Southeast Asia Security - Literature review Example

Running Head: SOUTHEAST ASIA SECURITY A Policy Brief for the Australian Government on the Strategic and Political Implications of the Indonesian and Malaysian Crisis Name: Instructor: Course Unit: Date: Introduction: Located in the Sulawesi Sea, Ambalat is a sea chunk which is presently part of Indonesia territory. Its location is off the shore of the Indonesian region of East Kalimantan and south-east of state of Sabah in Malaysia. Malaysia denotes fraction of the Ambalat chunk as Block ND6 as well as section of East Ambalat Block as Block ND7. Approximately sixty-two million barrels of oil in addition to 348 x 106 m3 (348 million) of natural gas are contained in the deep sea blocks (Arsana 2005, pp. 20-27). It’s these immense quantities of oil and gas reserves that the two countries are locking heads on; of recent it has ruined the relationship between the two countries which they earlier on enjoyed. The Indonesian and Malaysian warships have clashed in the disputed sea area of Ambalat, and both countries have withdrawn their respective ambassadors and put their militaries on high alert. The two countries, Malaysia and Indonesia are vehemently claiming possession of the Ambalat Island off northern Kalimantan and its seabed. Although the row over the land mass sparkled up recently as soon as Malaysian nationalized Oil Company Petronas contracted an oil exploration dispensation to Shell Petroleum Company, the row over the island can be traced back in 1979 after Malaysia had published a map exhibiting its territorial waters and continental shelf. This paper therefore tries to trace the origin of the dispute, elaborates the strategic and political implications of the crisis, and wraps up with recommendations to calm the crisis and hence restoring a feasible relationship between the two countries (Schofield & Arsana 2005, pp. 34-41). Background of the Ambalat Dispute:   This map produced by Malaysia exhibited its maritime frontier enveloping the Ambalat blocks with a bulky segment of it on the Malaysian defensive waters. Just like Brunei and Thailand, Indonesia has up to tomorrow disapproved this map. From the late 1950s Indonesia had laid claim of the Sipadan in addition to Ligitan Islands, but Malaysia incorporated them as remote base points in 1979 and for a second time in 2002. The move entirely enveloped the whole of Ambalat to the Malaysian territory. In the attempt to reclaim the two islands through the International Court of Justice Indonesia lost the islands to Malaysia, supported on effective occupation logic (Schofield 2003). These disputes have generated significant nervousness among Indonesia and Malaysia, with more than a few confrontation episodes involving their navy ships. The most recent round of strain transpired during the first quarter of last year after Indonesian media reports accredited that country’s navy ships were on the brink of blowing up Malaysian navy ship which it declaring that it had infringed deep into Indonesian waters . Current Status of the Dispute: Relationship between the two Southeast Asia Muslim countries has been cut-off, with both nations having differences of opinion on each other's declaration to Ambalat and have taken the matter to another level by sending navy ships to defend their interests. Whereas the Malaysian media has remained silent about the dispute, the Indonesian one has blown the trumpet to nationalist reactions, which has been well taken by political as well as youth groups elevating the eagerness of smashing the Malaysians, who are taken to be arrogant thus a sensation of them undermining plus humiliating the Indonesians. With Malaysia dragging its feet to calm the dispute, Indonesia is while not taking anything lightly to see that it defends its waters (Liow 2005, pp. 26-30). Thus chances of a war erupting between the two countries are high, if Malaysia doesn’t progress swiftly to resolve the dispute as well as present its case as effectively as possible. Rather than fuelling the crisis by invading Indonesian waters, Malaysia should set the ball rolling by even restoring diplomacy between both countries (Forbes 2001, p. 14). It is significant to mention that the Sipidan and Ligitan losses, still lingers in the minds of Indonesians, and this aspect furthermore intensifies Indonesian’s reactions towards the Ambalat crisis. The Ambalat problem has taken place, conversely, at an instance when mutual relations have been overwrought in consequence of Malaysia’s onslaught in opposition to illegal migrants. Scores of the approximated one million illegal personnel in Malaysia are Indonesian. Substantial ill-feeling has been created by these actions, predominantly those sighted in Indonesia as Malaysia’s oppressive ploys consist of locking up and thrashing of illegal workers before deportation. Such acts have provoked Indonesian views, fed by shocking media reporting, of their nation and fellow citizens being disgraced as well as violated in the fangs of the ‘Malaysian arrogance’ (Weiss 2006, pp. 20). The Potential Outcome of Armed Conflict If a War Did Occur: If a war did occur between the Indonesia and Malaysia, the potential result of armed conflict would be devastating to both countries. This will not only affect the economic status of both countries but, also the social fabric functioning of the two states. The war will result into direct and indirect effects on human beings, this is, deaths during the battles and conflict linked death and injury diseases during and after the war. Clashes evidently will cause deaths as well as injuries on the combat zone, but also health consequences from the displacement of populations, the breakdown of health and social services, and the heightened risk of disease transmission. This shall also result into information systems break down hence, leading to vast insecurity in the degree of mortality and disability (Heryanto & Sumit 2003, pp.42). There are chances that during the war other nations could form a liaison with either of the countries, thus supply arms to further fuel the war. This could result into a war that will take lots of years to settle thus affecting the neighbouring countries in terms of harbouring the displaced populations (Haller-Trost 1998, pp. 30). Also with the current escalations of oil and natural gases, the Ambalat could be a good place to tap more of these resources from, thus supplying the more demanding market with these commodities. Inevitably this could cut down the soaring oil and natural gases prices, but in case a war erupts; the chances of tapping from these rich resources would be cut-off completely. Clearly wars come with their own impacts on the environment, from air to water and land pollution. Chemical warfare’s can be used to defend the Ambalat thus degrading the various rich fauna and flora that thrive in this area. This can not only have detrimental effect on both countries but, can also spread to other countries that neighbours them. Hot spots like oil refineries are targeted during the war, dams and other strategic points (Jones 2002, p.8). These collateral damages coupled with massive influx of refugees can have devastating environmental effects to the battling countries and the neighbouring countries where the refugees are running to. Thus avoiding