Editorial: Asean treaty an acid test for Australia

Opinion

Australia has always had a more equivocal attitude towards Asia than New Zealand. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating's appeal to Australians to "enmesh" themselves in the continent represented one extreme of a long-running inconsistency. At the other has been a policy of keeping Asia at arm's length, the legacy of a longstanding mistrust, especially of Indonesia. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that the invitation for John Howard to attend the Association of Southeast Asia Nations summit in Laos is the first to an Australian leader. Or that Mr Howard is loath to sign a Treaty of Amity and Co-operation with the 10-nation Asean bloc, while New Zealand seems happy to put its name to the document.

The treaty calls on signatories not to interfere in one another's internal affairs, to renounce the threat or use of force and to settle disputes peacefully. As such, it amounts to an unremarkable non-aggression pact. Mr Howard, however, sees it as inconsistent with Canberra's alliance with the United States and with its insistence on being able to launch pre-emptive strikes against terrorists. Signing it could also have implications for crises such as East Timor, where, despite Indonesia's opposition, Australia and New Zealand sent peacekeeping troops.

It will fall to Helen Clark to convince Mr Howard that such need not be the case, and that not to sign risks casting an unnecessary shadow over Asean's plan for a free-trade deal. The caveat on such a treaty must always be that it will be superseded by United Nations-sanctioned action. That was the scenario in East Timor and should be so in any similar circumstance. Australia and New Zealand need not feel hobbled. Likewise, Mr Howard should view the treaty as a step towards mounting a more effective campaign against the terrorist scourge. Maximising co-operation with Asean nations will, in the long term, sponsor a far more cogent approach to terrorism and other issues of regional security than pre-emptive strikes. Terrorists are most likely to be discomfited by the sort of persistent pressure orchestrated by Australia and Indonesia as they worked together after the Bali bombing.

The treaty represents an acid test for Australia. For that reason, it is being talked up by Asean foreign ministers. Helen Clark appears confident that an Australian snub would not disrupt planned trade negotiations. But neither would it be helpful - especially for New Zealand, which has much to gain from Asean's offer for Canberra and Wellington to join a vastly expanded regional free-trade zone. All being well, the Vientiane summit will see the start of two years of talks aimed at linking the 12 countries in a combined AFTA-CER market that would be roughly double the value of the transtasman market.

The Asean initiative has come as a surprise. Seemingly, the bloc feared it was being left behind by an increasingly outward-looking China. Negotiations will not be easy, given the maze of tariffs within Asean and the more advanced nature of the CER agreement. But for New Zealand, in the throes of securing a bilateral deal with Beijing, a pact with Asean would put in place another important piece of the free-trade puzzle. One estimate suggests it could be worth $200 million a year to this country.

The Vientiane summit should be the catalyst for strengthened ties and intensified co-operation between the countries of Asean and New Zealand and Australia. The non-aggression pact represents a largely symbolic part of that process. It is an opportunity for Wellington and Canberra, especially, to quell unease and demonstrate that their intentions in the region are peaceful. One nation seems prepared to make that gesture, the other for no good reason to shy away from it. New Zealand must try to cajole Australia into seeing the error of its way. As always, it will want to work in unison with its closest neighbour. But if Mr Howard proves obdurate, it will have to recognise that, in this case, its best interests lie elsewhere.