SIPADAN-LIGITAN DISPUTE : IMPLICATIONS FOR MALAYSIA-INDONESIA RELATIONS

Abstract

One of the primary motivations for this study is the rise of bilateral island disputes in the international arena. The island dispute between United Arab Emirates and its larger neighbour Iran over the "Abu Musa" isle when Iran effectively annexed in March 1992 is a case in point. Similarly, the Etorofu and Kunashiri dispute between Russia and Japan has re-ignited. Also, Malaysia's dispute with Singapore over Batu Putih adds to the list of bilateral disputes. While the disputes over Spratlys and Paracels encounter more than one claimant, the above mentioned have only two claimants. In this respect, it is interesting to note that the Sipadan-Ligitan dispute belongs to the family of bilateral disputes. The main concern therefore is to investigate the conflicting claims, the conflicting motives and the conflicting approaches to the dispute, thereby arriving at conclusions that would widen the understanding of bilateral disputes. The history of the Sipadan-Ligitan dispute dates back to the colonial era. In 1969, the Malaysian and Indonesian administrations which formed the General Border Committee(GBC) to delimit the territorial boundary between Kalimantan and Eastern Malaysia, discussed the issue of the island dispute and agreed to maintain the status quo. In 1985, General (Ret),Leonardus Benny Moeerdani, the Minister of Defense and Security, raised the issue of the dispute during Dr. Mahathir's ( Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs) visit to the Natuna Islands. Earlier in 1982, there was an Indonesian public furore over newspaper reports which indicated that Malaysia's troops were on the Sipadan isle. This issue was discussed and an accord was reached to maintain the status quo of the island pending further negotiations. Both Dr. Mahathir and President Gen. (Ret.) Soeharto of Indonesia, consented to maintain the agreement made in 1969 and 1982 during the 1988 bilateral visit in Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. Despite the agreement, Malaysia had developed the island as a divers' haven and a bird sanctuary by 1990. After repeated ‘reminders' by the Indonesian government to halt the development initiatives, a call for the resolution of the long-standing dispute began in June 1991. The situation however became more critical as was manifested in the unscheduled visit to Jakarta by the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Ghafar Baba as a special representative of Dr. Mahathir on July 27, 1991. This was further evidenced in the Indonesian Commander of Armed Forces ,General Try Sutrisino's comment that the dispute " should not be turned into a confrontation between the two countries." Indicating the possibility and the attendant potentiality of the dispute to become a second confrontation, a Joint Commission was then quickly formalized in July 1991 to resolve the conflicting claims. The academic exercise will thus focus on conflict phenomenon. The framework of discussion would be Malaysian-Indonesian relations, examining the principles and security frameworks. The argument presented in this dissertation is two fold. The first is the question of employing force as a resolution strategy and the impact or implications of the dispute for bilateral security. Secondly, from a larger perspective, the dispute has significant importance for bilateral relations as a whole. The perception that the dynamics of Malaysian-Indonesian relations serving as the "kingpin paving the way for the development of the highly desirable grouping that is ASEAN" by a former Malaysian Foreign Minister, Ghazali Shafie and scholars like Bernard Gordon, Michael Antolik bespeaks of the importance of the relationship. Malaysia and Indonesia had experienced an era of confrontation and subsequently an era of cooperation since independence. The lessons of the Confrontation had shaped the nature of Malaysian-Indonesian relations. It is often characterized as an abang-adik relationship by Indonesia, while oth11rs have characterized it as a "love affair." Having had experienced twenty-six years of cooperation, the Sipadan-Ligitan dispute represents an abberration, hence the need to examine the conflict situation. There exists however very little literature on the dispute. Apart from newspaper reports, there has been no major writing on this dispute. The approach undertaken by the researcher is to firstly examine the background of the dispute prior to its re-ignition in May 1991 (Chapter I) ; scrutinizing the reasons for the re-emergence (Chapter II); the management of the dispute in (Chapter III) and the implications of the dispute for bilateral relations (Chapter IV). The method of research includes primary sources, interviews with individuals of key institutional inputs to the government decision making bodies. Secondly, other sources consulted range from primary sources like press statements, interviews, autobiographies, and policy statements from both countries, to secondary sources which include, dissertations, journals, articles, books, Country Reports and Occassional Papers. Hence this attempt at understanding the conflict situation would, I hope, contribute to a greater understanding of the dynamics beneath the conflict phenomenon.