2003 Speeches
Ambassador Frank Lavin's Remarks in Melbourne, Australia
August, 2003
Thank you Greg for that gracious introduction. And thank you Phil for your marvelous work in putting together the Dialog. You have taken us from a small band of hardy pioneers, and shaped this into a policy Woodstock.
Some of the best value of this dialog is found in the informal discussions: I bumped into Tony Abbot and asked him what he was working on. He said he was working on preparations for the Queen’s birthday. Queen’s birthday? That’s right. Well, I said to Tony, I like rock and roll as much as the next person (laughter) but I am not sure if an entire holiday dedicated to Freddy Mercury is a good idea (laughter). I know the Liberals have to make a special effort to go after the youth vote, but this just looks like pandering.
Later I bumped into Bob Carr, and I asked him what he was working on. He told me he had been reflecting on the challenge of leadership in Australia. He said that what the nation needs now is more humble geniuses. Humble geniuses, I asked? Yes, he responded, I am getting lonelier all the time (laughter).
Finally, I was chatting with Greg Sheridan after the last session yesterday. Greg told me that he just had an epiphany. Socrates was wrong, he told me. Is that so, I asked. Yes, you see, an unexamined life is worth living (laughter). Greg, let that be your watchword. As you climb through the ranks of News Corp it should serve you well (laughter).
I would like to spend a few minutes and develop a simple thesis for you: that the real challenge and opportunity in the US-Australian relationship will be increasingly in third countries, and not in the purely bilateral issues.
Afghanistan and Iraq were the most acute manifestation of this third country collaboration, but perhaps this is a bit misleading because military action is not the most common attribute of state behavior.
We can just look around SE Asia and see where our two nations are exploring ways to work together. This can range from human rights issues in Burma and Timor. Or transnational issues like counter-narcotics or AIDS prevention or SARS.
But the most important area of third country coordination is in Indonesia, which I would regard as the most serious foreign policy issue Australia faces. Because a deterioration in stability in Indonesia, or an improvement in terrorist capabilities there, puts Australians directly at risk, less so Americans.
Let me take you back almost two years – December 2001, as military action in Afghanistan was just over. In Singapore, I was called in by the ISD (Special Branch) along with my friend and neighbor, my Australian counterpart Gary Quinlan, who I believe many of you know. We were told that we had been targeted by the Jemaah Islamiah. They were planning on killing us and blowing up our buildings. This was an Al Queda plot to avenge the war in Afghanistan and it would be run by Indonesian leadership.
We were told the terrorists were on to us and wanted to kill us, but not to worry because the ISD was on to them. This had to remain a secret, don’t alter your routine, if we can monitor them for a bit we think we can catch them all. This went on for ten days before the arrests were made.
But was it a hollow victory? It was the arrests in Singapore and Malaysia that convinced the Indonesian leadership they needed to find soft targets, and that was when the Bali bomb plot was hatched.
Jump ahead to the fall of 2002. We all remember what we were doing on October 13 when we woke up and saw the Bali news. I called Gary and asked if I could send our embassy doctor.
He was appreciative but explained that the RAAF already had the medical team in they needed. I did send my two FBI agents based at the embassy, and they helped lead the FBI team there, which played a support role for AFP.
Three Americans were evacuated to Singapore for treatment and I was able to visit them and meet with their relatives. It’s horrific because of the distinctive nature of a bomb and burn injuries and it’s sobering because instead of the victims and their colleagues dead and disfigured, the terrorists’ plan had been for Gary and me and our colleagues to be dead.
So we mourn the departed. We console the grieving. We help the wounded. We salute the heroes.
The same wretched cycle repeated itself on a smaller scale last week with the Jakarta blast. Fortunately, we had only one American and no Australians in the Singapore burn unit.
There have been other twists and turns in the threat level and security challenges that fall outside the scope of this discussion. But what is notable about this little vignette is not how special it is, but how ordinary it is. All across Southeast Asia, Australians and Americans are involved in business, teaching, charity work, and studying – building, creating, sharing, and helping shape societies for the better. It is these vital sinews of human interaction that risk being cut by the terrorist threat.
