Once I was asked by a friend to recommend six graduates for positions within his department. He promised that those I recommend would immediately make the list for interviews. Call for applications was also advertised.
True to his word, all six graduates I recommended were shortlisted for interview. Three were recruited. It was interesting to me that the three that got the positions were not the kids with the highest GPAs.
I intentionally recommended the three graduates with low GPAs nonetheless.
For one I remember writing about his work attitude. As a honors student (I was teaching the research method bit of the program), he would consistently submit his assignments on or before time. I made the point that he was not the smartest, but was hardworking.
The other had the most friendly personality I’ve ever encountered teaching for five years. You wouldn’t know the kid was having a bad day. He once came to my office, argued for me to adjust his marks for a test which I didn’t. He left with a broad smile 😃.
The other graduate, who I was friends with on Facebook (when I had an account), publicly got into argument with his tribesmen and country men about the unjustifiable cases of violence against women, and tribal fights in the cities. He called them out – which to be honest, many from areas that these practices are endemic don’t!
I sent both the recommendations, together with their transcripts. And made the point that their marks were average, but what we need more in PNG are people who work hard at opportunities that are given, good attitude, and are willing to stand up against injustice for those that cannot.
To me, a student who keeps the candy packet in his pocket to throw in a prosper rubbish bin is more deserving of a job than one with high GPA who spits betel nut on the clean pavement, or throws an empty can out a moving bus.
Occasionally I get asked to recommend new graduates. I also get requests from students to write references. It’s always the same: attitude over GPA. A good GPA and a good attitude would make a great recommendation.
In less than a week, the wold came together to condemn Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions on Putin and the oligarchs, Russian Central Bank, suspension of SWIFT services, and supplied weapons and aid money for those affected.
The question many, especially in the Pacific are asking is: what about West Papua?
West Papua has been illegally occupied by Indonesia since 1963. Brutal and endemic abuse of human rights violations continued unabated since then.
The UN Human Rights Commission said on 1 March 2022 that “Between April and November 2021, we have received allegations indicating several instances of extrajudicial killings, including of young children, enforced disappearance, torture and inhuman treatment and the forced displacement of at least 5,000 indigenous Papuans by security forces.”
So even the UN knows what is happening. So the obvious question is why isn’t the UN or EU or US or Australia doing anything about it?
The issue is complex, but here we will talk about just one, and probably the most important one. It has to do with the geopolitical benefits of pleasing Indonesia.
Indonesia is and has been an important ally of the US and Australian, the two powers with the highest stake in the region.
During the Cold War, domino effect of Communist ideology spread to Southeast Asia. Indonesia was an important ally of the West against communism. Indonesia activity suppressed Communism.
To please their ally, US and the West left Indonesia move in an occupy West Papua following the so called Act of Free Choice, which has been branded as Act of No Choice by many. A form of referendum where about 1000 representatives of West Papua were forced to sign to integrate into Indonesia.
Fast forward to now, the same countries are worried about the rise of China. And they are content with ignoring Indonesian atrocities in West Papua.
Countries in Southeast Asia with a stake in the South China Sea need US help to stand up against China so they remain silent. India has border conflicts with China so it remains it does what US wants. Japan has its own conflicts with China, so is Australia.
There are rumours that China sympathies with West Papua. This appears ironic that a Communist country with poor record of human rights would be sympathetic with human rights abuses in West Papua.
There are two reasons for this: Indonesia has claims over South China Sea which China considers as her own; and Indonesia’s criticism of China over imprisonment of Muslim minorities.
There are allegations that China maintains a modern day labour prison camp for an estimated one million Muslim Uyghurs. China calls it the re-education camps. Being the largest Muslim nation on earth Indonesia condemns China. Rumours started emerging that China then supported West Papuans.
A classical “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” play going on in the region.
In the Pacific, only Vanuatu has consistently supported West Papuan’s independence and spoken up in the UN. Papua New Guinean, which shares a 700km land border with Indonesia has been very cautious. Indonesia has very huge standing army compared to PNG.
There were calls for Commission of Inquiry into West Papua by countries in the region, but that never took place. Further calls for allowing journalists into West Papua has been ignored. And in the absence of international presence, Indonesia controls the narrative.
So here is how the world politics play: if an invasion or occupation or atrocities against a group of people affects the interest of the West, and US in particular, only the is there condemnation and even action taken.
The difference between Ukraine and West Papua is that, in Ukraine, it’s Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the enemy of the West. So the invasion is considered illegal, and civilians killed in Ukraine amounts to war crimes.
In West Papua, the same or even worse has been occurring for over 70 decades. Buts it’s been carried out by an ally of the West.
Unless the geopolitics in the region change, and US and it’s allies do not need Indonesia, West will continue to ignore West Papua.
Alternatively, China can step up its support for West Papua.
There’s no help from Australian. In fact, Australia supplies arms to Indonesian military.
The Pacific countries are the only realist voice. They have to do what Vanuatu has been doing.
The similarities are striking. Putin wants Ukraine, Xi wants Taiwan.
