ID :
57412
Sat, 04/25/2009 - 11:46
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/57412
The shortlink copeid
News Focus: JOINT EXPLORATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES A BEST SOLUTION TO AMBALAT DISPUTE
By Eliswan Azly
Jakarta, April 23 (ANTARA) - Recent calls made by Malaysian Prime Minister Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Tun Abdul Razak for negotiations rather than imposing the two countries' own will to solve every problem including the issues on maritime boundary and Ambalat dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia during his two days visit to Jakarta had prompted some political observers to give a response.
The new Malaysian prime minister opined that the two neighboring countries had to resort to negotiations in solving their maritime boundary issue and Ambalat dispute harmoniously although it would take time.
However, such taking time as stressed by Prime Minister Najib during his visit to Indonesia was often seen as a prolonged process of wait-and-see position in solving a problem which should not exacerbate the close relations between the two countries, Makmur Keliat, director of the Center for East Asian Cooperation Studies, of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, the University of Indonesia, said recently.
According to Makmur, the most practical solutions could be immediately made by the two neighboring countries if they had a strong political will to solve it.
One of the solutions that could be considered would transform Ambalat from a zone of hostility to a zone of functional cooperation through which joint development could be arranged, for instance, by launching joint exploitation programs for the resources in the disputed area.
However, before arriving at this solution, the two countries would be required to shelve the issue of sovereignty in their talks and negotiations, he said.
In this regard, shelving the issue of sovereignty does not necessarily mean that both countries should nullify their claims to the disputed area. It simply means that they agree not to raise the issue during talks and negotiations.
The reason for this is actually very simple. Sovereignty is a very sensitive issue and most people in the two countries still consider sovereignty to be an indivisible commodity and, therefore, not up for negotiation. If sovereignty continues to be stressed, then it is most likely that the talks and negotiations will go nowhere.
Indonesia and Malaysia have reportedly decided to resolve their overlapping claims to Ambalat by peaceful means. There are a number of reasons why the decision to utilize diplomatic channels can be regarded as a positive step. The first relates to the fact that the two countries are "senior" members of ASEAN.
The image and future of ASEAN would be at stake if Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur refused to rely on regional norms to resolve interstate conflicts in Southeast Asia. In this regard, the emphasis placed by both the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and the ASEAN Security Community on peaceful conflict resolution could be utilized as an entry point for diplomatic negotiation.
Both Indonesia and Malaysia, particularly in diplomatic circles, needed to be aware that they had spent a lot of diplomatic energy on producing these two official documents, Makmur said.
"The question that needs to be answered by Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur now is what is ASEAN for if official documents released by the regional organization after holding a series of meetings cannot bind and regulate the behavior of its member countries," he said.
Conceptually, there is always a lot of leeway for disputing parties to enter negotiations in conflicts over natural resources in maritime territory compared to conflicts over the ownership of islands.
Moreover, stability was vital for oil companies to successfully run their business. Due to the need for huge capital investment and sophisticated technology, oil companies from the developed countries are bound to avoid investing in volatile areas, he said adding that there was a clear, tangible incentive, accordingly, both for Malaysia and Indonesia to deescalate the conflict over Ambalat with a view to attracting oil companies to exploit the resources in the area.
Makmur reiterated that joint oil exploitation in the disputed area needed a strong political will from the power elite of the two countries.
Sharing the opinion with Makmur is Dr Sofyan Siregar, a political analyst and lecturer at the European Islamic University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, who said that joint exploration of natural sources in the disputed area was never discussed during the meeting of both countries' heads of state.
As a matter of fact, the conflict over the Ambalat was bilateral in nature. There would be a lot of problems should Ambalat be a bone of contention of more than two countries as could be seen in the case of the territorial conflict over the Spratlys in the South China Sea, the multilateral nature of the dispute, where more than six countries are involved, was posing a major obstacle reaching a collective agreement, he said.
As to the Ambalat dispute, Sofyan said, there was a good opportunity for Indonesia and Malaysia to reach agreement on how to formulate steps and concrete measures necessary for a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
However, the dispute over the Ambalat has nothing to do with the identity of the two countries. Though the dispute could be categorized as a conflict over territorial sovereignty, the identity of Malaysia and Indonesia as sovereign nations would not be put in jeopardy if both countries were prepared to soften their positions during the negotiations.
This is certainly different from the case of Kashmir, for intance, which is a dispute between India and Pakistan. While the origin of the dispute over Kashmir at the very beginning was closely associated with the birth of two countries, the dispute over the Ambalat is absolutely free from this question.
"Therefore, both the central governments in Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta have wider latitude for adopting innovative measures to resolve the dispute peacefully," he said.
