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.