So it is not so much the Bali or the Jakarta blasts that we need to reflect on. We need to think about the next plot. Our assumption should be that as we speak, there are terrorist cells operating in Indonesia, and they are planning their next attack. We are having discussions today, and the terrorists are having their discussions today. We are having interesting meal chats, and the terrorists are having their meals as well.
What to do?
Well, this is almost the topic for another address, but let me give an outline.
We have a short-term challenge and a long-term challenge
For the short term, we focus on prevention and disruption. The police, homeland security, intelligence services and the military all have their roles. We need to put terrorists out of business and to keep our people safe. My view is that both of our governments are doing a good job of rising to this challenge in a post 9-11 world.
But for the long term, we will not enjoy success catching alligators one by one, we have to drain the swamp.
To put it in the imagery from the American Civil War, there will be times to unleash the fateful lightening of our terrible swift sword. But more important, over the long run, we need to trample out the vineyards where the grapes of wrath are stored.
This is the area in which we have fallen woefully short. The heart of this challenge is not so much to make people like us, which is a worthy initiative. The heart is to restrict and eliminate the organic capabilities of the terrorists to recruit, to train, and to finance their operations.
We need to get the extremists off the radio. We need to shut down people who advocate violence – while still respecting freedom of speech.
We need to help the school system professionalize and turn academies of hate into academies of learning.
We need to work for transparency and accountability in charities in Indonesia
And we need to do this with the cooperation of the Indonesian government.
Australia enjoyed an extraordinary success in Indonesia with the AFP’s role in investigating the Bali blast. In my view, this was the single most important step taken by Australia to improve its citizens’ security, post 9/11. And this improvement was not primarily because of the terrorists captured in the course of that investigation, though that was a welcome development. The improvement was because of the catalytic impact the AFP had on the Polri – the Indonesian National Police Force. The AFP’s role energized the Polri, improved their professionalism, their motivation, their morale, and it did so with tact and sensitivity, allowing Polri to receive credit for the work.
Australia needs to replicate this success in other key areas of Indonesia. In fact, Australia needs a sort of Manhattan Project for Indonesia, and the U.S. needs to help. Not to interfere in Indonesia, but to interfere with terrorists in Indonesia. Our number one ally in this will be the Indonesian government and the Indonesian people.
Indonesia has had more than its share of political and economic convulsions over the last six years. The collapse of the old regime, four presidents in five years, a democracy that seemed drifting and incompetent, a sorely mismanaged economy that cut per capita gdp almost in half, the problems of timor, aceh, and irian jaya, corruption and human rights abuses, all provided fertile ground for the growth of radicalism. This confluence of severe challenges combined with growing political extremism prompted me several years ago to title an analysis, “Weimar Indonesia.”
But over these past two years, there has been more good news than bad in Indonesia, despite the terrorist bombings. There will be good economic growth this year, ahead of America, and maybe even ahead of Australia. Democracy is taking hold in fits and starts. Public opinion is increasingly anti-terrorist. But the government apparatus is weak and we cannot expect their priorities to be the same as ours.
Here’s where I might have a friendly disagreement with one of Paul Kelly’s comments this morning. If Indonesia fails to go the right way on these issues, to my mind it would not primarily be a failing of Jakarta, it would primarily be a failing of Canberra, though Washington would deserve its share of the blame.
Let me conclude by referencing something that Michael Thawley said earlier this year in commenting on the US-Australia relationship: “We know what is right. We do what is needed. We stick by our mates.”
This is as incisive a comment as one can find in our business, with sincerity and a poignancy that will resonate with every American.
And there is only one response possible – only one way to say “thank you” for those sentiments.
So on behalf of the Americans here today let me say to the Australian participants: We know what is right. We do what is needed. We stick by our mates. Thank you.