Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, Jakarta – It is naive to think that the country's top circle of political-security decision makers could so easily lead the nation into folly.
But Indonesia's impulsiveness in recalling its ambassador from Canberra after Australia granted temporary visas to 42 Papuan asylum seekers remains a crude and unnecessary response.
Not only was the decision rash – given the lack of clear objectives or an exit strategy – but it was also mistaken, as seeking political asylum is a constitutional right.
Defense and diplomacy are spheres which shed light upon an organization's decision making. In deciphering this decision making process we may find profound, albeit not necessarily justified, reasons which spurred such a decision.
It can be further understood within the context of the persistent claims by authorities, not least those made by Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Widodo AS on Tuesday, of the involvement of "outside elements" in unrest in Papua.
The initial bent to recall the ambassador does seem to have come from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who were, according to sources, "responding to domestic pressure to take a tougher stand against Australia".
The proposal was taken to the Coordinating Meeting on Political and Security Affairs the next morning.
The most interesting development is how swiftly that meeting thrust itself into a judgment which undid the painstaking efforts of the past year to forge better ties with an often difficult neighbor.But informed sources suggest that the asylum issue may just have been the catalyst for a decision framed under an immense fear of perceived external influences in various Papuan unrest.
The mindset was apparently formed months earlier when intelligence reports, presented to officials in Jakarta, suggested that plans were afoot, perhaps with assistance of foreign volunteers, to radicalize a student demonstration in mid-March.
Officials high up in Jakarta anticipated the event by ordering security forces to refrain from arming themselves when controlling the protest. Despite the precautions, the March 16 demonstration in Abepura ended in bloodshed and claimed five lives.
The preparedness of protesters, many of whom were said not to be students, was noted in the International Crisis Group's latest report, which alleged that "there was a minivan full of rocks apparently deliberately collected for use by rioters".
The March 16 protest itself may also have been an escalation of the unrest sparked by discontented Papuan pro-independence elites angry at the trickery used to arrest a guerrilla fighter suspected in the 2003 shooting of Freeport employees.
Hence, when these factors are taken into account, one can understand the prevailing reaction among top security circles when they were suddenly presented with the news that Australia had granted visas to Papuan asylum seekers.
The decision to withdraw the ambassador may have nothing to do with Australia itself. Instead it was part of a plunge towards action based on fuzzy intelligence, stereotyped suppositions, the fickleness of public opinion and a failure to see choices as part of a larger context.
One can immediately see the potential for a "groupthink" mentality within this circle. Simply put, a collective process characterized by the uncritical acceptance of a point of view where outsiders are negatively portrayed, bizarre policies rationalized and contradictory evidence is discredited.
Perhaps the most notorious global example of groupthink of late was the US intelligence community's assessment of the threat of Saddam Hussein, which ultimately led to the invasion of Iraq.
Beyond the spur of conspiracy fears, the decision, which jarred relations with Australia, could also be a simple case of classic deception. The aim being to divert attention away from international pressure for Jakarta to implement special autonomy in Papua.
Former US Secretary of State George Marshall – the man whose policies paved the way for western Europe's post-war reconciliation and reconstruction – once noted that "action should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative".
Tragically the recall is doing neither, and is instead a folly creating more dilemmas.