Thursday, April 20, 2006

Time for a timor-sea change on Indonesia policy?

There are a set of core beliefs that underpin our consistently one-sided relationship with Indonesia, a relationship I've generally supported but am now starting to question on a fundamental level. We need Indonesia more than they need us, any breakup of Indonesia would be bad for us, we can't deal with a defence threat from Indonesia, we have to seek a strong relationship with them due to geography, and underpinning it all an optimism that if we do enough to please them; teach Indonesian in schools, visit in droves and spend money, assist with disasters and give money, and train their vile paramilitary terrorists, they will eventually come to like us.

All of these are clearly up for debate. There is something to be said for 'keeping your enemies closer'. There is also no point in seeking a hostile relationship- Indonesia may be disorganised and relatively poor but with 200 million people we aren't in a position to engage it in military conflict. But would we be best of going totally cold, seeking no benefit or closeness from the relationship, warning tourists and businesses who go there that they accept their own risk, and politely telling them we mind our own business when they get shirty about our accepting refugees from whichever of their colonial provinces they start oppressing next?

Indonesia, the political entity, is for all intents and purposes a Javanese empire, a failure in decolonisation supported by the myopic racism of the UN. Rather than distinct entities like Flores, Sumba, Bali and distinct 'nations' within Sulawesi getting to 'self determine' in accordance with what is supposed to be a 'right of erga omnes' (see the Roman Gold case, ICJ) they go from one master to another. To be fair, most are not agitating for independence and self determination includes the right to stay within a wider national entity, but in considering the plight of those who aren't happy, and in weighing up the alternatives, we need to bear in mind that it is not a homogenous nation. And in the East, the bit closest to us, much of the sparsely populated land is christian or even animist.

I would never argue that we should disengage from Asia, but are we excessively obsessed with being close to our nearest neighbours? Due to history, geopolitical interests, and even just relative similarities in culture we will find some countries much easier to get along with than others. We have good relationships with Singapore, Thailand, China and ironically Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Not too bad with the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. But the Malays constantly elude us, and maybe they will continue to do so in Malaysia, Indonesia and any other malay-islamic nation that should spring up in the future.

We are equally part of the South Pacific, but have less focus there due to perceived economic advantages to an Asia focus. We walk a fine line with interventions such as that in the Solomons, but we are there because we've been asked, and I think generally we are seen as benign and reasonably friendly in that region.

PNG is the one country so close we can't afford to be hated by, and we get along pretty well. They need us, especially with the Indonesian army patrolling along their border.

Maybe we can trade, holiday and generally interact with the rest of the world around Indonesia. Maybe we don't need them any more than they seem to (not) need us.

And maybe if they did break up, and we ended up with little island nations like Sumba and Flores on our doorstep, this would not be the recipe for endless horror we've always assumed.
I'm not there yet, I think we should pursue firm diplomacy that continues to place importance on the relationship (while telling them they can dictate our migration policy when we can write their criminal laws), but it is clearly time for serious academic and policy consideration of the alternatives.

(Sorry about the long sparse posts, hoping normality will resume asap, I'm not on the verge of giving this site up or anything!)

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Can you have a baby and go on living?

Married. Looking for house. Admit we may be open to kidlets in the
near future. But the barrage of hectoring opinion and judgement has
already started, and it's throwing me headlong into the kind of
questions that have left so many in our generation prevaricating when,
deep down, they'd love to start a family.

The most aggressive bit of judgement was a conservative middle-aged
woman at work accusing us and other young couples of being selfish
because we don't move to the outer suburbs when considering having
kids. We could get more space for the kids to play in for the same
money, so therefore anything less is pure selfishness. This is based
on a pretty pissy factual analysis; I was brought up in a medium sized
town (Darwin) where we had loads of room but nothing to do, and
violence, drugs, depression and apathy were rampant.

But suppose it is, there will certainly be other decisions that will
pit the child's most optimum option against things that are important
to us as adults. The prevailing view seems to be that a parent must
put their child first, almost to the point that the parent becomes a
vessel, like a uterine wall there purely to provide sustenance and
support for the child, their own role in the world shunted aside.

Why is it that we take this view? Is the balance- where the children
and both parents are all able to grow, and where decisions weigh
benefits and downsides as relating to all family members, impossible?

Forget politics, no issue attracts the amount of smug, self righteous
lecturing as child raising. This may be appropriate at one extreme-
child abuse and chronic neglect upset decent people at a fundamental
level. But in genuine cases of abuse or neglect the child is being put
last, and notably so. Have we gone so far in our expectations and
lecturing that it is understandable that so many people who would make
excellent parents just baulk, and put the process off and off until it
is too late?

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Is 'Epoch Times' legit, or a cult rag?

Something called Epoch Times is handed out occasionally at my train station. It seems to have pretty benign stories, but, though I admit I haven't perused it closely, something about it, the feel, the pretentious name, gives me a creepy twinge.

Anyone know more?

Message in a Bottle

My home 'broadband' has decided to slow to a virtual standstill. Work internet is currently limited due to some perceived threat or another. And I have struggled to find a good time spot to blog in. So I'm conducting an experiment. It took me ages that may well have been better spent posting, but last night I filled in the boxes in blogger that, allegedly, allow you to email posts in.

Will it work? Will the email heading transfer to the blog post format? This is a tester, but while I'm here you deserve something worth reading.

We had Minh desexed. She was incredibly well behaved, and everyone at the Vet's fell in love with her. They said she would sleep the first night, and throw up if she ate more than a modicum, but instead as soon as she got home she launched at Mao and the chase-wrestle-bite-hindkick game continued where it had left off. 3 days of that and her stitch area was bloated, but a further inspection by the Vet left us assured she's ok.

She is indestructable, indefatiguable, and utterly irresistable. And I'm finding evenings lying on the couch under a dooner with both cats curled up on top a significant disincentive to doing anything more productive....