoroughly vetted … not just on attitude to Indonesia but in general … to ensure that there is nothing that Indonesia can legitimately object to. And the Indonesian Government must be given a reasonable chance to informally approve the nomination before it is made public.
However, there were significant differences between the Kupa episode and the Mantiri episode. The grounds for objection to Mr Kupa’s appointment were more than likely manufactured within Indonesian government circles and in any event it was Indonesian government objection directly to what Mr Kupa had written that caused the furore. In Mr Mantiri’s case it was the groundswell of opinion among a significant number of Australia people against what Mr Mantiri said that caused the concern of the Australian Government, in particular whether his presence in Australia would cause incessant widespread demonstrations that would only harm the relationship that diplomacy is supposed to enhance.
There is another important difference. Mr Kupa’s 1988 report contained some very pertinent observations which have been borne out in the ensuing eight years. Even in the past week the growing disquiet at the Suharto government’s abuse of democratic values has been seen in violent demonstrations in Jakarta. On the other hand, Mr Mantiri’s downplaying of the Dili massacre was simply mendacious. He was in a position to know it was a massacre.
Australia must not shy away from human-rights issues in its relations with Indonesia, but they should not dominate. The tragedy is that any role Australia can play has been reduced by its handling of both these ambassadorial nominations because they were both avoidable with better handling at the Australian end. The fact they were not can only lower Australia’s esteem within Indonesian Government circles.