Bland words to save face

The document has two clauses:

· The Parties will not use any of their intelligence, including surveillance capacities, or other sources, in ways that would harm the interests of the Parties.

· The Parties will promote intelligence cooperation between relevant institutions and agencies in accordance with their respective national laws and regulations.

What does this mean? Who defines 'harm' and how is it measured? It's a subjective term. What interests? Clearly it's an agreement a lawyer's clerks could shred. If it had been a tin of beans shoppers would be demanding a refund having found the can empty.

There are references back to the 2006 Lombok Treaty, a ten-point agreement tagged as a 'framework for security cooperation'.

Despite the grand title this is another pedestrian paper. It gives either party opportunities to create their own meanings of open-ended phrases like 'endeavouring to foster' and cooperation 'within the limits of their responsibility.' If there's a dispute the English text prevails.

Despite the flaws this is probably as good as it gets when it comes to negotiating agreements between two such radically different nations, cultures and political agendas.

A hard-nosed Indonesian negotiator might have pushed for no spying or trade sanctions would be imposed. Australia needs Indonesia far more than the reverse. But that was only going to happen with a new administration in Jakarta keen to display its machismo.

SBY, constantly lauded as the best Indonesian president Australia has had, was not inclined to be assertive, wanting settlement before his compulsory retirement after two five-year terms.

The Indonesian electorate's interest had also swung to other issues in the wake of the contested presidential election result.

This ensured Australian hands stayed on the keyboard for the word-a-day essay. If there are any Indonesian fingerprints on the page they're not visible to the naked eye.