Thank you, Major-General Hartley, for your kind words of introduction.

His Excellency Minister for Defense Senator the Honorable Robert Hill
        Distinguished guests,
        Dear friends,

Let me begin with a story about a Thai, an Indonesian and a Filipino, who had been sentenced to death for a crime they committed. In court, the three men were asked by the judge for their last wishes before execution. The Thai, proud of his heritage, asked that he be executed in a Thai silk dress. The judge thought this was a reasonable request, and granted it. The Indonesian, equally proud of his country, said that he wanted to give a speech about Indonesia's views on world politics one last time. The judge was baffled by the Indonesian man's request, but thought it was harmless enough, and granted it. The judge then asked the Filipino for his final wish. The Filipino replied with a desperate voice: "Your honour, I beg you to execute me as soon as possible before that Indonesian man makes his speech about his country's foreign policy."

My task today is to convince you that Indonesia's views on global security is actually quite sensible and worth listening to. But first I wish to thank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) for inviting me to address this august conference. I am honored by your invitation.

Global security.

Let me begin with a simple question: is the world safer and more secure now than before?

We all remember feeling euphoric when the Berlin Wall crumbled in 1989 and the Conference on Security Cooperation in Europe declared in Paris a year later that the Cold War had ended. The post-Cold War world, we thought, was full of promise: promise of greater peace and prosperity. We in Indonesia began to hope for a "peace dividend" for developing countries and sought, through our Chairmanship on the Non-Aligned Movement, to reactivate the North-South dialogue and South-South cooperation.

We also vividly remember the revolting feeling in our stomach when 9/11 happenned, symbolized by the collapse of the Twin Towers, killing thousands of innocent civilians. Prime Minister John Howard was then trapped in a chaotic Washington DC. I was in East Java when I heard and watched the news, and I immediately telephoned President Megawati, who was equally shocked to see the terrorist attacks on TV, to discuss its implications. I knew it then that this attack was a defining moment of this decade, one that would affect significantly the way nations manage global security against international terrorism.

Since 9/11, the world has seen more, not less, terrorist attacks: Casablanca, Bali, Jordan, Najaf, Jakarta, India, Pakistan, Russia, The Philippines, Afghanistan. This list, I fear, will go on indefinitely. We have seen major wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We witnessed growing intra-state conflicts, such in Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Solomon Islands, including in Indonesia. We are seeing the exacerbation of the Arab - Israeli conflict. We are seeing the situation in Iraq becoming more and more difficult day by day. We are seeing more states developing nuclear weapons, and we remain haunted by the prospects of determined terrorists gaining access to WMD. We are seeing rising armaments, as well as the increasing tendency by states in conflict to use military means to achieve political objectives. And we continue to see alarming strategic tensions between states, most worryingly in the Korean Peninsula, between India and Pakistan and in the Middle-East.

So despite the various positive developments in the international system and order, which I shall not enumerate, the overall global picture is not necessarily rosy. Indeed, we find ourselves in a global security environment that is fluid, fragile and fraught with insecurity and uncertainties.

I grew up as a soldier at a time when the world seemed more simple, predictable and straight-forward. But global security today is anything but simple, predictable nor straight-forward. Over the years, I have come to learn some lessons about security.

The first, is that security issues are becoming increasingly globalized and inter-connected. In a borderless globalized world, none of us can hide or shield ourselves in a security cocoon. Remember the old days when we used to flip over with disinterest small newspaper reports on page 11 about tribal warfare in Afghanistan? Many of us thought these news items about remote places involving tribesmen whose names we could not pronounce were irrelevant to our lives. Until September 11, 2001. Indeed, 9/11, Bali, Jakarta Marriott and other bombs provide the clearest reminder that what happens in far-away places can threaten the lives of business people in Manhattan, shopkeepers and tourists in Kuta or guests in a Jakarta Hotel. Many of those who trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan were Indonesians, and some of them returned home to form terrorist groups, such as the Bali bombers. So our national security approach now requires a global view.

