Introduction
Indonesia is a tremendously important maritime state and a highly sought-after international partner. While Indonesia is eager to develop partnerships with the international community to help it reach its maritime potential, divergent interpretations of UNCLOS and conflicting priorities between Indonesia and status quo sea powers such as Australia and the United States may limit prospects for cooperation. These difference could even lead to conflict. They are deeply rooted in matters of national history, strategic culture and identity. They have flared into crisis in the past. While these international divergences have been successfully managed in recent years, a range of factors will likely make successful future management increasingly difficult. Policymakers and diplomats must understand the nuanced issues or else they are increasingly likely to inadvertently steer bilateral relationships into dangerous waters. This report documents those differences and the increasing challenges, and it suggests avenues to prevent these tension points from interfering with the positive trajectories of cooperation between Indonesia and states seeking to preserve regional maritime order, particularly Australia and the United States.
One of the areas of greatest divergence relates to freedom of navigation. Long before the establishment of UNCLOS, Indonesia’s ‘Archipelagic Outlook’ (Wawasan Nusantara)— which asserts that the sovereign state encompasses both land and sea territories—has regularly come into conflict with Western customary legal norms. Indonesian UNCLOS negotiators under the leadership of Professor Mochtar Kusumaatmadja and Ambassador Hashim Djalal secured a new basis for this outlook under international law, cementing waters within archipelagic baselines as archipelagic waters under the full sovereignty of Indonesia. Wawasan Nusantara is now a matter of Indonesia’s legal bedrock and national identity.
The major maritime states, including Australia and the United States, have consistently acknowledged and continually supported Indonesia’s archipelagic status. However, differing interpretations of specific elements of those rights are a point of divergence. Historically, those diverging views have created serious diplomatic frictions, escalating to crises in 1964, 1988 and 2003. Since then, these differences have been managed at the technical level (typically between naval officers) and generally isolated from broader international relationships. Now, emerging developments are creating conditions where friction points are increasingly likely to become politicised and jeopardise the generally positive trajectories of Indonesia’s relationship with the status quo sea power states. These development include improvements to Indonesia’s maritime domain awareness, Indonesia’s growing anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities, the proliferation of unmanned vessels, and Indonesia’s strategic reorientation toward the maritime domain.
This report explores the historical and strategic nature of the differences between Indonesia and the major maritime states, focusing on their differing views on freedom of navigation in archipelagic waters. It describes three historic cases where these divergences have flared to become diplomatic incidents, and it examines points of friction that could adversely impact Indonesia’s future relationships with status quo sea powers. It concludes with recommendations to the latter such that they may preserve their interests and advance cooperation with Indonesia while avoiding the elements of “navigation” issues that could otherwise shipwreck those relationships.
Read more here: