Loss of the islands: Respecting the decision
Loss of the islands: Respecting the decision
Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id
The news on the verdict on the Dec. 17 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the case of Sipadan and Ligitan between Indonesia and Malaysia was in the local and foreign mass media. The world court in The Hague ruled that two tiny resource-rich islands in the Sulawesi Sea belong to Malaysia, ending a longstanding dispute between Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur.
Indonesia and Malaysia both laid a claim to the islands three decades ago, when they embarked on a search for oil and gas in the area. The two countries then agreed to hand the decision to the ICJ in the Hague in 1997 after series of bilateral talks failed to produce a satisfying results.
In the preceding, it was assumed that Indonesia and Malaysia both put forward their arguments on both the legal title and actual possession over the islands. It was revealed then that the Court used the second as the basis of its decision.
Just before the decision was taken, Minister for Foreign Affairs Hassan Wirayuda was reported as saying that in a rhetorical sense, Indonesia would fight to the last drop of blood to protect the motherland.
Such talk brings to mind Megawati's father and Indonesia's founding president, Sukarno, who brought the country to the brink of an open war with the British in 1963 in his quest for a Malay empire spanning the mainland of Malaya, the British colonies of North Borneo and Serawak, Brunei and the Philipines. Megawati has displayed none of the fiery personae of her father and indeed Hassan Wirayuda tagged a conciliatory remark on to his "rhetorical " statement.
In its ruling the ICJ rejected claims by both countries that they had sovereignty over the two islands based on the treaties in the late 19th century by their respective colonial powers, Britain and the Netherlands. Instead, the Court ruled that Kuala Lumpur had shown that it had asserted authority over the islands, notably in the 1930's with several environment regulations, while Indonesia did not protest Malaysia actions until 1969. It was unclear why Indonesia failed to explain why it was seen late in presenting its argument of the island 's ownership, until Malaysia claimed the ownership of those islands.
The ruling came as a shock here, as some still do not believe that the country lost two islands to our immediate neighbor. Indonesia cannot hide its disappointment over the ICJ ruling as it ran contrary to the efforts of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Strong reaction over the Court decision came among others from legislators, arguing that the government has not been serious enough in defending its sovereignty over the islands. Some legislators even proposed to use their right of interpelation which in any case would not change the ICJ decision.
In an attempt to defend the government, Minister Hassan was reported as saying that the dispute was a legacy from the past administration and had gone through a long process that traversed the tenure of the four presidents. Thus, it is not fair to judge the process only at the end of the dispute. Though the defense was not meant to blame the previous government, it should not been seen as an excuse for the current government not to confess that it had diplomatically and legally failed to defend the islands.
Interestingly, when the government decided to have ICJ settle the dispute, there was already prediction that the chances of claiming the two islands were fifty-fifty, given that Indonesia has never been the owner of the islands. The court could not ignored the fact that the Indonesian Act No.4 of 1960, which drew up Indonesia's archipelagic baselines, and its accompanying map, did not indicate Sipadan and Ligitan as relevant baselines. Having said this, the court's decision to give the island to Malaysia should not come as a shock.
Now that Malaysia has won the case, Indonesia should not let itself sink deeper into sadness. This indeed has always been the psychological consequences of any court's ruling, namely either you are proved right or guilty, or entitled or not entitled to certain property. What is more important now is to accept, respect and implement the court decision as the decision resulted from a fair, transparent, responsible and dignified process.
Other steps to be taken by the government should include steps such as: (1) renegotiate the maritime boundaries so as to prevent this from becoming new source of conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia; (2) avoid hostile attitude when dealing with Malaysia on any regional issues, either in the bilateral or ASEAN framework; (3) approach the public in such away that would prevent the emergence of an anti-Malaysian sentiment, one that would certainly effect Indonesia-Malaysia bilateral relations and disturb the implementation process of the decision; and (4) cease whatever activities Indonesia has conducted on the islands, if any, to indicate cooperation in implementing the ICJ decision.
With no appeal to the court decision, we certainly cannot turn the clock back. The most important lesson we learned here is that we should exert physical sovereignty over the remaining 17.506 island, especially the inhibited ones. But this is not enough. Perhaps, a comprehensive review of our maps and treaties we have with foreign countries is imperative if we are to prevent similar disputes.
Our defeat would also tell the public of the fact that we have not given our best shot in our diplomacy in defending the territory. While our bilateral diplomacy with Malaysia failed to produce solution to the dispute, our struggle in the court process was not sufficiently backed up by convincing political and legal arguments. The loss of the islands was also a blow to the Indonesian national psyche, not least because the government has spent some Rp 17 billion over the last three years on an international team of legal experts.
The defeat should at least make our government more aware of the fact that defending our sovereignty over our thousands of islands is indeed a very expensive business, but it is necessary and is the responsibility of us all. It is more important now that we must continue to live peacefully with Malaysia as our immediate neighbors. Nevertheless the future of our relations with Malaysia can never be predicted, as both countries still have problems to be mutually settled.