MISSION REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEFENSE COOPERATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 JAKARTA 001476

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR P, T, L, EAP, PM, L/T (KUPCHAN),L/DL (DICKERSON),
L/PM (HEROLD),EAP/MTS, EAP/MLS, EAP/RSP
SECDEF FOR USDP/ISA/APSA D.WALTON
NSC FOR E.PHU

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/22/2018
TAGS: PREL MARR ID
SUBJECT: MISSION REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEFENSE COOPERATION
AGREEMENT

REF: JAKARTA 1354

Classified By: Ambassador Cameron R. Hume, reasons 1.4(b+d).


1. (U) This is an Action Request. Please see para 15.


2. (C) SUMMARY: Indonesia has proposed a draft Defense
Cooperation Agreement (DCA) for USG review (reftel).
Indonesia is pursuing DCAs with regional partners as part of
a policy to regularize and document its existing cooperation.
Signing a DCA with Indonesia would send a strong message of
mutual trust and would help to create a firmer basis for
mil-mil cooperation. This message provides an analysis of
the proposed text and offers recommendations for a response.
END SUMMARY.

BACKGROUND


3. (SBU) Indonesia is seeking Defense Cooperation Agreements
(DCA) with regional partners (including China, Australia and
the United States) to codify current defense relationships.
Indonesia raised this matter at the 2007 Indonesia-United
States Strategic Dialogue (IUSSD) in Jakarta. Co-chairs ASD
Shinn and General Susanto agreed to consider a draft umbrella
agreement to formalize current cooperation in training,
exercises and education. At the 2008 IUSSD, co-chairs DASD
Clad and General Tippe accepted the Indonesian proposal to
draft a document for USG review.


4. (SBU) According to the Indonesian Department of Defense
(DEPHAN),Indonesia has defense cooperation agreements with
China, India, Philippines, Brunei, Poland and the Czech
Republic and is negotiating such agreements with Australia,
Vietnam, South Korea, Pakistan and Russia, in addition to the
United States. All such agreements have been or will be
signed at the ministerial level, according to DEPHAN.
Indonesia and Singapore signed a DCA in April 2007 but the
Indonesian legislature has objected to the terms of its
provisions allowing Singapore to use Indonesian territory for
training.

CRITERIA FOR RATIFICATION


5. (SBU) According to contacts in the Directorate of
Treaties in the Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs
(DEPLU),DCAs must be ratified to become law by the
Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) if the content
pertains to "matters of defense" (Note: Mission interprets
this to mean "defense" is distinct from "military-to-
military cooperation"). According to DPR contacts, the DPR
so far has ratified the DCA with India and plans to ratify
the one with Australia (in the framework of the Lombok
Treaty). According to DEPLU, contacts, whether a DCA meets
this threshold is determined by an interagency process once
the agreement has been negotiated. The precise criteria for
that determination are not spelled out in a public document.


6. (C) It should therefore be possible to negotiate a
document that does not require DPR approval. Concluding the
agreement at the level of a memorandum of understanding would
help to keep it below this threshold. The content of the
draft agreement, as currently proposed, would appear to be on
the level of an MOU.

MAIN PROVISIONS


7. (C) The heart of the proposed DCA is Article II, which
describes the various forms of cooperation:

-- exchange of information on defense organization, doctrine,

JAKARTA 00001476 002 OF 003


policy and related matters;
-- exchange of officers for education, training, visits and
research;
-- exchange of scientific and technological data, experts and
so forth;
-- promotion of cooperation in defense technology and
industry;
-- cooperation in defense exercises; and,
-- regular bilateral dialogue and consultation.


8. (C) The proposed text also provides (Article VI) for the
sharing of classified information and the proper protection
of such information. The agreement incorporates the existing
Indonesia-U.S. Strategic Dialogue (IUSSD) as a "Joint
Committee for cooperation activities" (Article IV). The
Joint Committee would propose, agree, implement and monitor
cooperative activities and "resolve any problems arising out
of the (their) implementation." The agreement would remain
in effect for five years and be renewable automatically for
an additional five years unless one or both parties
terminated it in writing (Article X).

ANALYSIS


9. (C) The proposed agreement essentially formalizes current
activities, does not require any additional activities and
places no restrictions on current cooperation. It would
solidify current cooperation.


10. (C) The DCA would demonstrate to Indonesia a USG
commitment to normalizing the bilateral defense relationship.
It would help build trust between the two sides. A DCA
would also provide a political frame of reference for
pursuing more difficult issues, such as a SOFA, in the
future. The proposed DCA could be superseded by other
agreements in the future, as required. The DCA would
technically not affect current U.S. vetting requirements, but
it could help as a confidence-building measure in this area.


11. (C) By formalizing current bilateral defense
cooperation, including the annual security dialogue, the DCA
would strengthen the authority of the Indonesian Minister of
Defense vis-a-vis the Indonesian military (TNI) in shaping
and directing that cooperation. The agreement would
therefore boost U.S. policy goals to support the
strengthening of civilian control of the Indonesian military.


12. (C) Discussing the Singapore-Indonesia DCA with
Ambassador Hume recently, the Singaporean Ambassador said
Singapore might have been better off cooperating on an ad-hoc
basis and therefore avoiding the Indonesian legislature's
rejection of the Indonesia-Singapore DCA. However, this
comment should be placed within context. The
Indonesia-Singapore DCA is an elaborate document on the order
of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with extensive
provisions for the Singapore Armed Forces' use of Indonesian
territory for training. No such provisions exist in the
proposed Indonesia-U.S. agreement.

RECOMMENDATION


13. (C) Mission's recommendation is to accept the proposal
with minor changes.


14. (C) One negotiating goal would be to promote the use of
language that did not require legislative approval on either
side. Any review by the Indonesian legislature would entail
careful scrutiny from nationalist circles. The draft
agreement would not appear to constitute an "international
agreement" according to U.S. law and would therefore not

JAKARTA 00001476 003 OF 003


require Congressional approval. Accordingly, we would work
with the Indonesian government to try to steer clear of any
mandatory ratification process on the Indonesian side.

ACTION REQUEST


15. (C) Mission requests Department's guidance and
concurrence.

HUME