T

he border issue between Indonesia and Malaysia in Camar Bulan, Tanjung Datu, has made its way into national headlines. In terms of popularity, the issue seemed to be competing with the Cabinet reshuffle.

Along with other documents, maps are always involved in explaining what is happening in such incidents. Interestingly, maps do not always serve their purpose to clarify issues. They may instead worsen the problem. Maps can be deceptive.

The use of maps in border issues reminds me of my experience teaching a group on Indonesians in a short course hosted by the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS) in Wollongong. I displayed a map depicting a shaded area of water around the Indonesian Archipelago and asked participants whose water this was. As anticipated, they said “Indonesia’s” and they were surprised when I said “No. At least, not yet.”

Indonesia, like other coastal countries, is entitled to a maritime zone of jurisdiction up to a certain limit. While generally Indonesia can define the outer limits of its maritime zone, in many locations the limits need to be settled by agreement with other countries.

While Indonesia has managed to agree upon various maritime boundaries with seven countries, many areas are still pending. The Malacca Strait is an example where maritime boundaries have yet to be settled between Indonesia and Malaysia.

It is worth noting that the legal regime of a seabed boundary (continental shelf) and water column (exclusive economic zone, or EEZ) boundaries are different. It is true that seabed boundaries have been settled in the Malacca Strait but not boundaries have been set for Indonesia’s EEZ. In other words, the seabed has been successfully divided but the division of the body of water has not been finalized.

Entitlements for oil and gas exploration and drilling purposes has been made clear, while entitlements for fishing remain unclear. Yes, very interesting indeed.

Lines in the Malacca Strait shown on a map are seabed boundaries. In addition, one may also see a different line showing a division of the water column in the Strait.

However, the line is not an agreed line but a unilaterally claimed line. On Indonesia’s map, the line is clear and may give an impression that EEZ boundaries have been settled. On Malaysia’s map, on the other hand, another line for another EEZ boundary can be found in the Malacca Strait.

Such maps also depict a unilaterally claimed line, not an agreed one. Should Indonesia’s map and Malaysia’s be overlaid, those unilaterally-claimed lines would certainly overlap. In fact, EEZ boundaries in the Malacca Strait are being negotiated by the two neighbors.

Maps can give us misleading impressions. A combination of points, lines, areas and colors can generate perceptions that are not necessarily reality. This is what map makers (cartographers) refer to as cartohypnosis: A map (carto) that has a hypnotic effect on those who use it. And the use of different projections, coordinate systems, references, datum, etc. can make things worse.

Why do countries draw border lines on their maps when such lines have not been agreed on? This is to confirm and strengthen their claims. What might an official (minister, president, etc.) say when someone asks about the status of area enclosed by such lines? One should not be surprised if the official says “it is undisputedly OUR territory or jurisdiction”.

A journalist usually quotes such statements and publishes it in the media, which is read by laymen. It is not very difficult to imagine if public are sometimes misled.

Similarly, in the case of Camar Bulan, Tanjung Datu, different lines indicating land borders can be found in different kinds of maps. Different maps can give different impressions regarding the Indonesia-Malaysia land borders.

Interestingly, not all of the maps that people should rely on are official. While one map depicts lines agreed on by Indonesia and Malaysia in the 1970s, other maps show proposals for other options of lines. Different parties may utilize different maps to support their position/opinions regarding border issues. Apparently, people can make use of cartohypnosis to serve their purposes.

To avoid unnecessary disagreement, one should only refer to an official map showing border situation between Indonesia and Malaysia, even though care must also be taken because cartohypnosis is always there.

In an international border area where a border has been successfully demarcated, a border map usually shows a neat firm line showing the division. This can also give the impression that borders between countries are a thin final line separating two nations.

In fact, this is not always the case. There is interaction among people in border areas and people’s movements may not always be dictated by border lines represented by pillars, monuments or walls.

It is worth noting that in a border area like Kalimantan (Borneo) people in Indonesia and Malaysia have similar cultures. They may have different personal ID cards but they may conduct mutual economic activities as if they belonged to one nation.

Borrowing Dave Lumenta’s argument, a conventional map often fails to represent the dynamic in border areas (Kompas, Oct. 18, 2011). This may mislead decision makers in designing and implementing a policy for border management. A neat line separating two countries on a border map should not prevent one from trying to understand both sides of the borders.

 Managing border areas will never be successful without understanding what happens on the other side of the fence. Questions on nationalism among people residing in border areas are irrelevant when the government fails to realize that its neighbor offers more prosperity than it currently provides.

Maps are certainly important in border management. However, one should know that cartohypnosis cannot be avoided and maps should be used wisely. At least we should also realize that relying on maps alone when it comes to sovereignty and sovereign rights in border areas is not the wisest decision to make.

The writer, a lecturer and researcher on boundary issues at the Department of Geodetic Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, is a doctoral degree candidate at the University of Wollongong, Australia. The views expressed are his own.