A Reciprocal Exchange

This chapter asks: what determines the scope for criminal justice cooperation between Australia and Indonesia? It demonstrates that the practice of reciprocity is central to the realization of cooperation and, critically, is practised differently by different actors. Politicians are more likely to pursue specific reciprocity—or what is otherwise called ‘tit-for-tat’—because they are inclined to view their (political) interests differently. Police and other bureaucrats are more likely to pursue diffuse reciprocity—which involves a rougher balancing of interests over the longer term—because they are inclined to see their (policy) interests as mutual. As it is less exacting and time-bound than specific reciprocity, a strategy of diffuse reciprocity increases the scope for cooperation. Based on this analysis, the chapter concludes that the greater the perception of mutual interests by actors engaged in the cooperative relationship, the greater the scope for cooperation.

Conclusion

This chapter reviews the study’s core findings regarding the drivers and influencers of criminal justice cooperation between Australia and Indonesia, and the scope for such cooperation to occur. It then bring these findings together to create a model of the Australia–Indonesia criminal justice relationship. The chapter also considers what the findings mean in practice by identifying a series of strategies for promoting bilateral cooperation to combat crime. These strategies draw out the deeper story of this book: the perpetual interplay of political and policy interests within transnational governance, and the importance of striking a balance between them to realize the elusive goal of international cooperation.

The Bureaucrats

This chapter looks at how bureaucrats shape the criminal justice relationship between Australia and Indonesia in the context of cooperation between their national police forces. Adapting Mathieu Deflem’s theory of bureaucratic autonomy, it argues that the close cooperation between the Australian and Indonesian police since the late 1990s is due to their relative independence from national politics and the professional subculture that they share. At the core of this police culture is a common policy interest in combating transnational crime. The chapter also suggests that other bureaucrats from the two countries may share professional subcultures that facilitate cooperation between them.

The Securitization of Transnational Crime

This chapter asks: what is driving criminal justice cooperation between Australia and Indonesia? By tracing various ‘wars on crime’ waged by both countries since the 1970s, it reveals how the politicization—and ultimately ‘securitization’—of transnational crime has provided much of the impetus for cooperation between them. This helps correct the standard view that such cooperation is simply a response to a growth in transnational criminal activity. The chapter concludes that the greater the politicization of a transnational problem, the greater the political will to pursue international cooperation in response. It does not follow, however, that the politicization of transnational crime within each country will necessarily result in cooperation between them. In fact, the very act of politicization can (somewhat paradoxically) make cooperation harder to achieve.

Balancing Policy and Politics

This chapter seeks to identify the conditions that promote criminal justice cooperation between Australia and Indonesia. It argues that there is a structural tension between political and policy interests at the heart of the cooperative relationship. This tension emerges from the two forces that define the cooperative relationship: the politicization of transnational problems and the perception of mutual interests. It is animated by the different categories of actors engaged in the relationship: bureaucrats, politicians, and private actors. The chapter also suggests that cooperation is more likely to occur when political and policy interests are in balance, such that there is sufficient political will to pursue the cooperation and sufficient scope to execute it.

Private Actors

This chapter explores the influence of private actors—such as non-governmental organizations, journalists, academics, and defence lawyers—through an examination of bilateral cooperation relating to detained nationals. It focuses on cases of Indonesian nationals detained in Australia for people smuggling, and Australian nationals detained in Indonesia for drug offences. These cases reveal how private actors are able to shape the cooperative relationship by contributing to its underlying political and policy debates. The chapter also suggests that private actors are more likely to influence the cooperative relationship when they coordinate with, or coopt, other actors in ‘webs of influence’. These webs are particularly effective when they cross national borders.

The Politicians

This chapter investigates the role of politicians in the context of extradition cases between Australia and Indonesia. Using Robert Putnam’s metaphor of a ‘two-level game’ to model their behaviour, it shows how politicians on both sides pander to their domestic audiences at the expense of the cooperative relationship. In contrast to the common policy interests of bureaucrats, politicians from the two countries are often at odds because of their differing political interests. In particular, the extradition relationship has been continually frustrated by concerns among Indonesian politicians that Australia derives a greater benefit from the relationship. Compounding these concerns are misunderstandings about the differing extradition processes of the two countries.

Introduction

Starting with an account of Australia–Indonesia police cooperation after the 2002 Bali bombings, this chapter explains the purpose of the book (to identify the conditions that promote criminal justice cooperation between the two countries) and its argument (cooperation is more likely when a balance exists between political and policy interests). The chapter also discusses the interdisciplinary approach used in the book, looking first at the strengths and limitations of theories of international cooperation from international relations and transnational policing studies, and then describing how a regulatory perspective—which involves a pragmatic inquiry into how different actors influence the governance of a social problem—helps address the limitations. It concludes with an outline of the remaining chapters.