• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO02027 | Deja Vu? Australia’s Reaction To Bali
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO02027 | Deja Vu? Australia’s Reaction To Bali
    Tan See Seng

    30 October 2002

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, the French daily Le Monde eulogised the tragedy with the memorable statement: “We are all Americans now.” Following the recent Bali atrocity on October 12, where a reported 34 Australian lives (with another 55 still unaccounted for) were, in Prime Minister John Howard’s words, “wantonly and barbarically taken away,” one may equally say we are all Australians now.

    Solidarity in grieving with our Australian friends over the tragedy in Bali is, of course, quite apropos. That said, however, a couple of significant differences between what happened in America and its ostensible equivalent in Bali are obvious. For one thing, the Bali incident, which involved the appalling taking of lives in two exclusive nightclubs – the so-called “twin towers” of Sari and Paddy’s, which, ironically, cater only to foreignclienteles – marks a shift in terrorist tactics to hitting what counter-terror experts euphemistically call “soft targets.” For another, unlike the attacks in New York and Washington, this latter act of terrorism was not committed on Australian soil.

    Beyond these differences, Australia’s reaction – or, for many Southeast Asians, overreaction – is revealing in its discomforting similarity with that of America in the latter’s reaction to the original September 11. Warning of potential future terrorist attacks against Australians at home and abroad, Canberra changed its tune overnight from previously downplaying the likelihood of attacks against Australians to now exaggerating the nation’s vulnerability, as did a columnist who likened Australia to “the fat duck in the little pond at the height of the hunting season.” Dismissing criticisms that his government’s upgrading of a travel warning against “high-risk” Southeast Asian nations (including Singapore) was an overreaction to the Bali incident, Mr Howard retorted: “Nothing is going too far in the present circumstances…. We are dealing with people who have no respect for human life.”

    Discerning audiences may be forgiven if they sense a touch of déjà vu in the grim rhetoric of Mr Howard. After all, his estimation employs more or less the same simplistic logic in renditions proffered by U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair: that there is no need to understand the perpetrators of these terrorist acts, to appreciate their histories, their resentments. To do so, the logic continues, is tantamount to condoning their dastardly deeds. All we really need to do, indeed all we must do, is simply get them, dead or alive.

    Mr Howard conceded that he did not wish to sound alarmist, but as South China Morning Post reporter Roger Maynard noted, a mood of retribution now fills the air Down Under. “Yes, they should be angry, they should be angry at the people who did this,” the premier remarked of his fellow countrymen.

    Mr Howard is, of course, absolutely right. But there is someirony in all this, if not for the fact that the Bali episode is so tragic. September 11 was an unacceptable act of evil planned and perpetrated by Osama bin Laden, whose incarnation as a master jihadi in then Soviet-occupied Afghanistan had as much to do with hearty American backing as his personal religious conviction.

    October 12, though much smaller in magnitude, was equally an unacceptable act of evil that took place in Indonesia, whose troubled history with state-sponsored violence against its own population owed a fair bit to Canberra’s long complicity. As leaked documents have since revealed, the Howard government had prior knowledge that the Indonesian army was setting up militias to terrorise, and eventually massacring many of the East Timorese in 1999. Yet Canberra feigned ignorance and did nothing. Which, as John Pilger noted recently, makes mockery of the claim that Australia had “lost its innocence” in Bali.

    There is no intention here to imply that Bali was Australia’s comeuppance. No nation or people, not least Australians, deserve to endure what Australia experienced. Yet it bears reminding that of all the casualties of the Bali carnage, at least half were non-Australian. Nevertheless, this important fact appears to have been glossed over in the current attention over Australia’s loss. Against this backdrop, references appearing in the Australian media to October 12, 2002, as “Australia’s September 11” or “Australia’s Pearl Harbor”, even as Canberra issued travel advisories against all Southeast Asian destinations for Australian travellers, smacked of gross insensitivity.

    Indeed, Australia’s reaction would seem to suggest – wrongly so – that October 12 is strictly an Australian affair, much to the chagrin of the Balinese and Indonesians. “Why are the Australians and the rest of the world not offering the same emotional support for Indonesia as it did for the US last year?” wrote a concerned reader to the Straits Times recently. “As the world mourns with Australia, [Australia] should also mourn with Indonesia and Southeast Asia.”

    It behoves us all – and in particular Australians – to bear in mind that the Bali attack is equally if not more a tragedy for Indonesians as for Australians. In the immediate aftermath to September 11, many coalition partners readily joined America’s war on terror, despite or because of Washington’s infamous “either you are with us or against us” caveat. Today, key partners openly dissent with the United States on going to war against Iraq. The fight against international terrorism requires a multilateral approach to be successful. Canberra cannot afford to go it alone without the assistance of Southeast Asian governments. Nor can Southeast Asian nations do without Australia.

    No matter how understandable, an overly ethnocentric reaction produces more negative than positive results – for Australia as well as Southeast Asian nations. Australia would do well to eschew an American-styled unilateralism that gains itself no friends, only more enemies.

    On the first anniversary of September 11 this year, the front page of Le Monde read: “We are all still Americans – but not every day now.” It does not have to be so for Australia.

    About the Author

    Dr. Tan See Seng is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. He is currently writing a book on the productive effects of theory and practice on Asia Pacific international relations.