Both Ukraine and Taiwan are democratic countries. Countries where elections are relatively free and fair compared to dictatorial style governments of Russia and China.
Putin makes the historical and cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine. Xi makes the same claims for Taiwan.
But what Putin and Xi fear the most is that, the freedom enjoyed by Ukrainians and Taiwanese people is a threat to Russian & China, whose population don’t have similar freedoms. Putin and Xi fear their own people desiring Ukrainians and Taiwanese lifestyle and freedom. Putin and Xi’s main threats lie among their own people, not necessarily form the West.
But both Putin and Xi blame the West for interfering because it’s convenient.
China is watching Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine very carefully. It’s watching the world (with very few exceptions) unite against Russia. The economic sanctions of the EU and US will cripple Russia in the long run. Both US and EU are crucial for Chinese economy.
US is China’s main export destination. EU is one of China’s major export destinations.
It is very likely the world will unite against China if China every attempts to take control of Taiwan.
Just last year, Australia, Japan, India and the US formed the “QUAD” alliance. Some have referred to it as QUAD NATO. Just like NATO was created to stand up against USSR and Russia, QUAD NATO is projected against China. QUAD will have supporters like South Korea, Indonesia (allegedly over one million Uyghurs Muslims in China kept in camps, and Indonesia being the largest Muslim nation on earth is concerned), and other Southeast Asian countries that have constant disputes with China over South China Sea.
China’s ambitions over Taiwan will very much be shaped by success or failure of Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine, and the future of Putin and Russia.
Putin is isolated on the world stage, and humiliated by Ukraine in the battle field.
The war is in its 6th day, and despite having the third largest military capability (after US and China), Russian military have not taken any major cities of Ukraine.
There are several reasons for this. First, Russia is facing supply and logistic problems. The military planners took the most ambitious strategy: attack Ukraine on three fronts. By attacking on three fronts, Russia has overextended its supply.
Second, Russian forces grossly underestimated Ukraine’s fighting spirit. In 2014 Russia strolled in and took over Donbas and Crimea. Since then Ukraine built up a relatively capable military. But more so, civilians have harkened to the call to take up arms and fight.
Third, the West have come together against Russia in a way never seen before. Led by the EU and US, the world have sanctioned Russia. Including Putin himself, his close associates, Russian Central Bank, international money transfer messaging SWIFT, and this taking a hit on Russia.
But the most important loss for Putin is, by invading Ukraine, he created more enemies with nations close to Russia. Germany, for instance, broke its long-standing policy not to supply military arsenal to any country. For the first time Germany is sending 1, 000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger anti-craft weapons. Neutral countries including Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, and Ireland are sending assistance to Ukraine.
Even China, which signed an agreement for closer ties with Russia a month ago is not helping Russia, instead calling for negotiations to end the conflict.
US and NATO have used this opportunity to send more military support to NATO in close proximity to Russia.
When this war is over, Russia will be economically paralysed, have far less supporters in the international arena, and have a neighbouring Europe that is armed to the teeth and every imagined during peace times.
By Alan Robson, ANU Department of Pacific Affairs, UPNG Political Science
This is part one of Alan ROBSON’s take on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In this piece, Alan argues that the West pushed too far. Putin didn’t have much choice but to act. Part two he balances the argument but looking at Putin’s own ambitions to expand.
This is part one of Alan ROBSON’s take on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In this piece, Alan argues that the West pushed too far. Putin didn’t have much choice but to act. Part two he balances the argument by looking at Putin’s own ambitions to expand.
The current European crisis is largely a product of the US and Western European post-Cold War optimism that Russia would Balkanise into a neoliberal mess and their refusal to accept Putin’s reversal of this process. In order words, the US and West wanted Russia had a long standing ambitions to break Russia into small states like Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus etc.
Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine followed on continual failure to get Zelensky and the Western Ukrainians to accept the implementation of the Minsk agreement, coupled with Zelesnky’s (Ukraine’s President) recent comment about the need for Ukraine to have nuclear weapons, implying a commitment to joining NATO. The Minsk agreement was signed in 2014 after Russia and Ukraine fought over Crimea and Donbas. Russia pushed for both regions to become independent from Ukraine. Both regions are Russian speaking people which became part of Ukraine when Soviet Union disintegrated in the late 1980s.
For his part, Zelensky’s policy options have been severely hedged by the presence of large numbers of neo-fascists in West Ukraine, which is why Putin has said he will be going after para-military groups like the Azov Battalion, now well-entrenched in the Ukrainian armed forces and a constant threat to any voices of moderation in Kiev. Finally all this was followed by accelerating Ukrainian army attacks on the militia lines in the Donbass.
Putin’s long speech defending his decision to attack Ukraine, far from being a rave, is a very good summary of the post-cold war failures of the West that have culminated in the crisis.
Alan Robson is a research fellow at the Australian National University’s Department of Pacific Affairs. He is a longtime fellow at the University of Papua New Guinea’s Political Science Department. He specialises in International Relations, Russia & US politics, and Southeast Asia Politics. This is part one of a two part series on Russia-Ukraine war.
Academia Nomad 