Secondly, our security approach must also take a comprehensive view. In my soldiering days, it was quite easy to determine who the enemy was and how to fight them. They were right in front of you, charging forward with a rifle, and all you had to do was try to shoot them. These days the enemies come in many forms and guises. The sudden, unexplainable departure of electronic herd caused a financial crisis, which paralyzed our country and caused misery to millions of our good citizens. Forest fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra dislocated tens of thousands from their homes and disrupted our neighbors with their haze. An unseen virus called SARS created international panic, and harmed the tourism and transportation industry. Another virus called HIV/AIDS is slowly killing our population. And a small underground group of fanatics with a small budget can cause such incredible national and international damages.
Thirdly, we cannot take a comprehensive view of security unless we appreciate that it is also multi-dimensional. National security has always been defined in terms of the well-being of the state, the Government and people. That view will always endure, especially by Government officials such as myself. But the factor of human security must also be accounted for. It is not sensible for a Government to claim security whilst certain individuals within its realm remain insecure, unsafe and unprotected. Governments must be able to achieve "deeper" security by extending its protecting arms to individuals within that state. This ultimately requires a new approach of security practice. And I do not believe there should be any conflict between international security, national security and human security, for they are closely inter-connected and form our common interests.

Fourthly, in the age of 9/11 and Bali and Jakarta Marriott, security can best be promoted through cooperation. In some ways, this is leading us to a change in our security culture. During the Cold War, Governments ensured their national security by keeping intelligence from each other. In the post-Cold War world, and in the 9/11 world, we can ensure our security only by sharing our intelligence with one another. Indeed, we must evolve a new global security culture where the law enforcement agencies of all countries cooperate with one another. This global partnership will require a learning process, but it is necessary that we embark on this path now.

I do not have a panacea for the resolution of the long list of our global security challenges. But I would like to highlight three specific challenges, which I think are critical if we are to ensure a more secured world.

The first challenge pertains to the importance of developing stable, peaceful and prosperous regions.

Before I arrived here in Australia, I had the pleasure of being in Bali to partake in the ASEAN Summit, which in my view was a milestone event for ASEAN. That Summit produced the Bali Concord II, which inaugurated a vision of an ASEAN Security Community as a long-term goal for the countries of the region. Its underlying assumption is that it is not enough for ASEAN to be a thriving "Economic Community". ASEAN must also evolve into a Security Community, where every member-state views its security to be integrally linked to the security of other member-states, and reflect this in their security policy. I strongly believe that the evolution of Southeast Asia into both an Economic and Security Communities will create a strong regionalism in our part of the world, which in turn will help solidify the international order. The vision is indeed shared by ASEAN leaders who recently signed an ASEAN Treaty based on 3 pillars, namely: "political and security cooperation, economic cooperation, and socio-cultural cooperation that are closely intertwined and mutually reinforcing for the purpose of ensuring durable peace, stability and shared prosperity in the region."

Another significant result from the Bali Summit was the accession of China and India to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. This ensured that the two emerging major powers of Asia are now bounded by the same regional norms and conduct, which have long abided ASEAN countries.

The second crucial task lies in the challenge of developing a sustainable global coalition in war against terrorism. While the war against terror is not new to many of us--certainly not for Indonesia--the task of building an effective global coalition against terrorism is something new for the international community. As a frontline state in the fight against terrorism, we welcome the fact that terrorism has become top priority in the international agenda. But maintaining this global coalition requires more than opposition against a common enemy: it requires strategy, tactics, skill, tact and perseverance.

To begin with, we must close the glaring gaps in the counter-terrorism capacities of Governments. We must also fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, so that every member of the international community can become a stake-holder in the global coalition against terror. And we must develop a comprehensive formula that not only tackles the immediate law enforcement and security needs but also address in the long-term the roots, factors and conditions that breed terrorism. This requires us to work together to work on long-term remedies such as tolerance building, education, socio-economic development, conflict resolution and management, inter-faith dialogue, cross-cultural outreach. And we must allow for some flexibility, which means that the global coalition function on the recognition that different circumstances require different response strategy and action.

The third challenge for the management of global security is how the international community can strengthen and reform the UN as the center-piece of international relations. Much like ASEAN is evolving to adapt to changing circumstances, its time also for the UN to adapt to a world which now looks very different from the time when the UN was founded in 1945. In particular, the structure of the UN Security Council, as well as the guidelines for the use of the veto rights by the 5 permanent members, should be reviewed and reformed. The UN should also become more relevant as the international community decides how to respond to emerging post-Cold War post 9/11 issues, such as "pre-emptive strike", "humanitarian intervention", and "the right to protect".

The Indonesian national agenda.

Let me now turn in this fine occasion to Indonesia's national agenda in the field of security. I am given to understand that Indonesia's security policy is a topic of interest to many Australians who are involved in strategic affairs.

Certainly, our democratic transition in the last 5 years has not been easy. We have seen in the last few years rising intensity of armed separatism and communal conflicts and civil disorder in certain parts of Indonesia. But I am pleased to tell you that most of these hotspots have now been under control.

