Hitler and Jackie...

I have always loved history. Perhaps my fascination in historical research is with the idea that you might uncover something in your travels through the treasure troves of history that no one else has seen for years, decades or centuries. Sometimes those "discoveries" might be enlightening and other times they might end up being nothing more than a question on a Trivial Pursuit card.

One such piece of history relates to recently uncovered documents that highlight the Nazis fascination with a Finnish dog, Jackie (a Dalmation cross), owned by Tor Borg. It would seem that Jackie had an unusual talent of being able to mock the Fuehrer. Whenever Jackie heard the word Hitler his paw would raise in the fashion of a German doing the Heil Hitler salute.

What makes this truly bizarre is that the incident resulted in significant diplomatic traffic between Helsinki and Berlin as to how best to deal with the insult. The plan was to haul Borg in for questioning and destroy his pharmaceutical business. However, as the cables show, Borg denied the accusations, although he did admit that his wife called the dog, Hitler.

Luckily, for Borg, no witnesses could be found that were willing to testify that Borg had trained Jackie to perform the salute. So, the case faltered and never went to trial. Borg continued on his merry way and remained a successful business man with his Tamro Group until his death. Jackie led a full life and died of natural causes.

Apparently, to date, there is nothing in the documents to suggest that Hitler himself was aware of the saluting dog, but considering the documents were passed through his office it is likely that the Fuehrer may have known that he was being mocked by a dog. I would reckon the Nazis would have been besides themselves if the Downfall parody videos had been around during World War Two. To be honest, you would have thought that the Nazis would have had more important things to contemplate than a dog with a penchant for a salute considering they were fighting a war on two fronts.

Wikileaks and Kevin Rudd...

It must hurt to be Prime Minister of Australia and then be described by the US Ambassador, a close ally, as "a mistake prone control freak". But, to Rudd's credit, he does not give a damn. And, he makes a good point that there has been worse written about him in the past and there is likely to be worse written about him in the future. So, his job is to get on with the job of being Australia's number one diplomat.

Nevertheless, the scathing assessment suggested that he was also abrasive and impulsive while being not up to the task according to this little burst from the former US Ambassador:

''Rudd … undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia's foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly.''

And, this was from just over 12 months ago. However, this was generally the gist of most assessments fired off by the former US Ambassador, Richard McCallum, to the former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and more recently the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.


The micro-management style of the former Prime Minister and his habit of undertaking large commitments without first consulting those that would be doing the hard yards in getting the initiatives up and running was ultimately his downfall. So, there really is nothing all that surprising or new in the diplomatic cables being leaked by Wikileaks. Perhaps, Kevin Rudd knows himself well enough to know the blunt assessments of him are one interpretation of his manner and style. He might not agree with those assessments, but it is probably true that he does not give a damn.

So, what is next on the Wikileaks front for Australia's diplomats?

What Do The Indonesian Cables on Wikileaks Reveal?

Tongue in cheek...

Someone asked me whether I thought the 3000+ diplomatic cables that Wikileaks are leaking on Indonesia will be interesting and worth a read. My answer, Yes!

No matter what is in these cables, they are going to make for interesting reading. This is particularly so for those who consider themselves knowledgeable on all things diplomatic and Indonesia / USA relationship wise. For those that are truly in the know, or those that are on the coal-face of this relationship, or those who are passionate about the study of the Indonesian / US bilateral relationship are likely to be more disappointed than anything else. These are secret and confidential cables. They will include some nice tidbits and probably some comments that will cause offense both at home and abroad, but they are unlikely to be earth shattering.

Yet, it is worth putting a modifier on that. For example, if one of the cables included a statement to the effect that there was evidence that SBY was on the Bakrie payroll, now that would be a pearler. It might not be earth-shattering, let's face it, it would be an easy assumption to make considering the ease with which Bakrie gets "passes" on everything that should tarnish and sink him for ever as a political player. Nevertheless, it would be fun to watch the fallout and the subsequent spin.

So, in light of the question, here are a couple of choice cable exchanges that I would be intrigued to read:

"SBY prefers to sing than to lead!"

Or, "the 2009 election was clearly not fair despite what the Carter Center may have said in its report. Evidence suggests that on the orders of SBY, Partai Demokrat spent huge sums of money to manipulate voting in areas outside of Jakarta!"


Or, "SBY: can't sing, can't dance, can't lead, all round waste of time, effort, and space. Indonesians are holding out to 2014 believing something is better just around the corner!"

Or, "despite public protestations to the contrary, SBY has performed poorly on key election promises relating to corruption and terror."

Or "the recent good results on the elimination of terrorists is really nothing more than elements of the national police and military cleaning house and tidying up some 'loose' ends!"

