Australia's fearless leader Kevin Rudd seems to love Asia. Obviously, the fact that he speaks fluent Mandarin has been well documented (and much discussed). He has worked as a diplomat in the region. And it seems Asian nations are a little keener on him than they were on his predecessor, though Japan has been worried that he is a little too China-friendly. And he seems to have lots of big ideas for Asia, even if no one's quite sure what they really mean.
So I guess it's not surprising that Saint Kevin has spent a lot of his early Premiership travelling in Asia. But he had a tiny skirmish on his recent trip to Indonesia when he was told that Indonesia's president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had asked Australia to drop its travel warning to Indonesia. Australia currently advises its citizens to "reconsider" travel to Indonesia because of the risk of terrorist attack.
Apparently, it was all a mistake by the interpreter. SBY hadn't said any such thing.
But Rudd's response - albeit to a statement that was never made - was interesting. Basically, he told them to butt out, because Australia has its own process for determining its travel advice, and it wasn't about to change.
Which is fair enough.
But the whole issue of the Indonesian travel advice is an interesting one, that has niggled me for some time. Many Australians don't pay attention to travel warnings, but official bodies do. So if you're a university or a school wanting to arrange some kind of exchange program, it can be a stumbling block that there's a travel warning. There are also, possibly, some insurance implications for those who want to go. I know of academics who find it very difficult to do their field work in Indonesia because of these sorts of fears based almost entirely on the Australian government's travel advice.
Which, if you're a Prime MInister claiming to be so determined to deepen Australia's engagement with Asia, should be of some concern.
Now, I'm not saying there's no terrorism risk in Indonesia. There is. And as we've just been reminded by Bali's former police chief, Bali is still a terrorist target.
But, there are a couple of points here. Firstly, Indonesia has been a while without a terrorist attack, and the Indonesian specialists I know are saying that terrorism is on a significant decline in the country. In fact, the US government just recently dropped its travel warnings about Indonesia.
But secondly, if a terror threat should cause us to issue such travel advice, then what about the UK?
To recap, this is what the Australian Government says about Indonesia:
We advise you to reconsider your need to travel to Indonesia, including Bali, at this time due to the very high threat of a terrorist attack...
And here is what it says about the UK:
We advise you to exercise caution and monitor developments that might affect your safety in the United Kingdom because of the risk of terrorist attack...
They say basically the same thing about Spain (where there are domestic terror groups, and of course where the Madrid bombing happened).
So, "reconsider" Indonesia, but "exercise caution" with the UK and Spain.
Is that right? If you listen to MI5 (Britain's security service), they're saying pretty loudly that there are thousands of potential terrorists in the UK, and that the threat is growing. The same is apparently true of Spain. That contrasts with the apparent trend in Indonesia.
So why are the travel advisories different? Is there a double standard at play here? Surely it would make more sense, either to drop Australia's warning for Indonesia (like the Americans have), or to upgrade its advice for the UK and Spain. After all, the Brits seem pretty worried about the growing threat.
What do you think?
Comments
AteKhairo from Job Network
I AGREE (4 people agree) I DISAGREE (2 people disagree)
Ali G from Melbourne
I AGREE (20 people agree) I DISAGREE (1 people disagree)
AteKhairo from Job Network
I AGREE (27 people agree) I DISAGREE (3 people disagree)
Ali G from Melbourne
I dont no why da British gov. is more afriad of Muslim terrorist den IRA (irish republican army) dey hav been conducting terrorist attacks more den 100 yrs nd killed thousands of innocent ppl nd even 4 da sake of argument if we agree dat da 2005 london bombing was by Muslims, its nothing compared to IRA. IRA will put dis attack to shame and surpringly dey r never called as Catholic terrorists? Jesus man. God make some justice. I dont want to offend any1 but y dis double standards?
WA says: There are some pretty major differences. For starters, the IRA have ceased violent activities. While they were conducting terrorist attacks, they were a major concern of the British government. Also, the IRA were often regarded as Catholic terrorists - and Catholics were significantly victimised in various counter-terrorism operations in Britain. And in any event, the IRA was probably more an ethno-nationalist militant group than a globalist, overtly-religious one like Al-Qa`ida.
I AGREE (25 people agree) I DISAGREE (1 people disagree)
Joe from Sydeny
Well, I can't see them dropping the alert now that they just arrested was it 9 people in Indonesia for making 19 bombs which were meant for western targets. Yep I think they have the travel warnings just where they should be. And yes I think that the UK should also be a high risk as well. With the number of terrorists being monitored there, and all the crazy extremists preaching their hatred of the west, Britain is off my list of places to go, especially east London.
WA says: Yeah, it's interesting isn't it? I cannot imagine them ever raising the warning for the UK, no matter what happens. Hope I'm wrong, but I just find it hard to imagine.
I AGREE (1 people agree) I DISAGREE (0 people disagree)
A MOSES from MT SINAI
I AGREE (0 people agree) I DISAGREE (0 people disagree)
Damien from Orange
I'd rather Australians be aware of the risks of travel to a destination (and potentially not go in light of the danger), than see Australians die in attacks overseas. I'm sure the families of the Australians that were murdered in the Bali attacks would agree with me. I think your article tries to politicise the matter unnecessarily, and you should have better sense.
