Australia's defence ties with Southeast Asian nations, particularly Malaysia, dates back to 1971 when the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) comprising the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore was set up.

FPDA came into being following the withdrawal of half of the UK forces from Malaysia and Singapore in that year while the remainder of troops left over the next five years.

Threats and external attacks on Malaysia and Singapore were much feared then as the nations were situated in a region made up of countries which had just gained independence but harboured different ambitions and defence capacities. The fear was aggravated by the communist insurgency at that time.

Over the years, military officers from Malaysia and Australia have participated in training programmes and professional exchanges.

Under the Malaysian Australian Joint Defence Programme, Australia also helped to train and develop the Malaysian armed forces.

In this second part of an exclusive interview with malaysiakini , Australian High Commissioner Peter Varghese reflects on the historical significance of security cooperation between the two countries as well as the future aspects to explore.

Malaysiakini : A recent Los Angeles Times commentary quoted military analysts as saying that the war against terrorism was used by countries like Malaysia and Indonesia for political crackdowns.

Varghese: Terrorism is not just an issue to be dealt with internationally but also a real issue to be addressed in the region. What we have seen from organisations like Jemaah Islamiah suggests that it is not something being manufactured.

The Australian and Singaporean High Commissions were allegedly the target of Jemaah Islamiah. I don't think Australia takes the view that the actions taken in the region, including Malaysia, were invented. There was genuine concern about terrorist individuals or possibly groups. As a country committed to fighting terrorism, we will support actions of governments to uncover any groups planning terrorist attacks and (to take) actions against these groups.

While terrorism could be a genuine concern, could it have been exaggerated for political purposes?

Perception of what is a well-based threat and what is not is probably different before and after Sept 11. In light of the attacks, a lot of countries are giving more attention to what otherwise may have been networks that people weren't aware of. A lot of actions taken by Malaysia and Singapore were based on well-grounded suspicion about potential terrorist activities.

The commentary also suggested discord between the Australian military and government because the military felt it knew the region better than the United States but was not consulted in the war against terrorism.

I don't think there's any difference of views between the military and government. The military does what the government asks them to do. That's a clear principle of structure in Australia the civilian control of the military. There is no rift between the defence forces and the government on the war against terrorism. Our defence forces are strongly supporting what the government is doing. You can always find individuals in any system who may have different views and analyses about a situation, but there's no fundamental difference of assessment between the government and the defence forces.

I cannot comment on the US policy. It is for Americans to talk about it.

Now the US has returned to the Philippines, does Australia feel downgraded in regional defence?

No, not at all. It's not a zero-sum game. It is not as though we will lose anything with others being active partners in the region.

We have a long-standing defence relationship with Malaysia and Southeast Asia and this is growing stronger, if anything. We don't see that being weakened with Americans or any bilateral defence partner coming into the region. Australia is interestingly a strong supporter of US strategic engagement in this part of the world. We welcome US presence and contribution towards strategic development.

Is the Five-Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) still relevant now that the Cold War and the Indonesian confrontation is over?

It is. All security treaties have their historical origin. Effective, good treaties grow, develop and adapt to changed circumstances. FPDA is a good case study in that. It goes back to Confrontation where the strategic environment in Southeast Asia was very different from what it is now but it remains an arrangement that makes a lot of contribution to regional security.

All parties involved are happy with the way the arrangement is developing. From our point of view, it is recognition that we share strategic interest in this part of the world. It is a symbol of Australia's commitment to security in SEA.

It is also a very useful operational arrangement. One of the FPDA's objectives is to enable the armed forces in the five countries to exercise together, to work together, and to understand the system for professional development. I'm sure that is the same case for Malaysia and Singapore. Whatever its origin, we will continue to adapt to the current environment.

One of the important changes in the last year or two is to make the FPDA more of a joint defence operation. We have now become a much more integrated command structure bringing in the army, the navy, as well as the air forces. I think that is the part of the arrangement that is healthy and will grow to meet the interests of its members.

What are the possible threats in the region, from the FPDA's point of view today?

We don't need to identify specific threats to have effective security arrangement. Australia's national defence policy, for instance, is not based on any identifiable threat. In fact we take the view that there is no identifiable threat for the next 10 to 15 years. Yet that does not stop us from putting together a very comprehensive security policy.

The importance of any arrangement like the FPDA is that it reinforces the existing strategic stability in the region and, therefore, it may be less likely that the region will face a significant strategic threat.