Or, "The Minister for Communication and Information is publicly an avid anti-porn advocate however he is known to frequent massage parlours that offer a plus plus service. Obviously, the man has an insatiable appetite for the bump and grind considering he has four wives and seven known mistresses!"

Or, more on TitS..."the Minister for Communication and Information's staff have been secretly trying to set up a session with Vicky Vette to determine whether she was serious about her offer to 'pleasure' the Minister. It is widely known that the Minister has a 'thing' for blondes with big breasts. One of his staff members noted that the Minister was a 'TitS man'. Maybe he meant that TitS is the man?"

Or cables along those lines. I could go on and on and on with the possibilities. I am sure that you, if anyone reads this, will have some of your own. So, feel free to share.

Once again, this is tongue in cheek. No 'real' offense is intended.

More on Julian Assange and Wikileaks: The Sarah Palin View...

Julian Assange has certainly found more fame than he may have craved in developing Wikileaks into a whistleblower of world renown. The recent release of some 250,000 US diplomatic cables has intensified the hunt for Assange and the "need" to bring him to justice. Assange has some serious legal problems aside from the alleged rape and sexual molestation of which he stands accused of committing in Sweden. There are quite a number of states looking to prosecute him for his part in the publication of the "illegally" obtained diplomatic cables.

Australia is clearly looking to build a case against Assange. However, it would seem that the US is also exploring what options it has in making the case and prosecuting Assange in the US. This has obviously brought the ranting and railing conservative right out. Among them is the former Vice-Presidential candidate from the Grand Old Party (GOP), Sarah Palin. The fact that some might consider her a legitimate contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 is scary enough, but the latest outburst is indicative as to what lengths this woman will go to try and capitalise on conservative popular opinion. It is also indicative of the fact that she really does not understand the difference between Osama bin Laden and Julian Assange. It is pretty clear that she obviously missed the advocacy class on why not to use exaggeration.

Sarah Palin in her infinite wisdom has taken to Facebook to condemn Assange for his role in releasing to the world some 250,000 confidential and secret diplomatic cables. Fair enough! There are good arguments to be made that it was irresponsible for Assange to publish via Wikileaks. However, Palin was not satisfied stopping there. In order to really ratchet-up the rhetoric she decided to add that Assnage should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden.

Well, after ten years of searching the US has not found or been able to confirm that it has killed bin Laden. So, it would seem that Assange really need not fear the US if it was to mount a similar "search and destroy" campaign that has been mounted for bin Laden. Although, on a more serious note, it would appear that all those who need to know where Assange is, in fact know where he is. It would also appear that an arrest is not that far away once the arrest warrant(s) are in order, assuming Assange decides to surrender to authorities and not seek political asylum in a country favourable to that proposition, Switzerland perhaps.

To further reinforce her point she suggested that Assange is not a journalist in any shape or form and compared this lack of journalistic skill to the current editor of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine, Inspire. Further intensifying the rhetoric saw Assange labeled as anti-American and with blood on his hands.

In any event, this was a political point scoring opportunity that was more about Palin slamming the White House and President Obama by implying that they were complicit in Assange's Wikileaks work because they have not been serious in hunting him down or arresting him.

Yet, this generally fits into the overall rhetoric of US politics with recent claims seeking to force the US government to declare Wikileaks a terrorist organisation. A whistleblower as a terrorist organisation, what an interesting development. However, it is symptomatic of the way the world is post 9/11. Anything that annoys us or possible effects many as opposed to a few is almost immediately labeled a terrorist organisation. I wonder what the Tea Party might need to do to be labeled a terrorist organisation? What about the Republicans or the Democrats?

However, the US is looking to invoke the Espionage Act with a view to criminal prosecution. And, it is imperative in the US view that they do this one by the numbers, and make the case bullet-proof.

The case to shut down sites that release confidential documents needs to be assessed on a merits basis. The reality is that releasing secret or confidential information can always be criminalised, but at what cost?

The question that must be answered here was whether there was any value in the releasing of these particular diplomatic cables? Simply, does the public need to know outweigh the need to maintain confidentiality?

Ho hum...

Australia Appoints a New Ambassador to Indonesia...

The Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, has issued a media release noting the appointment of Mr. Greg Moriarty to the post of Australian Ambassador to Indonesia.

The formalization of the appointment requires the two governments to agree on the appointment, and then for Moriarty to present his credentials to the President of Indonesia. This should be a foregone conclusion as there does not appear to be anything in Moriarty's past that will be a hindrance to his appointment.

