Over the last several years, the IMO has regularly issued warnings about the threat of piracy in the strait, claiming that the majority of pirate attacks take place in Indonesian waters rather than the waters of other littoral states. With increasing terrorist activities in the region, it is understandable that fears about security in this vital sea-lane have greatly increased. Therefore, when Indonesia hosts the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its Ministerial Meeting (AMM) on June 29 and June 30, and later the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), security in the Strait of Malacca is likely to be one of the hottest issues under discussion.
International concern over security threats in the strait was also a central issue during the three-day international conference on Asia in Singapore that ended on Sunday. Indonesia itself adopted a low profile during the conference, though it did propose an ASEAN maritime security cooperation forum to handle the issue. The protocol of the meeting states "Indonesia recognized the legitimate interests of other countries in the safety and security of the Straits and was willing to accommodate and engage them."
Singapore proposed the idea of U.S. Marines helping to patrol the vital waterway. Malaysia is against a physical U.S. military presence. In the words of Malaysia's Defense Minister Najib Razak on Tuesday, "Malaysia believes it is always positive for us to have shared responsibilities. But this shared responsibility must not be at the expense of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the littoral states."
Knowing the sensitivities in Indonesia and Malaysia over sovereignty issues, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his speech at the forum was very cautious in suggesting the possible involvement of U.S. troops in securing the strait, but made it clear that US has strategic interests in the channel.
How should Indonesians react to Singapore's stance and to the strong possibility of a U.S. presence in providing security in the strait? Some Indonesian officials felt annoyed when Singapore indicated its support for a stronger U.S. presence in the region several weeks ago, arguing that the island state was only thinking about its own interests, without considering those of its neighbors. Singapore was using the terrorist threat as a tool to justify the presence of foreign forces in the region, these particular officials alleged.
There always has been strong public support in Indonesia for the rejection of the presence of foreign military forces in this region, as it was feared that they would endanger the sovereignty of the regional states and destabilize their domestic politics, besides possibly provoking a hostile response. However, we must remember that Singapore is a sovereign state that has the right to defend its own national interests -- although it is probably also right to say that officials in that tiny but prosperous city state may sometimes fail to take into account the sensitivities of its larger but poorer neighbors when it backs policies that could also affect them.
The Strait of Malacca is an international waterway and safe passage is guaranteed by international law. Therefore, we cannot just say that only Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have the right to deal with any problems concerning it.
Indonesia cannot refuse a foreign military presence there without showing convincing evidence that it is capable of securing the waterway, along with the other two littoral states. It is indeed unpleasant to hear that Indonesia is currently not only unable to combat rampant piracy and robbery in its part of the strait, but that it has also become a source of security threats there and, to a certain extent, also the wider region.
The prolonged insurgency in Aceh poses a direct threat to security in the strait, with arms and commodity smuggling by the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) frequently occurring. The Indonesian Navy has for years complained that it desperately needs more equipment and money to combat piracy in the Strait of Malacca.
Therefore, we have no choice but to accept international cooperation to secure the waterway. The question is, what form of cooperation would be acceptable? We cannot merely revert to nationalistic jargon in refusing the presence of foreign forces in the strait while failing to carry out our own responsibility to secure this vital maritime route.
