RI-Australian security pattern<\/p>\n
By Soedibyo<\/p>\n
The following article is based on a paper presented at a
\nseminar on regional security organized by the Foreign Affairs
\nMinistry in Yogyakarta recently.<\/p>\n
YOGYAKARTA (JP): For the first time, after 50 years of
\nindependence, Indonesia, a founding member of the Non-Aligned
\nMovement and following an independent and active foreign policy,
\nhas signed a security agreement with Australia, her southern
\nneighbor, a country with a tradition of a western strategic
\noutlook.<\/p>\n
The agreement, which is too general in its formulation,
\ninvites many comments and interpretations. This paper seeks to
\nexamine the principle features of the agreement based on national
\ndoctrine. There are three major issues involved in the
\ninterpretation of the agreement. First, the question of what is
\nmeant by "security", not only how it should be defined, but more
\nessentially what factors influenced it. Second, there is the
\nquestion of how national security and regional security are
\nrelated to each other. Third, Australia's position related to
\nIndonesia's national security and regional security<\/p>\n
"National Resilience" is an Indonesian national doctrine of
\nsurvival and self-preservation, which is a guidance for
\ndevelopment and for pursuing the "common objectives of states",
\nwhich are:<\/p>\n
* self-preservation, a state's desire for existence and
\npreservation, believed to be the highest value;<\/p>\n
* security, in a condition of interdependence, is defined as
\nmutual acceptance of common values, which does not imply imposing
\none's value against another by coercive means, either militarily,
\nor economically. Security experience by one state is not at the
\nexpense of that of others;<\/p>\n
* ideology, provides a state with an identity. Ideology is
\nfundamental in the concept of self-preservation of the state. It
\nprovides the nation-state with a strong base for domestic
\nlegitimacy. The state ideology and norms must manifest itself in
\nthe daily conduct of nationhood;<\/p>\n
* wellbeing, based on the national ideology. becomes the next
\nbasic objective after self-preservation and security have been
\nsatisfied. Wellbeing is pursued through economic activities, and,
\nbecause of its own dynamics, it forces states to interact with
\neach other. Interaction provides a major behavioral force to
\nharmonize with the regional political and economic system.
\nDisparity in wellbeing, whether internal or external (regional),
\ncould become a source of instability;<\/p>\n
* strength, as a state, neither depends on, nor correlate with
\npower. Weak and strong powers habitually refer to the traditional
\ndistinction among states in respect to their military and their
\neconomic relative capabilities. The principal distinguishing
\nfeature of a state's strength is the low level of concern strong
\nnations have with domestically-generated vulnerabilities to their
\nown security, and are able to mobilized sufficient support to
\novercome domestic security threat.<\/p>\n
National resilience covers all aspects of national life, among
\nthem: ideological, political, economic, sociocultural and
\ndefense-security. The absence of armed rebellion at the local
\nlevel and of armed conflict among states does not in itself
\ninsure security. The unconventional sources of instability in the
\npolitical, economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields
\nhave become threats to security. Security can only be achieved by
\ntackling the roots of human insecurity: poverty, environmental
\ndegradation, ethnic and religious strife, injustice and inequity
\nat home and abroad.<\/p>\n
National security transcend both national and sector borders.
\nThey are common concerns that can be alleviated only by joint
\nactions and by elaboration of broad strategies. These concerns
\noblige the national leadership to make a realistic ordering of
\ntheir national interests and priority, to select the appropriate
\nconditions for their security, and to avoid the likelihood that
\nthey would waste their scarce resources. As a consequence, these
\nleaders can identify threats to their security and asses them in
\na more realistic fashion.<\/p>\n
Regional resilience basically means developing regional
\ncohesiveness by strengthening political cooperation and
\nsolidarity on various fields of common endeavors. The
\nmultilateral effectiveness of ASEAN is greatly reinforced by the
\nmany bilateral links by the individual members. Links in the
\nfields of economics, technological, environmental, sociocultural,
\neducational and agricultural will have a strategic effects. But
\nit is perhaps in the field of bilateral military links that the
\nstrategic effect is most pronounced, for bilateral military
\ncooperation has the double effect of both building up regional
\nconfidence about national strategic intentions and, at the same
\ntime, building up cooperative procedures to handle military
\nsecurity problems should they arise.<\/p>\n
Regional focus can be stressed without neglecting the
\nrelations with states in her proximity on bilateral, regional and
\nglobal setting. When states are so situated that they impinge on
\neach other's security and domestic development, it becomes
\nimperative for them to interact with each other despite
\nfundamental systemic differences. Indonesia's agreement with
\nAustralia, an extraregional power, should be understood that, in
\nterms of security linkages, progress developed beyond the
\ntraditional geographic connotation and exclusiveness.<\/p>\n
The security agreement provided the formal framework for
\nestablishing linkages for all aspects of security cooperation,
\nwhich include:<\/p>\n
* Economic cooperation through encouraging the expansion of
\ntrade, investment, finance and communications ties. Technical
\nassistance as a means of helping to develop human resources.<\/p>\n
* Cooperation in the utilization of resources and
\nenvironmental security to make exploitation and production modes
\ncompatible with the requirements of a healthy environment, thus
\nmaking development sustainable for all foreseeable future.<\/p>\n
* Defense cooperation offers the prospects of a more secure
\nstrategic environment with higher confidence levels and lower
\ninvestment levels for individual countries. The focus is on the
\ndevelopment of "Maritime Surveillance and Safety" and "Airspace
\nSurveillance and Control" capabilities. If military armaments and
\nactivities are the major threat to an otherwise stable condition,
\nthe promotion of "transparency", through intelligence exchanges,
\nhigh-level official visits and joint exercises, can remove threat
\nperceptions and foster trust and confidence.<\/p>\n
Brig. Gen. (ret.) Soedibyo is a former lecturer at the
\nNational Resilience Institute and is now a researcher at the
\nIndonesian Institute for Strategic Studies, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-australian-security-pattern-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}