The failure to evolve peaceful dialogs could provide extra regional powers with an opportunity to manipulate the issue for their own regional political interests. Similarly, there is also the possibility that the resistance displayed by a number of political groups at domestic level, the so-called "hawks", is motivated by narrow political agendas.***
Jakarta, April 23 (ANTARA) - Recent calls made by Malaysian Prime Minister Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Tun Abdul Razak for negotiations rather than imposing the two countries' own will to solve every problem including the issues on maritime boundary and Ambalat dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia during his two days visit to Jakarta had prompted some political observers to give a response.
The new Malaysian prime minister opined that the two neighboring countries had to resort to negotiations in solving their maritime boundary issue and Ambalat dispute harmoniously although it would take time.
However, such taking time as stressed by Prime Minister Najib during his visit to Indonesia was often seen as a prolonged process of wait-and-see position in solving a problem which should not exacerbate the close relations between the two countries, Makmur Keliat, director of the Center for East Asian Cooperation Studies, of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, the University of Indonesia, said recently.
According to Makmur, the most practical solutions could be immediately made by the two neighboring countries if they had a strong political will to solve it.
One of the solutions that could be considered would transform Ambalat from a zone of hostility to a zone of functional cooperation through which joint development could be arranged, for instance, by launching joint exploitation programs for the resources in the disputed area.
However, before arriving at this solution, the two countries would be required to shelve the issue of sovereignty in their talks and negotiations, he said.
In this regard, shelving the issue of sovereignty does not necessarily mean that both countries should nullify their claims to the disputed area. It simply means that they agree not to raise the issue during talks and negotiations.
The reason for this is actually very simple. Sovereignty is a very sensitive issue and most people in the two countries still consider sovereignty to be an indivisible commodity and, therefore, not up for negotiation. If sovereignty continues to be stressed, then it is most likely that the talks and negotiations will go nowhere.
Indonesia and Malaysia have reportedly decided to resolve their overlapping claims to Ambalat by peaceful means. There are a number of reasons why the decision to utilize diplomatic channels can be regarded as a positive step. The first relates to the fact that the two countries are "senior" members of ASEAN.
The image and future of ASEAN would be at stake if Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur refused to rely on regional norms to resolve interstate conflicts in Southeast Asia. In this regard, the emphasis placed by both the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and the ASEAN Security Community on peaceful conflict resolution could be utilized as an entry point for diplomatic negotiation.
Both Indonesia and Malaysia, particularly in diplomatic circles, needed to be aware that they had spent a lot of diplomatic energy on producing these two official documents, Makmur said.
"The question that needs to be answered by Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur now is what is ASEAN for if official documents released by the regional organization after holding a series of meetings cannot bind and regulate the behavior of its member countries," he said.
Conceptually, there is always a lot of leeway for disputing parties to enter negotiations in conflicts over natural resources in maritime territory compared to conflicts over the ownership of islands.
Moreover, stability was vital for oil companies to successfully run their business. Due to the need for huge capital investment and sophisticated technology, oil companies from the developed countries are bound to avoid investing in volatile areas, he said adding that there was a clear, tangible incentive, accordingly, both for Malaysia and Indonesia to deescalate the conflict over Ambalat with a view to attracting oil companies to exploit the resources in the area.
Makmur reiterated that joint oil exploitation in the disputed area needed a strong political will from the power elite of the two countries.
Sharing the opinion with Makmur is Dr Sofyan Siregar, a political analyst and lecturer at the European Islamic University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, who said that joint exploration of natural sources in the disputed area was never discussed during the meeting of both countries' heads of state.
As a matter of fact, the conflict over the Ambalat was bilateral in nature. There would be a lot of problems should Ambalat be a bone of contention of more than two countries as could be seen in the case of the territorial conflict over the Spratlys in the South China Sea, the multilateral nature of the dispute, where more than six countries are involved, was posing a major obstacle reaching a collective agreement, he said.
As to the Ambalat dispute, Sofyan said, there was a good opportunity for Indonesia and Malaysia to reach agreement on how to formulate steps and concrete measures necessary for a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
However, the dispute over the Ambalat has nothing to do with the identity of the two countries. Though the dispute could be categorized as a conflict over territorial sovereignty, the identity of Malaysia and Indonesia as sovereign nations would not be put in jeopardy if both countries were prepared to soften their positions during the negotiations.
This is certainly different from the case of Kashmir, for intance, which is a dispute between India and Pakistan. While the origin of the dispute over Kashmir at the very beginning was closely associated with the birth of two countries, the dispute over the Ambalat is absolutely free from this question.
"Therefore, both the central governments in Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta have wider latitude for adopting innovative measures to resolve the dispute peacefully," he said.
The failure to evolve peaceful dialogs could provide extra regional powers with an opportunity to manipulate the issue for their own regional political interests. Similarly, there is also the possibility that the resistance displayed by a number of political groups at domestic level, the so-called "hawks", is motivated by narrow political agendas.***
