It's time for Indonesia to be more realistic

It's time for Indonesia to be more realistic

Bantarto Bandoro, Jakarta

The government of Australia recently considered a new security pact with Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. Combating terrorism jointly was perhaps the rationale behind such an idea. The agreement would be based on a memorandum of understanding between the two countries, signed after the October 2002 Bali bombings.

The current debate on Australia-Indonesia security links dates back to 1995 when the so-called Agreement on Maintaining Security between the two countries was arranged by then-president Soeharto and then-Labor Party prime minister Paul Keating. Such security deal committed the two countries to ministerial consultations about security, increasing cooperation and consultation in the event of a threat to either country, or regional security.

Indonesia however, unilaterally canceled the agreement during the tension over independence of East Timor in 1999, when Australia led a UN Peacekeeping force in East Timor. Since then, official military to military contacts have been absent.

The debate over the issue of Australia-Indonesia security pact emerged again when Susilo, as the coordinating minister for political and security affairs, paid a visit to Prime Minister of Australia, Howard, in October last year. Susilo was reported as saying that a defense pact with Australia was needed to promote the fight against terrorism. The Australian side saw this as a clear sign of Indonesia's strong willingness to "ally" itself with Australia, particularly in the fight against global terrorism, as Indonesia itself is accused to be the spot for terrorist activities, as well as facing grave threat from terrorism.

The government of Australia clearly believes the election of Susilo as president has the potential to usher a new era cooperation between two of the region's most powerful countries.

If such an idea is to be realized, assuming that both sides need a stronger political and legal ground to fight terrorism, it will certainly contribute significantly to the strengthening of Australia-Indonesia bilateral security relations.

However, many here perceived the idea of a security pact between Australia and Indonesia as something too far-fetched and impossible to realize and it therefore should not be initiated. The main reason was Indonesia's strong adherence to the policy of nonalignment, one that suggests detachment of the policy from being linked to the policy of certain western powers. Other reasons cited was that too close a relationship with U.S. allies wouldn't do any good to Indonesia's foreign relations.

There is no doubt that Indonesia is one of the co-founders of the Non-Aligned Movement NAM and it consequently pursued its foreign policy, at least in the eyes of those in the government, within such a policy framework. There is nothing wrong with this and there is even nothing wrong to suggest that a security pact with Australia would run against such principle.

One, however, found the reality that there exists a political alignment within NAM itself. Pakistan security alignment with the U.S. can be cited as one example. Thus, a nonaligned policy principle shouldn't in any way serve as a political barrier for a given country to expand security relations with major power, particularly, when they face common security problems like terrorism.

Judging the current changes in our strategic milieu where terrorism and other nontraditional security issues posed a grave and continuous threat to the security of the state, perhaps it is time for Indonesia, under the administration of Susilo, to be more realistic in its gesture toward a proposal of an Australia- Indonesia security pact. Terrorist attacks have made a new pact necessary between the two countries. This is not to suggest that Indonesia should abandon its policy of non-alignment.

So if one is to judge objectively the proposed pact, one would conclude that security for Australia and Indonesia is not simply about responding to terrorist threats, but about external threats in general. It is about the whole strategic environment of the region and about foreign policy of the two countries. Thus, in the era of global interdependence, the proposed pact is about the way Australia and Indonesia organized themselves, jointly or individually, particularly when facing terrorist threats.

Australia wants from Indonesia something more substantial and perhaps, would want it to be more than just symbolic. It will be symbolic anyway, but symbolism is important in international relations. The new government of Susilo shouldn't turn down Australia's proposal, given the fact that Indonesia is in dire need for an "extra arm" to combat global terrorism, if terrorism is to be perceived as the main focus of their security cooperation.

The leaders of Australia and Indonesia both share the responsibility to project a more promising regional stability, as well as constructive bilateral security relations. Thus a security treaty or agreement is not at all a bad thing to pursue. If Indonesia and Australia decided that they really want to do something like a pact for example, then they might want to incorporate each other's counterterrorism works and then look at some broader aspects of the two countries security relationships.

So, the treaty, if it is realized, sets up a whole frame of reference for future security relationships between Australia and Indonesia. This will be a contemporary treaty made for contemporary reasons, for the right reasons and it is something which is going to add strength and value to both countries. It is definitely going to bring a sense of security to Indonesia as well as to Australia.

The writer is the editor of The Indonesian Quarterly of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and lecturer of International Relations Post-graduate Studies Program at the Faculty of Social and Political Science of the University of Indonesia. He can be contacted at bandoro@csis.or.id.