Our top our national security priority is fighting armed separatism in Indonesia. And here, the most serious military threat came from the armed rebels in Aceh. We had tried to find a peaceful political settlement through negotiations in good faith with GAM, a process which I was personally very involved in, and we had high hopes when we signed the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (or COHA) which with GAM in December 2002. Regrettably, it soon became apparent that GAM had no intention of honoring that hard-won agreement, as they conducted one material breach after another. Without the compliance by GAM, the peace agreement had lost its worth and integrity.

Since July this year, the Government has conducted combined operations in Aceh, consisting of military, law enforcement, humanitarian, socio-economic, administrative measures. We are entering the fourth month of those combined operations. In time, when the situation has returned to relative normalcy, we will adjust our security posture in Aceh accordingly, and we will proceed with a comprehensive strategy that will stress on political, economic, and social-cultural measures.

We are also facing armed separatism in the province Papua. We will continue to pursue a policy that provides for greater security for Papuans from the armed separatist rebels of the OPM while addressing the social discontent, which give fuel to the present conflict. Unlike in Aceh, the military threat posed by the OPM is relatively minimal. The real challenge is political: how to implement the Law on Special Autonomy, which was promulgated in 2001. The Law provides special privileges for Papuans, such as the recognition of ancestral land ("tanah ulayat"), the stipulation that only Papuans can become Governor and Vice Governor of the province, and the institution of a local Parliament and a Papuan People's Council comprising society's traditional leaders, and a generous resources sharing scheme. We believe that the proper and speedy implementation of the special autonomy law will help dampen separatism in Papua.

Another security challenge is how to contain and resolve serious communal conflicts in Poso, Maluku, North Maluku, Central Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, and West Timor. Thousands had died in these communal conflicts, and about 1 million Indonesians became internally displaced people. Indeed, we were disturbed to find that terrorist groups had taken advantage of these conflict zones to hide, network, recruit and establish training camps. In Ambon in particular, we saw acts of terrorism and human rights violations being committed by both Christian and Islamic groups. I am pleased to say that in most cases the conflict zones have been stabilized and returned to relative normalcy, and we have not seen new conflicts emerging. The military emergency status in Maluku has also been uplifted. Repatriation, rehabilitation, reconstruction and reconciliation efforts are now underway. I hope to be able to maintain and improve this situation until the end of my tenure in office.

Maintaining law and order throughout the country, especially in the run up the elections 2004, is another key priority for the Indonesian Government. Elections is just 6 months away, and in the coming months we will see a tremendous amount of political activities at all levels of society that will lead to a rise of political temperature. Indonesia had peaceful elections in 1999, and we also had a peaceful succession of power during the constitutional crisis in July 2001. The Government will do all we can to ensure that the elections in 2004 will proceed safely and securely for all those who take part in it.
Fighting terrorism has long been a priority, but the Bali and Marriott bombs have especially upped the stakes. The key challenge here is to develop counter-terrorism capacity-building, both internally and in our cooperation with external law enforcement agencies. We remain concerned of the fact that we just do not know how many terrorist cells are out there, and what is their capacity to attack. We are actively looking for Nurdin Mohamad Top, Dr. Azahari, Dulmatin and other dangerous terrorists who are still on the run. We have also been particularly concerned to see police reports regarding the involvement of GAM members in a number of terrorist bombings, such as at the Jakarta Stock Exchange, and most recently of the Mayor's office in Medan, the Jakarta airport, and of course in many attacks in Aceh, including the burning of hundreds of schools.

And finally, we also attach priority to the fight against trans-national crimes, which in some cases are also linked to terrorism. We are concerned to see the rising activities of people's trafficking, arms smuggling, narcotics, and money laundering within our territory and across our borders. I am glad that our two countries have cooperated closely to deter this threat, especially on the issue of people's trafficking.

Security and democracy: seeking a proper balance.

Let me close by stating that for us in Indonesia, two great tasks are bestowed upon us. First, is to solidify our democracy and reformasi. And secondly, to promote our national security. In my years of public service, especially as a Cabinet Minister for President Abdurrachman Wahid and currently for President Megawati Soekarnoputri, I have given all my energies to care for both democracy and security. And I have found that these two tasks are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually reinforcing.

I have also found that we need to strike a proper balance between security and democracy. Democracy does need to create insecurity, and conversely, the pursuit of national security should not weigh down democracy. Every country will need to find their own balance between the needs of democracy and the pressures of security. But I believe it is entirely possible, and necessary, to promote both at the same time in a balanced way.

I thank you.

(Canberra, 9 October 2003)