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.