such expensive costs that are undesirable can only be done if the dispute is settled in diplomatic manner that the use of guns and bullets. Nat et al (2001, pp. 317-349) puts forward that, “Armed conflicts leads to lack of a properly functioning governance structure, inability to mobilize the country’s crucial social capital resources, and lack of trust from external donors and other countries globally”. This is totally undesirable for any country that wants to develop by tapping from its natural resources. Possible Mediation Efforts by Australia: Although both countries have showed their willingness to hold dialogues thus overcome the conflict and in the course cut down the chances of a war taking place, the major problem has been lack of access to appropriate mediation of disputes (McIntyne 1973, pp. 75-83). No sooner the threat of conflict appears between the two countries, nationalist trumpets are blown on both sides, and thus a bout of contacts is quickly made followed by an ill-planned exchange of diplomats from both sides in an attempt to neutralize war of words that could set in motion armed conflict. One issue the two sides come out with from these ill-planned visits is the agreement to keep-off a third party from meddling into the dispute, thus tabling the issue globally. It is this adamant resistance of involving a third party that does fester unresolved (Sekreteriat 1995, p. 36). Toeing the line of solid relationships between the two countries with Australia, Australia stands at the fore front of mediating in this dispute. Without favouring any side it can present planned case analysis, categorize prospective liabilities, develop in addition to advocate deterrent measures and resolution strategy; and provision of a bilateral joint accord among Indonesia and Malaysia to resolve the maritime boundary dispute. It is understandable that the Ambalat dispute is a maritime boundary variance for the reason that both nations claim the same maritime zones where the block situates. This is not a heated discussion over sovereignty but one where independent rights to explore as well as utilize maritime region and natural resources deposited are at issue (Ibid). Recommendations: It has to be predicted that Malaysia, by decree, alters its baseline pattern for the reason that Sipadan in addition to Ligitan legitimately belong to it. Delineating both countries baselines in Celebes Sea signifies the initial footstep in the direction of delimitation as each country's maritime zones are determined from their baselines. Indonesia will, certainly, maintain its archipelagic baselines (Ingrid 2001, pp. 5-14). The next step maybe to identify the exclusive economic zone as well as the continental shelf, but its evident now that the Ambalat offshore region is positioned within the exclusive economic zone as well as the Continental Shelf asserts of Indonesia and Malaysia. In this regard it will be better to consider the continental shelf as the chief focus of reconciliations between the two nations (Noor 2002, p.40). The overlapping assertion in the exclusive economic zone as well as the Continental Shelf necessitates maritime border line delimitation. In this perspective the appliance of the center line technique of delimitation can be extensively acknowledged in both nations practice and case law, in any case as a preliminary summit. Consequently, the causal aspects have to be taken into concern in order to attain an equitable way out. For this reason, Sipadan and Ligitan are likely to have a considerable responsibility in maritime boundary delimitation among the two countries (Poulgrain1998, p. 28). From the Indonesia perspective, conferring less effect to Sipadan and Ligitan would be desirable. This is a cornerstone that can exclusively draw Malaysia wholeheartedly into the drawing board of the mediations as well as even encourage other mediators/third parties to come in and resolve the dispute. Also quantity of coastal length implicated, as well as socio-economic development of both countries has to be considered. Conclusion: The Ambalat dispute is an independent rights variation, but not sovereignty since both countries assert the same maritime zone and no land region is at risk. Thus a better perception in terms of scientific viewpoint, technological features and law is necessary, not only for government bureaucrats but also citizens of both nations, to evade arousing avowals. Meanwhile Indonesia needs to expansively revise the dispute prior to negotiating the dispute bilaterally or involving a mediator. Other southeast countries should also involve in mediating the dispute, and above all Indonesia should now learn from the dispute and solemnly preserve its territory through maritime boundary delimitation, no matter how small the islets are. This will deter other countries from claiming its numerous islands. I believe if the above recommendations are effectively implemented coupled with other measures here in not mentioned the vital natural resources Indonesia along with Malaysia are locking are locking horns on can be enjoyed in a mutual benefit of both countries as well as the world at large. References: Arsana, I MA 2005, “Technical aspects of the Ambalat negotiations”, The Jakarta Post, vol. 58, pp. 20-27. Forbes, VL 2001, Conflict and Cooperation in Managing Maritime Space in Semi-Enclosed Seas, University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii. Haller-Trost, R 1998, The Contested Maritime and Territorial Boundaries of Malaysia An International Law Perspective, Kluwer Law International. Heryanto, A & Sumit, M, eds. 2003, Challenging authoritarianism in Southeast Asia: comparing Indonesia and Malaysia. RoutledgeCurzon, New York. Ingrid, W 2005, “The impact of the state on the democratisation process in Indonesia”. In: Ingrid, W ed., Democratisation in Indonesia after the fall of Suharto. Berlin, Logos Verlag, Jones, M. 2002, Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia, 1961–1965: Britain: the United States and the Creation of Malaysia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Liow, J C 2005, The politics of Indonesia-Malaysia relations: one kin, two nations. RoutledgeCurzon, London. McIntyre, A 1973, “The ‘Greater Indonesia’ Idea of Nationalism in Malaya and Indonesia”, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 75-83. Nat J. C, Teck, G, & Anita, KV 2001, Social cohesion and conflict prevention in Asia: managing diversity through development. World Bank Publications: Philippines. Noor, F 2002, The Other Malaysia. Silverfishbooks, Kuala Lumpur. Poulgrain, G 1998, The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia, 1945- 65. Crawford House, Bathurst. Sekretariat, N 1995, “Risalah Sidang Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (BPUPKI) - Panitia Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (PPKI) 28 Mei 1945- 22 Agustus 1945. Jakarta, Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia. Schofield, C 2003, “Maritime Zones and Jurisdiction, 2003 ABLOS Conference”. Available from: . [10 June 2010]. Schofield, C & Arsana, IMA 2005, “Ambalat revised: The way forward?”, The Jakarta Post, vol. 321, pp. 34-41. Weiss, ML 2006, Protest and Possibilities - Civil Society and Coalitions for Political Change in Malaysia. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Read More