WA says: If that's how you feel Damien, wouldn't you also prefer the warning to be raised for the UK? I don't think I'm politicising the matter unnecessarily at all. It's a live issue for the Indonesians and it is hampering relations between the two countries and making it harder for (especially) the Australian education sector to do work there.
I AGREE (2 people agree) I DISAGREE (2 people disagree)
G NASSER from GIZA
I sit & stare listening to OM KALTHOUM ,giving you all muslim bastartds exit visas The Sphinx is still waiting for his.WA why did your parents leave Egypt.WARNING THE BROTHERHOOD IS LOOKING FOR YOU .NASSER!!!!!
WA says: They came out (separately) for education for a couple of years and never quite got round to returning.
I AGREE (0 people agree) I DISAGREE (1 people disagree)
Micko from Yogya Indonesia
just visit onther parts of Indonesia, away from Bali. As I know, Bali is another Oz'state... too many Oz there.
WA says: Exactly. And you'd think the travel advisory could reflect that clearly, rather than having a general "reconsider travel" statement for Indonesia as a whole. It would make a big difference.
I AGREE (1 people agree) I DISAGREE (1 people disagree)
abu bakir from centrelink
America dropped its travel warning in the hope of getting back in jakarta's good books after the Indo out cry over the paternalism of US anti-piracy offers. Indo police have quietly killed off many budding indig terrs, but the inflo of battle hardened int jihadists means inevitable high profile bombings. Indo gov trys to send blood hungry jihadists to Irian jaya or moluccu where their crimes wont make tv news but the beast will eventually turn back on them.
WA says: The question is not whether or not there is a terrorism risk in Indonesia, but whether or not it is substantially less present in places with lower-level travel warnings. Given that there seems to be a general feeling that terrorism is on a downward curve in Indonesia, and an upward one in Europe, that surely should be critiqued.
I AGREE (1 people agree) I DISAGREE (2 people disagree)
abu bakir from centrelink
Indonesia is terror central. mnlf and abu sayef from the PI, malaysian and Thai from Patani, home grown lashkar jihad & JI. All types of Indonesian half breeds with racial links to Yemen. All types of muslims terrorists from chechnya and Bosnia living in java. Add to that Indonesias impossible border control and you have the governments motiv for the rather pointless travel warnings.
WA says: That's actually a fairly broad statement that isn't backed up by the Indonesian researchers I know, or the US government's decision to drop their travel warning. There seems to be a prevailing view that the terrain in Indonesia is improving remarkably.
I AGREE (2 people agree) I DISAGREE (1 people disagree)
manuel from sydney
I AGREE (1 people agree) I DISAGREE (0 people disagree)
mandy from aus
Ha ha ha ha! Are you aware that the 'smarttraveller' website is advertising on the salam cafe website, just under last week's episode. Funny, given your post!
WA says: That's brilliant!
I AGREE (4 people agree) I DISAGREE (0 people disagree)
Rod from Victoria Point
Fair suck of the sand shoe! This issue is WAY too complex for a 500 characters response. Comparisons of this ilk are meaningless and a wee bit disingenuous if not mischief making. There are travel warnings for Zimbabwe and non Muslim countries too because of terrorist activity. WASP(C)s, ( incl. Aussies) are STATED targets of terrorists in Indonesia. WA. I’m disappointed with your myopic thinking here.
WA says: Your point would stand if the travel warning was specific to certain parts of Indonesia. It isn't (except to make some specific areas no go areas). And I'm not sure why you're saying it's a Muslim non-Muslim thing. I haven't said that.
I AGREE (2 people agree) I DISAGREE (2 people disagree)
Brian from Ballarat Victoria
Susan Carland can be thankful she lives within a tolerant society, established with a Christian heritage. If she lived in Iran she would be forced to wear the hijab. If she lived in Turkey, as a student, she would be forced to not wear the hijab. Some more questions for next week's Muslim quiz.
I AGREE (7 people agree) I DISAGREE (7 people disagree)
Shannon from Canberra
I AGREE (4 people agree) I DISAGREE (0 people disagree)
Novan from Northern Beaches, Sydney
I AGREE (3 people agree) I DISAGREE (3 people disagree)
Jay from Brisbane
I AGREE (1 people agree) I DISAGREE (6 people disagree)
Dilara from Syd
I AGREE (10 people agree) I DISAGREE (1 people disagree)
Karim from Melbourne
I think the reason why we put more emphasis on Indonesia is because its population is predominantly Muslim, in which statistically it makes it more of a higher risk to have extremists. It’s unfortunate but the reality these days is that people have lost the plot and a lot of them seem to be from a Muslim background.
WA says: Not sure it really works that way. It's about the threat profile of each particular country, not the demographics of the population within it. And as we've seen plenty of times, the fact that a country is a non-Muslim country doesn't mean it won't face terrorist attacks.
I AGREE (8 people agree) I DISAGREE (6 people disagree)