Jakarta – The recently ratified Indonesia-Australia security treaty, hailed by both governments as a landmark agreement, promises deeper cooperation on defense, maritime security, and regional stability. However, a closer look reveals significant gaps in the framework that could hinder its effectiveness, particularly regarding access to vital waterways and coordination with broader regional security architectures. The strengthened defense links between Australia and Papua New Guinea add another layer of complexity to the equation, raising questions about how the treaty will integrate with existing regional dynamics.
The treaty, signed earlier this year, aims to bolster security ties between the two nations amidst growing geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific. It builds upon decades of cooperation, but represents a significant escalation in commitment, particularly in areas like joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and maritime domain awareness. While the broad strokes of the agreement have been welcomed by many, analysts point to several critical omissions that could limit its practical impact. The core of the concern centers around the lack of specific provisions addressing access to key Indonesian straits for military vessels.
Strategic Straits Remain Unaddressed
Indonesia controls three strategic straits crucial for international shipping: the Malacca Strait, the Sunda Strait, and the Lombok Strait. The Lombok Strait, connecting the Bali Sea to the Indian Ocean, is particularly important as it offers an alternative route for larger vessels that cannot transit the shallower Malacca Strait. According to Wikipedia, the Lombok Strait is approximately 60 km long and varies in width from 20 to 40 km, with a minimum depth of 250 meters. This depth makes it a viable option for “post-Malaccamax” vessels. However, the Jakarta Treaty remains silent on the procedures for military ships – including those from Australia and its allies – to navigate these waterways during peacetime or in times of crisis.
This omission is particularly noteworthy given Australia’s increasing focus on maritime security and its strategic partnership with Papua New Guinea. The absence of clear protocols could lead to ambiguity and potential friction, especially if Australia seeks to deploy naval assets through the Indonesian archipelago in response to regional contingencies. Without pre-agreed arrangements, each transit could become a point of negotiation, potentially slowing response times and undermining the treaty’s intended benefits.
Limited Integration with ASEAN Frameworks
Another concern revolves around the treaty’s limited connection to existing regional security frameworks, most notably the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). While the agreement focuses on bilateral cooperation between Indonesia and Australia, it doesn’t explicitly outline how its initiatives will align with the broader goals of the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC). This lack of integration raises the risk of duplication of effort or even conflicting approaches.
Experts suggest that projects undertaken under the Jakarta Treaty should be carefully coordinated with forums like the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to ensure they complement, rather than compete with, regional security initiatives. Failure to do so could undermine ASEAN centrality, a principle consistently championed by Indonesia and other member states. The treaty’s success hinges, in part, on its ability to reinforce, not circumvent, existing regional mechanisms.
Crisis Response and Territorial Sensitivities
The treaty also lacks a detailed crisis response plan, outlining specific actions to be taken in the event of a security threat. While it commits both sides to consultation, it doesn’t provide a roadmap for addressing potential scenarios, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea or around the Natuna Islands, or emerging threats like terrorism and cyberattacks. This ambiguity could lead to delayed responses and a lack of coordination when time is of the essence.
the treaty remains largely silent on sensitive territorial issues, particularly concerning the Papua region. While it reaffirms Indonesia’s sovereignty over its territory, it doesn’t address how cooperation might affect areas bordering Papua New Guinea, where Australia has a growing defense relationship. This omission could create tensions, especially given the historical sensitivities surrounding the region. Some Indonesian critics have also expressed concern that the treaty could potentially constrain Indonesia’s long-standing policy of non-alignment in global power struggles, as reported by Asianews.
Navigating the Straits: A Practical Guide
The complexities of navigating the Indonesian straits are further highlighted by resources like the Passage Planning Guide for Lombok and Sunda Straits, published by Witherbys and the Indonesian Ministry of Transportation. This guide, updated for 2026-27, emphasizes the importance of careful passage planning and adherence to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) in these busy waterways.
The Jakarta Treaty represents a significant step forward in Indonesia-Australia security cooperation. However, its long-term success will depend on addressing the identified gaps and ensuring that it is fully integrated into the broader regional security architecture. The coming months will be crucial in clarifying these ambiguities and establishing the practical mechanisms needed to translate the treaty’s ambitious goals into tangible results. The next key development will likely be the implementation of joint working groups to address these specific concerns, with initial reports expected by the end of 2026.
What are your thoughts on the Jakarta Treaty? Share your comments below and let us know how you consider this agreement will impact regional security.
