There may be a great deal of value in the treaty with Indonesia for both the people of Indonesia and the people of Australia. More is the pity that it had not been made decade’s ago. It might have obviated tensions over Irian Jaya and East Timor because it requires the parties to consult over “”adverse challenges”. That possibility indicates that it might prevent future incidents like these. It is much better for both nations to engage in dialogue, to acknowledge that neither is a threat to the other and to commit each other to consultation if circumstances in the region change.
For too long many Australians have seen Indonesia as the hypothetical invader whenever security and defence are discussed at a popular level. That should not be a primary concern, or a concern at all, about Indonesia. It should not be the focus of Australians’ perception of Indonesia. Rather it should be one of neighbourliness, trade and cultural exchange. To the extent that the new treaty does that it is welcome.
But there is another dimension to the relationship … Indonesia’s failure to maintain standards of human rights which are acceptable to Australia, particularly in East Timor.
It is unclear how the treaty will affect Australia’s influence upon Indonesia with respect to human rights. Prime Minister Keating argues that Australia can make its stand on human-rights issues clear whenever it wants … treaty or not. However, it is equally arguable that the Australian Government might not want to publicly condemn a new treaty partner.
There is also ambivalence on the Indonesian side. The Indonesian Government and Army might be less blase about human rights breaches if they think they might offend a treaty partner. On the other hand, the treaty might be seen by them as a sign of international respectability and condoning of earlier breaches.
There is a moral dimension from the Australian side. Should Australia sign such a treaty with a nation with such a human rights record? If Australia demanded purity with all treaty partners all the time, it would sign nothing. If, however, the treaty were seen as a way of changing the human-rights climate in Indonesia, then it has some merit. Mr Keating has argued that the people of both nations and particularly people in East Timor would not be well served if the relationship became a single-issue one. That may be true. But it is equally true that the treaty must not be seen as a screen preventing Timor from being actively pursued as an issue between the nations, and indeed between Indonesia and the rest of the world. The symbolic and actual use the treaty is put to rather than the treaty itself will perhaps determine whether that occurs.
In any event, one cannot help but be suspicious of the timing of the announcement of the treaty with Indonesia. It winds up the year for the Government neatly, leaving an impression that the Government is active and achieving to remain in the public’s mind over the holiday break. Further, one must question whether the total secrecy in the lead up to the announcement was really necessary … with the result that the people of Australia are presented with a fait accompli.