It will take all the skills John Howard has honed in his 10 years as Australia's prime minister to stop a falling-out with Indonesia over the treatment of a boatload of asylum seekers who arrived from its troubled province of Papua in January.
"Relations between Indonesia and Australia are entering a difficult time that is full of challenges," Indonesian President Bambang Susilo Yudhoyono warned Howard when he learned that the Papuan independence activists had been allowed to stay rather than be turned away, as he had requested.
Jakarta has already recalled its ambassador over an action it sees as fomenting rebellion in the mostly Christian western half of an island that the world's most populous Muslim country shares with the sovereign state of Papua New Guinea. There have been calls for trade boycotts and a stop to joint efforts to curb people smuggling, illegal fishing and, most importantly, terrorism.
"I sent such a strong message to the people of West Papua," Howard said last week after Yudhoyono voiced anger at the visa awards.
"Don't imagine for a moment that we want you to come to Australia," he said.
True. Australia has no interest in becoming a haven for those among the 2.5 million people of Papua who want to follow East Timor's 1999 example and break free from the republic.
"The worst thing that could happen to the West Papuans would be the fragmentation of Indonesia," Howard said. "The best path forward for West Papua is to be part of a more prosperous, more democratic Indonesia."
Yudhoyono complains that giving asylum to Papuans who claim the Indonesian military is engaged in genocide is tantamount to giving credence to those genocide claims. He is demanding that good neighborliness and the strong personal rapport he has with Howard requires that Indonesia be allowed to vet the claims of persecution before those making them are given asylum.
Dino Kusnadi, a spokesman for the Indonesian embassy in Canberra, put it this way: "We thought that as partners and also as close neighbors that we have been omitted in the process of verifying the claims of the Papuan asylum seekers. I stress that if there are reports of human-rights violations, please report it to us. It will be settled, and we will finish the issues of Papua in a peaceful, just and dignified manner."
Papua is closed to the foreign press. The Indonesian military's human-rights record there, as elsewhere, is not good. Claims of torture, rape and murder go unchecked in Papua. Howard does not deny the abuses.
"Of course it's unfair for somebody to go to jail for 15 years for flying the wrong flag," he said. "That doesn't mean to say we shouldn't take a broad, reasonably hard-headed approach about what is in this country's best interests and also in the best interests of the longer-term relationship."
But domestic politics dictates that Howard can't simply turn boats around and leave rejected asylum seekers to a parlous fate on their return. It would also be unacceptable from Indonesia's point of view for Howard to link progress on a long-promised autonomy deal for Papua to the treatment of asylum seekers.
But Yudhoyono doesn't hold all the cards. It's a different Indonesia from the dictatorship that former president Suharto maintained for 32 years. Dozens, not hundreds, have turned up for demonstrations outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta.
And Yudhoyono, just like Howard, can find himself pilloried in the press for inept diplomatic footwork. Political commentator Soedjati Djiwandono told the Jakarta Post that "never has Indonesian diplomacy shown its clumsiness and short-sightedness more clearly than in dealing with the current issue of the 43 asylum seekers."
The dynamics of a newly democratic Indonesia gives former Jakarta ambassador David Ritchie confidence that Howard and Yudhoyono can ride out a stormy patch in the relationship.
"We have a lot in common, we have a lot of shared interests, and I've seen the depth of that relationship," Ritchie said. "I wish the relationship was warmer, but we will live through it. We have a lot to offer each other."
Howard and Yudhoyono will be looking for a compromise that will allow them to paper over the cracks. Jakarta responded with enthusiasm to a pledge from Howard that he would review the adjudication process for asylum seekers.
"Whatever comes out of that review, you can be certain that we'll continue to meet our international obligations, but we'll also pay proper regard to the importance of the relationship between Australia and Indonesia," Howard said.
He will be hoping that the compromise he hatches will be enough to appease Jakarta. He won't worry too much about upsetting those few who present Australia as a beacon for all those Indonesians unhappy with rule from Jakarta.
There aren't many Australian voters gleeful about the prospect of putting up hundreds of thousands of displaced Papuans.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS