Prime Minister John Howard is expected to sign the accord with his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe during a visit to Japan next month, national radio reported.
Downer said the agreement would not have treaty status and that any joint military exercises would focus on counter-terrorism, disaster relief and peacekeeping.
"It's not a statement which is designed to... prepare for war," he told reporters.
Downer said the agreement, which was still being negotiated, should not worry Beijing.
"We certainly have always said we have no policy of containment or isolation for China -- quite the contrary. We believe the more we engage China bilaterally, within our region and beyond, the better that is.
"There's no need for them to be upset. It's not directed at China."
Heavens, who comes up with these things? Aimed at China? Pshaw!
Really, it was a mere coincidence that the Australian and Japanese representatives were standing together pointing at China. You know how it goes when you are just staring off into space and somebody moves into your field of vision and then they ask why you are looking at them? When they simply happened to move where you were looking? Happens all the time.
And I'm sure the agreement does not name China. The agreement will probably apply to any five-letter nation whose name ends in "A". Oh, and which has a population in excess of one billion people and whose name also does not begin with "I". Surely that's a large class of potential enemies. Why would Peking dream up that this agreement envisions any provision applying to China?
I'm sure that the Chinese are just being paranoid. Why would anyone at all worry about China given their track record of high-minded and enlightened foreign and domestic policy? It isn't as if they suppress minorities, have aggressive intent on neighbors, suck up to rogue states and thug regimes, stifle democracy with a view that its existence is a threat to their rulers, and have a record of killing tens of millions of their own people.
Hmm, how was that focus of the agreement defined, again?