    Categories: Commentaries / International Politics and Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific

    Last updated on 02/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, the French daily Le Monde eulogised the tragedy with the memorable statement: “We are all Americans now.” Following the recent Bali atrocity on October 12, where a reported 34 Australian lives (with another 55 still unaccounted for) were, in Prime Minister John Howard’s words, “wantonly and barbarically taken away,” one may equally say we are all Australians now.

    Solidarity in grieving with our Australian friends over the tragedy in Bali is, of course, quite apropos. That said, however, a couple of significant differences between what happened in America and its ostensible equivalent in Bali are obvious. For one thing, the Bali incident, which involved the appalling taking of lives in two exclusive nightclubs – the so-called “twin towers” of Sari and Paddy’s, which, ironically, cater only to foreignclienteles – marks a shift in terrorist tactics to hitting what counter-terror experts euphemistically call “soft targets.” For another, unlike the attacks in New York and Washington, this latter act of terrorism was not committed on Australian soil.

    Beyond these differences, Australia’s reaction – or, for many Southeast Asians, overreaction – is revealing in its discomforting similarity with that of America in the latter’s reaction to the original September 11. Warning of potential future terrorist attacks against Australians at home and abroad, Canberra changed its tune overnight from previously downplaying the likelihood of attacks against Australians to now exaggerating the nation’s vulnerability, as did a columnist who likened Australia to “the fat duck in the little pond at the height of the hunting season.” Dismissing criticisms that his government’s upgrading of a travel warning against “high-risk” Southeast Asian nations (including Singapore) was an overreaction to the Bali incident, Mr Howard retorted: “Nothing is going too far in the present circumstances…. We are dealing with people who have no respect for human life.”

    Discerning audiences may be forgiven if they sense a touch of déjà vu in the grim rhetoric of Mr Howard. After all, his estimation employs more or less the same simplistic logic in renditions proffered by U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair: that there is no need to understand the perpetrators of these terrorist acts, to appreciate their histories, their resentments. To do so, the logic continues, is tantamount to condoning their dastardly deeds. All we really need to do, indeed all we must do, is simply get them, dead or alive.

    Mr Howard conceded that he did not wish to sound alarmist, but as South China Morning Post reporter Roger Maynard noted, a mood of retribution now fills the air Down Under. “Yes, they should be angry, they should be angry at the people who did this,” the premier remarked of his fellow countrymen.

    Mr Howard is, of course, absolutely right. But there is someirony in all this, if not for the fact that the Bali episode is so tragic. September 11 was an unacceptable act of evil planned and perpetrated by Osama bin Laden, whose incarnation as a master jihadi in then Soviet-occupied Afghanistan had as much to do with hearty American backing as his personal religious conviction.

    October 12, though much smaller in magnitude, was equally an unacceptable act of evil that took place in Indonesia, whose troubled history with state-sponsored violence against its own population owed a fair bit to Canberra’s long complicity. As leaked documents have since revealed, the Howard government had prior knowledge that the Indonesian army was setting up militias to terrorise, and eventually massacring many of the East Timorese in 1999. Yet Canberra feigned ignorance and did nothing. Which, as John Pilger noted recently, makes mockery of the claim that Australia had “lost its innocence” in Bali.

    There is no intention here to imply that Bali was Australia’s comeuppance. No nation or people, not least Australians, deserve to endure what Australia experienced. Yet it bears reminding that of all the casualties of the Bali carnage, at least half were non-Australian. Nevertheless, this important fact appears to have been glossed over in the current attention over Australia’s loss. Against this backdrop, references appearing in the Australian media to October 12, 2002, as “Australia’s September 11” or “Australia’s Pearl Harbor”, even as Canberra issued travel advisories against all Southeast Asian destinations for Australian travellers, smacked of gross insensitivity.

    Indeed, Australia’s reaction would seem to suggest – wrongly so – that October 12 is strictly an Australian affair, much to the chagrin of the Balinese and Indonesians. “Why are the Australians and the rest of the world not offering the same emotional support for Indonesia as it did for the US last year?” wrote a concerned reader to the Straits Times recently. “As the world mourns with Australia, [Australia] should also mourn with Indonesia and Southeast Asia.”

    It behoves us all – and in particular Australians – to bear in mind that the Bali attack is equally if not more a tragedy for Indonesians as for Australians. In the immediate aftermath to September 11, many coalition partners readily joined America’s war on terror, despite or because of Washington’s infamous “either you are with us or against us” caveat. Today, key partners openly dissent with the United States on going to war against Iraq. The fight against international terrorism requires a multilateral approach to be successful. Canberra cannot afford to go it alone without the assistance of Southeast Asian governments. Nor can Southeast Asian nations do without Australia.

    No matter how understandable, an overly ethnocentric reaction produces more negative than positive results – for Australia as well as Southeast Asian nations. Australia would do well to eschew an American-styled unilateralism that gains itself no friends, only more enemies.

    On the first anniversary of September 11 this year, the front page of Le Monde read: “We are all still Americans – but not every day now.” It does not have to be so for Australia.

    About the Author

    Dr. Tan See Seng is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. He is currently writing a book on the productive effects of theory and practice on Asia Pacific international relations.

    Categories: Commentaries / International Politics and Security

    Last updated on 02/10/2014

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    CO02027 | Deja Vu? Australia’s Reaction To Bali

    Commentary

    In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, the French daily Le Monde eulogised the tragedy wi ...
    more info