It is better to look at security arrangement in that way rather than starting off with the question of who and where the threat is. The dynamics of regional security does not operate that way.

Is Islamic radicalism a possible threat?

I don't think there is a direct link between Islam and threat in the region at all. The centre of gravity of Islam in SEA is very moderate. Leadership like those in Malaysia and Indonesia are strong advocates of a moderate, inclusive Islam. So I think that's a form of assurance for the countries in the region. As there are advocates for a more political Islam, the voice of moderate Islam becomes even more important to be heard loudly and clearly.

What about East Timor which is still considering whether to join Asean or the South Pacific Forum?

They can go for both. It depends on Asean and the South Pacific Forum whether they want to accept East Timor as member. But if East Timor wants to join the Forum, certainly Australia as a member of the forum will welcome it.

Is East Timor's bid to join Asean an attempt to balance its dependence on Australia?

We would welcome East Timor to join any grouping and we have no reservations about it at all. It is important that the East Timor-Indonesia relationship be a close and constructive one. This is important for East Timor, for us, and for the region.

We don't want to restrict East Timor in any way from international ties. Quite contrary, we encourage East Timor to develop international ties. The fact is that East Timor has depended on international system for quite some time now. Australia would like to see that burden shed in an equitable way.

So we certainly don't want to put any obstacles in East Timor's way in forging ties with Asean and other groupings.

Historically, the agreement between Indonesia and Australia on the Timor gap was seen as Australia's implicit recognition of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. But Australia was also the first to send a peacekeeping force after East Timor gained its independence. What marks the break?

It reflects a change in Indonesian policy. We never endorsed the invasion in 1975. We were highly critical of that particular action in East Timor and elsewhere. Australia's policy prior to the referendum held in East Timor had been to accept East Timor as part of Indonesia.

The break, in your word, was when [former Indonesian President] Habibie decided to hold a referendum on independence. Our advice to Habibie at that time was to have a lengthy period of autonomy for East Timor and in the sense defer the question of independence.

What we had in mind was what the French did with New Caledonia. There was a strong push for independence then, and the French decided they would provide a substantial autonomy to New Caledonia for 10 or 15 years and at the end of that, they will address whether New Caledonia wanted to be independent or not.

When Habibie came in, that was the argument we put forward to him. But he decided to go immediately for referendum. And once he decided that, we worked with the United Nations to hold the referendum and following that, we put a peacekeeping force in East Timor.

Why then was Indonesia unhappy with Australia's involvement in peacekeeping?

The peacekeeping force was an UN force which included a number of Asean countries. From our point of view, we though it was a proper thing to be done.

Something had to be done at that time or the situation in East Timor could have spun completely out of control. Without intervention of some sort, it would have been a messier problem. But we suppose many in Indonesia saw that as Australia interfering in an issue that it should not have interfered with, which is not what we expected.

We went there in good faith and with full authority of UN and consent of the Indonesian government. You cannot send a peacekeeping force into a country if the government opposes it. We made it clear that we would only be involved if Indonesia consented to it. That is sometimes overlooked in the coverage of the issue.

A lot Middle-Eastern immigrants are going into Australia via Malaysia and Indonesia. Any effort to stem the trafficking?

We have had a number of discussions with Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries. Together with Indonesia, we convened a major international conference in Bali early this year to address this issue illegal people movement, people smuggling, and what we can do about it.

It has been a major issue in Australia although such arrivals in our country in the last six months had dropped away completely. We worked very closely with Malaysia on this and we have cooperation from the police force and immigration department here to stop these people-smuggling syndicates operating from Malaysia or using Malaysia as a transit country. That has had an impact to slow down the movement of these people.

The change in Afghanistan is also important because the 'push factor' had been reduced by the departure of the Taliban. The cooperation in the region plays an important task.

Any opposition from Muslims in Australia against its support for the US in the war against Afghanistan?

Not at all. The Muslim community was as appalled as others in Australia with what had happened in US. Their leaders condemned the attacks. Australia's involvement to fight terrorism has got support from Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not a point of division in Australia at all.

Has migration to Australia dropped since Sept 11?

No. Those who were attracted to the option to migrating to Australia before Sept 11 continue to be attracted by that option. We haven't seen any drop in the interest of migration. Quite contrary, migration continues to grow strongly.

Final part tomorrow