RI-Aussie Security<\/p>\n
A new security treaty between Indonesia and Australia would
\nsymbolise the increasingly close relationship between the two
\ncountries. The question is whether we really need such a symbol,
\nwhen practical co-operation has yielded excellent results in the
\nabsence of one. Thanks to the joint work of Indonesian
\nauthorities and the Australian Federal Police, 30 of the key
\nJamaah Islamiyah (JI) operatives who planned and perpetrated the
\nBali bombing on Oct. 12, 2002, have been rounded up, tried and
\nsentenced. In a piece of especially good news on this front, we
\nlearned over the weekend that JI's spiritual leader, Abu Bakar
\nBashir, will be charged in connection with the Bali blasts --
\nwhich killed 202 innocent people, including 88 Australians --
\nalong with the bombing outside the Jakarta Marriott last year,
\nwhich claimed a further 12 lives. Australia's security co-
\noperation with Indonesia includes $10 million in annual counter-
\nterrorism aid, as well as education aid focused on countering the
\ninfluence of radical Islamist colleges like the one run by
\nBashir.<\/p>\n
As a piece of grand symbolism, a treaty is a good idea. And if
\nthe idea emanates from Indonesian president-elect Susilo Bambang
\nYudhoyono, whose inauguration John Howard will attend on
\nWednesday, it would be churlish to resist the advance. But as the
\nhistory of the last attempt to forge such an agreement between
\nthe two nations, which foundered on the shoals of Indonesia's
\nbrutality in East Timor, demonstrates, there are risks in
\nattempting to steer two such different political cultures in the
\nsame direction. Rebels in the Aceh and Papua provinces still have
\nthe potential to arouse Indonesia's notorious Kopassus special
\nforces to action that Australia would find unacceptable. While
\nthat can be contained under the present pragmatic relationship,
\nunder a treaty it could result in a full-blown diplomatic crisis.<\/p>\n
The big difference between the context in which a treaty was
\nenvisaged during the 1990s, and now, is that Indonesia is a
\ndemocracy. Partly as a result of that, instead of being sprung on
\nus fully formed like the secret agreement nutted out between Paul
\nKeating and president Suharto, this one can emerge naturally from
\nthe ongoing dialogue and co-operation between the two countries.
\nAn argument for a security treaty is that, like a trade
\nagreement, it encourages the kinds of cultural and political
\nexchange that will hasten the flowering of liberalism in
\nIndonesia. Contrary to those who claimed the Howard Government
\ncould not chew gum with Washington and walk a co-operative road
\nwith Jakarta at the same time, relations between the two
\ncountries have gone from strength to strength. The question is
\nwhether trying too hard to speed that development carries a minor
\nrisk of derailing it.<\/p>\n
-- The Australia, Sydney<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-aussie-security-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }