A lasting partnership

A lasting partnership

Yesterday's announcement by Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating that a new security agreement between Indonesia and Australia will be signed in Jakarta on Monday came as a surprise to many here. Only months ago relations between the two countries were perceived to have reached a low ebb during the "Mantiri Incident". Other frictions as well, including the burning of Indonesian flags by Australian protesters, were seen as having soured relations to an unprecedented degree.

But the ice has been slowly melting. Last week, the appointment of senior diplomat Wirjono Sastrohandojo as the new Indonesian ambassador to Canberra returned diplomatic relations almost to normalcy. Yet many people here were worried when, last week, Australian protesters burned an Indonesian flag as well as an effigy of President Soeharto. There was concern that the incidents might cause a new row between the two countries.

Then, suddenly, here was the new security agreement. It must be concluded that, in spite of all the public uproar, the relations between the two countries are actually excellent. It is hard to imagine how such a security accord could be signed otherwise.

But how important is this accord, really?

According to Keating, the Agreement of the Government of Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on Maintaining Security commits the two countries to consulting each other if either one or both of them is threatened and to consider joint responses. The agreement commits the two nations to promoting security cooperation and holding ministerial consultations in relation to common security interests, he said.

Thus it is not a military pact, like ANZUS, for instance, under which an attack on any member country is to be considered an attack on all members.

Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono, currently in Bangkok for the ASEAN Summit, was also very quick to explain that the agreement is neither a defense pact nor a military pact. "It is only to affirm the two countries' current security cooperation, like joint exercises or the exchange of visits by military officers, which have been conducted for some time", he said.

Still, we believe that greater clarification is necessary, if not imperative. The term "joint responses", for instance, may mislead people into believing that the agreement means joint military operations by the two countries to defend each other against an attack by a third party. If that were so, the term would mean more than joint exercises and the document would be of greater significance.

For decades we have been pursuing a free and active foreign policy. As a result, terms like "security pact" are always ticklish to our ears. It may be remembered that in the early days of our republic, foreign minister Soebardjo was forced to step down following the disclosure that he had agreed to sign a "Mutual Security Act" with the United States.

Nevertheless, by any measure the agreement is indeed an historic step in the relationship between the two countries. Keating was surely right when he said that the agreement was "a major strategic development for Australia and for the region and a development of fundamental importance in the bilateral relationship between Indonesia and Australia".

It was disclosed that the new agreement is the result of 18 months of negotiations. So it is obvious that, although on the surface the relations between the two countries have been a bit strained, basic wisdom and statesmanship on both sides have managed to keep relations intact.

The treaty also shows that the current Australian government is sincerely committed to linking itself with Asia and does not see Indonesia as a threat to its security. After the agreement has been signed, there will be no turning back for either country in the journey towards a lasting partnership.