Moriarty is to replace Bill Farmer AO who has been ambassador in Indonesia since November 2005. Moriarty is currently First Assistant Secretary Consular, Public Diplomacy and Parliamentary Affairs at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Moriarty is also the former Australian Ambassador to Iran and had the good fortune of being one of the few foreign envoys to brief George Bush on happenings there. He has also done time in Indonesia and speaks the language. This suggests that there is a good degree of gravitas about Moriarty and his work which makes him a good choice for the Jakarta role.

Prisoner Transfer Agreements -- Australia and Indonesia...

The purpose of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) is to allow foreign nationals incarcerated overseas to serve out the remaining portion of their sentence in their home countries. A PTA between Australia and Indonesia is something that has been in the pipeline for a while. If you are an Australian or an Indonesian incarcerated in a foreign prison, then that pipeline has been very long to date, and would seem to be a little longer still before there is any light at the end of this pipeline.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marty Natalegawa, has admitted as much. Natalegawa is a talented young diplomat who in a rapidly rising career leading to his appointment as FM held key ambassadorial posts in the UK and at the UN. He is a very intelligent man who is economical in his choice of words and rarely misspeaks. So, when he speaks it is probably worth paying attention to.

So, when Natalegawa said to the Australian Associated Press (AAP) that the negotiations for a PTA had not stalled, but rather taking time as a consequence of Indonesia being new to the PTA game, then that is where the game is at. The PTA will impact on the lives of those prisoners who have not been sentenced to death in an Indonesian court. Unfortunately, for those Australians on death row there is zero chance of them being repatriated to Australia to serve out the remainder of their respective sentences and executed.

However, a PTA will potentially permit the likes of Schapelle Corby and Renae Lawrence to be returned to Australia to serve out the remainder of their custodial sentences in an Australian prison.

The devil is in the detail of a PTA. And, this is where negotiations have slowed to a trickle in the very long pipeline that Natalegawa has alluded to. For example, Indonesia has taken a very strong public international stance on drugs and drug smuggling. Therefore, there are quarters within the Indonesian community that are reluctant to include drug smugglers on the list of prisoners who can be returned under a PTA. There is a fear that Australia does not deal with drugs as harshly as they do in Indonesia. And, they are right, we do not execute people period. That fear is that Corby and Lawrence would be returned to Australia under a PTA and then released shortly after their return.

The details are likely to include specific conditions on how much time is to be served in Australia prior to a release. The difficulty here is that Indonesia works on a remission system where prisoners sentences are cut each year, sometimes twice a year, on religious / national holidays for good behaviour. In contrast, the Australian system works on a head sentence and a non-parole period. Ultimately, the same amount of time will conceivably be served under both situations but these are the sorts of details that need to be hammered out before an agreement can be reached.

Another critical issue still to be agreed is how much time prisoners will be required to serve before becoming eligible for a PTA return to their home country. There have been suggestions that Australians serving time in Indonesian jails will have to do almost 3/4 of their sentence before becoming eligible. However, this is unlikely, assuming those on the Australian side of the debate are knowledgeable and well-informed on the Indonesian system. A person convicted in Indonesia is likely to only do 3/4 of their original sentence, and in all likelihood less than 3/4, with remissions for good behaviour and the like.

The classic example here is none other than the son of the former president (dictator), Tommy Soeharto. Tommy was convicted of a little graft and then the subsequent premeditated murder for hire of a Supreme Court justice. The man ended up doing about 2/3 of his original sentence.

So, in that regard a PTA might not make a lot make a lot of sense for most Australians incarcerated in Indonesia. It is also unlikely that the 3/4 of the sentence demand will be met.

It would seem that a PTA will become a reality in the future, but how far into the future remains to be seen.

Ali Alatas (1932 - 2008)

It is sad news that Ali Alatas had passed. He was Indonesia's diplomatic face to the world during some of the hardest of times. He was always not only diplomatic but graceful whilst on the world stage through his time as not only Indonesia's longest serving Foreign Minister, but also prior to that as Indonesia's point man at the United Nations in both Geneva and New York from 1976.

In many ways the Alatas career is shaped by the events of East Timor and the eventual split of the former Portuguese colony from the Republic of Indonesia. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to cast his legacy as merely one connected no matter how intimately to the events of the East Timor and Indonesia relationship.

Since his departure as the top diplomat in 1999 he went onto play a significant role in the "resolution" of the Aceh issue and most recently as Ambassador at large and Head of the Supreme Advisory Council.

Alatas (photo Afriadi Hikmal, Jakarta Globe) leaves behind a wife and three children.

The man will be sorely missed not only by his family but by many Indonesians who have benefited from his vast knowledge, not only of diplomacy but of world affairs.

Alatas had a heart attack and died Thursday morning in Singapore.

May he rest in peace!