Australia has announced it will renew military ties with Indonesia's special forces unit, Kopassus, just four years after severing links following allegations that Kopassus had co-ordinated the East Timor massacres. The Australian Defence Force has supported the plan but the federal opposition says the move is inappropriate, given its alleged links to terrorist groups and human rights abuses.

Presenter/Interviewer: Linda LoPresti

Speakers: Bob Lowry, Indonesian military specialist.

Lowry: "Well Kopassus is the equivalent of the Australian SAS or the British SAS responsible for special operations including counter revolutionary warfare operations and intelligence operations against domestic insurgents and so on. And the allegations against it stem from the legacy of the Suharto era when the special forces were employed, especially in East Timor to run the militias and to run covert operations against the clandestine and the East Timorese opposition."

"In addition to that of course they've been involved in operations in places like Aceh, in Irian Jaya, and some of the actions they were involved in there went well beyond what the law would allow. There are accusation in some quarters that some of these abuses have been continued, especially in places like Aceh and Papua."

Lopresti: And there are allegations that Kopassus has close links to a range of terrorists and militia groups. Does that have any foundation?

Lowry: "Well we really don't know, there's no doubt that it did in the past, especially in the case of East Timor, and in terms of their military intelligence etc., the intelligence services would, especially as a result of what's happened in the last couple of years. They're keeping a close eye on many of these groups. That doesn't mean that they're necessarily working in cooperation with them, but they may well have people who have close relationships with them for various purposes."

Lopresti: Is it possible for Australia to split its dealing with Kopassus, that is to only deal with those responsible for counter terrorism and hostage rescue, which is what Prime Minister John Howard is saying is important to Australia's interests?

Lowry: "Well yes and no. No in the sense that Kopassus is a formation in the Indonesian army and if we want to do any cooperation with them then we have to operate through the Indonesian army chain of command and the Kopassus chain of command. But any cooperation at a practical level of course can be contained to those sorts of activities, which are likely to be useful in a hostage situation. So that you can isolate in a practical sense, even though you're dealing with an organisation that is yet to taste the full flow of democratic reforms."

Lopresti: It is essentially though a military outfit, so is it capable of dealing with Jemaah Islamiah for example, which is not obviously an armed group like the Free Aceh Separatists?

Lowry: "No as people have pointed out, I mean the primary responsibility for tracking these people down and dealing with them according to the law belongs to the police and the state intelligence service. But the point is being made that once an act occurs and if you need to employ the sorts of forces that the army has to deal with terrorist groups, then you've got no option but to employ them. And that's where the government is caught between the rock and the hard place in that although allegations have been made against these people, the reality is that if there is a serious crisis they will have to be employed."

Lopresti: So does Australia's federal opposition have a point when it says that Australia should shift its emphasis on to building relations with the civilian controlled police force? Is that police force capable of dealing with major terrorist situations?

Lowry: "No not at the moment, it's developing its capacity in terms of both the intelligence apparatus and the ability to track people down in forensic science and all of those fields, and it does have a counter terrorist unit. But it doesn't have the sort of specialised training that the special forces have in terms of counter-hijacking, rescuing hostages in difficult places, for example from oil rigs or from particular locations which are strongly held. So in those sort of situations the military would still be required."