The Jakarta Bay Pact: Geopolitical Maneuvering Masquerading as Regional Cooperation

Introduction: A Moment of Calculated Clarity

On November 12, 2025, aboard the HMAS Canberra in Jakarta Bay, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto announced what they framed as a landmark achievement: the substantial conclusion of negotiations on a Treaty of Common Security. This event presented itself as a moment of diplomatic breakthrough, promising to give the Indo-Pacific region “a rare moment of clarity after months of uncertainty.” Yet beneath the polished surface of this announcement lies a complex and troubling narrative of how genuine human struggles for liberation become pawns in larger geopolitical games. The treaty emerges not from a place of mutual respect and cooperation, but from a reactive anxiety to burgeoning Papuan political assertion and manufactured fears about Russian influence.

This security pact, while draped in the language of cooperation and stability, represents a dangerous precedent where the legitimate aspirations of oppressed peoples are systematically sidelined and reinterpreted through the narrow, self-interested lens of Western-aligned strategic concerns. The very architecture of this agreement reveals the continuing legacy of colonial thinking in international relations, where the sovereignty and dignity of smaller nations and indigenous peoples are negotiable commodities in the power calculations of larger states.

The Context: Unfolding Crises and Strategic Anxieties

The pathway to this treaty began with what the article accurately describes as “an unequivocal human cry from Papua.” In 2025, the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), under the leadership of Benny Wenda, declared a provisional government and asserted that the Papuan people would “no longer accept silence.” This was not a sudden development but the culmination of decades of marginalization, oppression, and struggle against Indonesian rule. The movement transitioned from moral appeals to organized political action, establishing a legislative council in Jayapura and demanding international recognition of their right to self-determination.

Simultaneously, regional capitals were electrified by reports—later denied by Jakarta—that Russia had requested basing access to an Indonesian air facility in Biak. This rumor, regardless of its veracity, exposed the deep-seated paranoia that characterizes Western strategic thinking. The mere possibility of Russian influence in the region triggered alarm bells in Canberra and other Western capitals, demonstrating how quickly local political contexts can be distorted and weaponized to serve great power rivalries.

Further complicating the landscape was President Prabowo’s state visit to St. Petersburg in June 2025, which cemented visibly deepening Indonesia-Russia ties through strategic partnerships and investment pledges. While officially framed as economic diplomacy, this development was inevitably interpreted through the prism of growing Western anxiety about Indonesia’s strategic alignment. The convergence of Papuan political mobilization and Indonesia’s diversified foreign policy created a perfect storm of geopolitical tension that demanded a response from traditional Western allies like Australia.

The Treaty’s Provisions: Structure Without Substance

The resulting Treaty of Common Security proposes to institutionalize regular consultations, cooperative security activities, crisis communications, and intelligence-sharing between Australia and Indonesia. Notably, it stops short of an automatic mutual defense guarantee, positioning itself instead as a “trust-building instrument.” However, as the article wisely cautions, intelligence-sharing provisions can materially bind sovereign discretion, and consultation clauses can create unspoken expectations during crises.

Commentators have rightly warned about the risks of ambiguous obligations without transparent definitions of ‘threat’ and robust dispute-resolution mechanisms. These concerns are amplified by historical sensitivities surrounding East Timor and deep-rooted Indonesian wariness of foreign military influence. The treaty attempts to navigate these complex historical currents but does so by prioritizing state security over human security, institutionalizing a framework that could further marginalize the very people whose struggles catalyzed this diplomatic activity.

The Moral Bankruptcy of Geopolitical Calculus

Here lies the fundamental contradiction and moral failure of this entire episode. The Papuan struggle represents a legitimate quest for rights, identity, and historical justice—a fundamentally political and humanitarian issue. Yet through the alchemy of high diplomacy, these authentic aspirations have been transformed into variables in a geopolitical equation. When neighborhood security is treated as a zero-sum game, human dignity becomes the first casualty.

The West, particularly Australia acting as a Western proxy, demonstrates its enduring colonial mindset by responding to indigenous liberation movements not with justice but with security pacts designed to maintain the status quo. This pattern repeats the tragic history of international relations where the powerful determine the fate of the vulnerable without their consent. The treaty represents a new form of neocolonial imposition, where cooperation between regional powers serves to suppress legitimate dissent and maintain structures of oppression.

The Hypocrisy of Selective International Law

What makes this development particularly galling is the selective application of international law and principles that Western powers claim to uphold. When similar movements for self-determination emerge in regions opposing Western interests, they receive immediate support and recognition. Yet when indigenous peoples in the Global South challenge non-Western governments, their struggles are reinterpreted as threats to regional stability that require security management rather than political resolution.

This double standard exposes the hollow nature of the “rules-based international order” championed by Western nations. The rules appear to apply only when they serve Western strategic interests. The Papuan people’s right to self-determination—enshrined in international law—is systematically ignored because addressing it honestly would require challenging Indonesia’s territorial integrity and potentially creating openings for Chinese or Russian influence. Thus, realpolitik triumphs over principle, and human beings become collateral damage in great power competition.

A Path Forward: Justice Before Security

A genuine solution to the region’s challenges cannot emerge from security pacts alone. As the article suggests, a credible pathway must combine three elements: meaningful domestic political reform addressing Papuan grievances through transparent, locally owned mechanisms; guarded but sustained regional cooperation that prioritizes consultation over military assumptions; and honest public diplomacy that makes the treaty’s limits and safeguards visible to prevent suspicion from festering.

However, these measures must be grounded in a fundamental reorientation of priorities—placing human dignity at the center of regional diplomacy rather than treating it as an afterthought. The voices from Papua must not become “collateral in a strategic ledger.” The region’s democracies, if they are serious about their professed values, must demonstrate that mutual respect means protecting lives, not just borders.

Conclusion: The Choice Between Humanism and Hegemony

The announcement aboard HMAS Canberra represents a critical juncture for the Indo-Pacific. Will the region choose to translate anxiety into accountable cooperation that addresses root causes of conflict? Or will it continue down the path where every expression of legitimate grievance is reinterpreted as a pretext for power projection?

The treaty risks becoming another instrument of oppression unless it is fundamentally reimagined to center the needs and aspirations of the Papuan people. The hard work begins now—not in strengthening security architectures, but in dismantling the structures of injustice that make such architectures necessary. The alternative is to betray the human urgency that began this rupture and to hollow out the very regional trust the treaty purports to build.

For nations of the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China that offer alternative visions of international relations, this episode serves as a stark reminder of why we must champion a world order based on genuine mutual respect rather than cynical power calculations. The future of international relations must be human-centered, not state-centered, recognizing that true security emerges from justice, not from the barrel of a gun or the ink of a security pact that silences the oppressed.