Jakarta, Indonesia – The recently ratified Jakarta Treaty between Indonesia and Australia signals a deepening of security and economic ties, but analysts are raising concerns about critical omissions that could hinder its long-term effectiveness. Whereas lauded as a landmark agreement for regional stability, the treaty’s lack of clarity on key issues – from strategic waterway access to crisis response protocols – casts a shadow over its potential.
The treaty, finalized earlier this month, aims to bolster cooperation across a range of areas including maritime security, counter-terrorism, and economic partnership. However, a closer examination reveals significant gaps in addressing practical challenges, particularly concerning the complex geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific region. The core question now is whether these oversights represent minor shortcomings or fundamental flaws that could limit the treaty’s impact.
Strategic Straits Remain Uncharted
A primary concern centers on the treaty’s silence regarding access to vital strategic straits. Indonesia controls the Lombok Strait and the Sunda Strait, crucial waterways for both commercial shipping and potential military movement, including that of Australian and allied forces. Currently, the treaty provides no specific guidelines for naval passage through these waters. This ambiguity is particularly noteworthy given Australia’s existing defense cooperation with Papua New Guinea and the broader security dynamics of the Indo-Pacific.
The Lombok Strait, connecting the Bali Sea to the Indian Ocean, is approximately 60 km (37 miles) long and varies in width from 20 km (12 miles) to 40 km (25 miles), offering an alternative route for larger vessels unable to transit the Strait of Malacca. The Sunda Strait, situated between Java and Sumatra, also serves as a critical maritime pathway. Without pre-defined protocols, potential delays or disputes over access could arise during times of heightened tension.
Limited Integration with Regional Security Architecture
Another point of contention is the treaty’s limited connection to existing ASEAN security frameworks. The focus remains largely bilateral, between Indonesia and Australia, with insufficient attention paid to integration with the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC), the primary mechanism for regional collective security. Experts warn that pursuing projects independently of forums like the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) could lead to duplication of effort or even conflict with broader regional objectives.
Crisis Response: A Plan in Name Only?
While the treaty outlines a commitment to consultation in the event of security threats, it lacks detailed contingency plans for specific crisis scenarios. There are no pre-agreed protocols for responding to potential flashpoints, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea or around the Natuna Islands, or emerging threats like terrorism and cyberattacks. This lack of clarity could result in delayed responses or divergent approaches when swift and coordinated action is paramount.
Papua and Sensitive Territorial Issues
The treaty also remains conspicuously quiet on sensitive territorial matters, particularly concerning the region of Papua. While it reaffirms Indonesia’s sovereignty over its land and waters, it does not address how increased cooperation might affect areas adjacent to Papua New Guinea, with whom Australia has a defense agreement covering nearby land and sea. This omission raises concerns that unresolved issues could strain trust between Jakarta and Canberra. Some Indonesian critics have also expressed worry that the treaty could potentially compromise Indonesia’s long-held policy of non-alignment in global power struggles.
The Jakarta Treaty 2026 represents a significant step in strengthening Indonesia-Australia relations, but its long-term success hinges on addressing these critical omissions. Further dialogue and the development of supplementary agreements will be essential to ensure the treaty delivers on its promise of enhanced regional security and stability. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether these concerns are acknowledged and addressed, or whether the treaty will remain a framework with unrealized potential.
What are your thoughts on the Jakarta Treaty? Share your comments below and let us know what you think the future holds for this significant partnership.
