When Mr Cameron went to Jakarta

What the outcome of Cameron's Indonesian tour means for relationships between London and Jakarta

Earlier this month, many of us were among the Indonesian business community which welcomed British Prime Minister David Cameron to Jakarta, where he expressed his clear desire for closer trading links between our countries.

This week, Indonesia’s trade minister, Gita Wirjawan, will arrive in Europe to press the case for more trade with all member states of the European Union. As part of Indonesia’s forestry business sector, with over $9bn in exports annually, we wholeheartedly support the initiatives from both Cameron and Wirjawan.

For European companies, Indonesia represents a substantial and growing opportunity at a time of deep economic crisis. Indonesia is the largest economy in South East Asia, with a GDP in excess of $1trn. Annual GDP growth reached 6.5 per cent at the end of 2011. We have a thriving consumer economy which offers great prospects for everyone from smart phone makers to automotive brands and plane manufacturers. During Cameron’s trip to Jakarta, Garuda Indonesia, Indonesia’s national airline, announced an order of 11 new planes from Airbus, bringing much needed work for the UK aviation industry.

For Indonesia, Europe continues to be a significant market for our exporters. In Indonesia’s forestry sector, Europe accounts for 15 per cent of Indonesia’s timber product exports, a figure we would like to grow in the years ahead.

In order to achieve that, we understand European businesses and consumers need cast-iron assurances that their wood products do not come at the expense of the environment. Indonesia contains many of the world’s most precious natural resources and biodiversity. Indonesia’s rainforests are home to some of most endangered species on the planet, such as the Sumatran Tiger, and are critical in the fight against climate change.

Indonesia, including the forestry sector, has recognised that deforestation is no longer an acceptable option for our country, our partners, and the environment. That’s why Indonesia’s President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, made a strong commitment last year to protecting Indonesia’s rainforests and reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26 per cent over the rest of this decade.

In the forestry sector, we have seen the very positive and practical results of these commitments, with the introduction of a new certification system for Indonesia’s timber sector, called "SVLK".

SVLK, which comes into force next year, will provide the assurance to European and other customers that Indonesia’s wood products are produced in a legal and sustainable manner. Two months ago, all the major trade associations representing the forestry sector in Indonesia, gathered in Jakarta to work out the practical steps required to achieve world-class timber production and trade standards through SVLK. We are now very firmly on that path, which will ultimately cover every part of the wood product sector in Indonesia. It is a huge undertaking – but a vital one.

The timing of SVLK is very important for our European stakeholders. When the EU Timber Regulation comes into force in March 2013 it will require all European importers of timber to have done a high level of due diligence on the wood products they buy. By providing a simple and clear standard, SVLK licensing will make this much easier and provide a very high level of reassurance for those sourcing timber products in Indonesia.

We urge the European Commission, European Member States and the Indonesian government to promote awareness of the SVLK in Europe and what it will mean for those who wish to trade in wood products with Indonesia. With these world-class standards in place, Indonesia’s forestry sector will be able to participate in the growing trade opportunities between our country and the EU – without sacrificing precious environmental values.

Finally, we would also like to call for constructive engagement with European NGOs who have taken such a strong interest in the protection of Indonesia’s natural resources over the years. The new SVLK system is something they should support and welcome. Indonesia’s forestry sector wants to work with them to help make it a success.

We hope that the initiatives by Cameron and Wirjawan mark the beginning of a new era of trade between Indonesia and EU nations. There are huge gains to be made by both sides if our economic ties can become stronger.

Illegally logged trees are floated downstream in Indonesia. Photograph: Getty Images

Purwadi Soeprihanto is the executive director of the Association of Indonesian Forest Concessionaires.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.