It is significant to mention that the Sipidan and Ligitan losses, still lingers in the minds of Indonesians, and this aspect furthermore intensifies Indonesian’s reactions towards the Ambalat crisis. The Ambalat problem has taken place, conversely, at an instance when mutual relations have been overwrought in consequence of Malaysia’s onslaught in opposition to illegal migrants. Scores of the approximated one million illegal personnel in Malaysia are Indonesian. Substantial ill-feeling has been created by these actions, predominantly those sighted in Indonesia as Malaysia’s oppressive ploys consist of locking up and thrashing of illegal workers before deportation.

Such acts have provoked Indonesian views, fed by shocking media reporting, of their nation and fellow citizens being disgraced as well as violated in the fangs of the ‘Malaysian arrogance’ (Weiss 2006, pp. 20). The Potential Outcome of Armed Conflict If a War Did Occur: If a war did occur between the Indonesia and Malaysia, the potential result of armed conflict would be devastating to both countries. This will not only affect the economic status of both countries but, also the social fabric functioning of the two states.

The war will result into direct and indirect effects on human beings, this is, deaths during the battles and conflict linked death and injury diseases during and after the war. Clashes evidently will cause deaths as well as injuries on the combat zone, but also health consequences from the displacement of populations, the breakdown of health and social services, and the heightened risk of disease transmission. This shall also result into information systems break down hence, leading to vast insecurity in the degree of mortality and disability (Heryanto & Sumit 2003, pp.42). There are chances that during the war other nations could form a liaison with either of the countries, thus supply arms to further fuel the war.

This could result into a war that will take lots of years to settle thus affecting the neighbouring countries in terms of harbouring the displaced populations (Haller-Trost 1998, pp. 30). Also with the current escalations of oil and natural gases, the Ambalat could be a good place to tap more of these resources from, thus supplying the more demanding market with these commodities. Inevitably this could cut down the soaring oil and natural gases prices, but in case a war erupts; the chances of tapping from these rich resources would be cut-off completely.

Clearly wars come with their own impacts on the environment, from air to water and land pollution. Chemical warfare’s can be used to defend the Ambalat thus degrading the various rich fauna and flora that thrive in this area. This can not only have detrimental effect on both countries but, can also spread to other countries that neighbours them. Hot spots like oil refineries are targeted during the war, dams and other strategic points (Jones 2002, p.8). These collateral damages coupled with massive influx of refugees can have devastating environmental effects to the battling countries and the neighbouring countries where the refugees are running to.

Thus avoiding such expensive costs that are undesirable can only be done if the dispute is settled in diplomatic manner that the use of guns and bullets. Nat et al (2001, pp. 317-349) puts forward that, “Armed conflicts leads to lack of a properly functioning governance structure, inability to mobilize the country’s crucial social capital resources, and lack of trust from external donors and other countries globally”. This is totally undesirable for any country that wants to develop by tapping from its natural resources.

Possible Mediation Efforts by Australia: Although both countries have showed their willingness to hold dialogues thus overcome the conflict and in the course cut down the chances of a war taking place, the major problem has been lack of access to appropriate mediation of disputes (McIntyne 1973, pp. 75-83).

Read More