TheJakartaPost

Please Update your browser

Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.

Jakarta Post

Indonesia’s position on Beijing-Manila arbitration

An article written by China’s ambassador to Indonesia, Xie Feng, entitled “The dangerous arbitration of Beijing-Manila dispute” (The Jakarta Post, June 9) has revealed Beijing’s position on the upcoming decision by an arbitration initiated by the Phillipines

Hikmahanto Juwana (The Jakarta Post)
Jakarta
Fri, June 10, 2016

Share This Article

Change Size

Indonesia’s position on Beijing-Manila arbitration

A

n article written by China’s ambassador to Indonesia, Xie Feng, entitled “The dangerous arbitration of Beijing-Manila dispute” (The Jakarta Post, June 9) has revealed Beijing’s position on the upcoming decision by an arbitration initiated by the Phillipines. The arbitration is established under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS).

The article is written without any attribution that it is the personal view of Ambassador Xie Feng. For this reason, it should be inferred that the view in the article is the official view of the Chinese government.

The article argued that the arbitration initiated by the Phillipines was illegal and unilateral. For this reason, Beijing’s position prior to the arbitration decision is, in the words of Ambassador Xie, “China does not accept nor recognize the arbitration imposed by the Phillipines unilaterally and illegally.”

The ambassador then appeals to the international community, supposedly including Indonesia, to uphold justice and make joint efforts to stop the Phillipines from playing with fire.

For Indonesia, the article has consequences. This is because Indonesia has encountered two incidents this year whereby the Chinese government has asserted its claims of the “nine-dash-line” over Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

To date, Indonesia is not a claimaint country in the South China Sea conflicts. The reason is that China has not asserted its claims over Indonesia’s sovereignty and sovereign rights.

However, Indonesia has been concerned with the Chinese government’s claims of the “nine-dash-line”, whether the lines will go beyond Indonesia’s sovereign rights in the EEZ and continental shelf. Indonesia has sought clarification from the Chinese government over what it meant by the “nine-dash-line” as far back as when the late Ali Alatas was Indonesia’s foreign minister.

Without any avail, Indonesia has not received any reply and the Chinese government has avoided answering the question by saying China respects and does not have any claim over Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Nonetheless, the March 21 incident has made Indoensia more aware that China’s “nine-dash-line” overlaps with Indonesia’s EEZ. The incident occured when a Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Ministry vessel spotted a Chinese fishing boat illegally fishing within Indonesia’s 200- nautical mile EEZ off the Natuna Islands.

The boat, the Kway Fey, was seized and the crew taken into custody. As authorities towed the Kway Fey back to port, a Chinese coast guard vessel followed behind. At around midnight, just inside of Indonesia’s territorial waters, the coast guard ship rammed the fishing boat.

The second incident occurred only recently on May 27. The Indonesian Navy had detained a Chinese boat, Gui Bei Yu, after entering Indonesia’s EEZ. Again, off the Natuna Islands.

The Indonesian frigate Oswald Siahaan fired shots, which hit the stern of the fishing vessel after it ignored repeated warnings to stop. In the incident, the Chinese government protested the Indonesian government as the boat was fishing on China’s “traditional grounds”.

Based on the two incidents, one would assume that China had claims against Indonesia on the basis of the “nine-dash-line”.

Thus far, Indonesia has been playing an honest broker in the South China Sea conflicts as Indonesia has no overlapping claims against China and is not a claimant country over features in the South China Sea.

But this would change in the backdrop of the two recent incidents. Indonesia’s concern is that China may hamper companies granted concessions when they start exploring and exploiting the gas-rich Natuna D Alpha field.

Under President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s foreign policy, China’s stance in claiming that the nine-dashed-line passes through Indonesia’s EEZ and continental shelf will not be tolerated.

The free and active foreign policy must be understood as, “All nations are friends, until Indonesia’s sovereignty and sovereign rights is jeopardized.” During his visit to Japan in March 2015, President Jokowi made a bold statement over China’s claim of the “nine-dash-line”. He said China’s claim had no legal basis under international law.

As such, Indonesia cannot be counted on by the Chinese government, as ambassador Xie wrote, to make efforts to stop the Phillipines from playing with fire.

On the contrary, Indonesia should not stop the arbitration proceedings. This is because Indonesia is eager to hear what the arbitration has to say, in particular regarding one of the reliefs sought by the Phillipines. The Phillipines has asked the arbitration to declare that China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea based on its so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to UNCLOS and thus invalid

In that sense, the question that Jakarta has asked for many years to Beijing will finally be answered by the arbitration.

Until such decision is rendered, Indonesia should send a signal that China should not play fire with Indonesia by its unfounded claim of its nine-dash-line, as this would overlap with Indonesia’s EEZ and its continental shelf.
_____________________________

The writer is a professor of international law at the University of Indonesia.

{

Your Opinion Counts

Your thoughts matter - share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.

Enter at least 30 characters
0 / 30

Thank You

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.