Appeasing Indonesia.(LETTERS)(Letter to the editor)

SIR: Congratulations on a first-rate editorial ("Papua and Realism in Foreign Policy", May 2006). It reminds me of an equally top-quality article by historian John Hirst in the same pages a decade ago ("In Defence of Appeasement", April 1996). Indeed, despite the howls of outrage by many on the political and religious Left, there is much to be said for a policy of appeasement towards Indonesia in the current context.

Although it acquired its name and its bad odour from the policies Britain and France followed towards Nazi Germany, appeasement is sometimes wise. It was Winston Churchill who once warned: "Appeasement in itself may be good or bad according to the circumstances." And the circumstances that are relevant in the current case of Indonesia are compelling.

First, Indonesia is the largest and most populous Muslim state in the world. It is under severe stress, following the 1999 breakaway of East Timor and with violent secession movements not just in Papua, but also in Aceh. Imagine the task of ruling more than 13,000 islands with hundreds of languages and ethnic groups, and you may begin to appreciate the problem that the governing of Indonesia could present even to the smartest of governments. True, accommodation with Jakarta remains unsettling to many Australians who wax sentimental over the principle of self-determination. Polls show that 75 per cent of Australians support Papuan independence. But if they were asked the related question of whether they would support the disintegration of the Indonesian state--which Papuan independence would make more likely--the answer would almost certainly be very different.

Second, Indonesia is not bent on territorial expansionism; it is merely concerned about preserving the existing state of affairs (read: stability and order in its neighbourhood). The distinction is crucial. The leading realist intellectual Hans J. Morgenthau once described appeasement as a policy of compromise wrongly applied to a regime that has no interest in compromise, but perfectly sensible when dealing with a state that is committed to the status quo. In international relations parlance, ...