jurnalisafis+2013+(www.isafis.org)

7/22/2019 JURNALISAFIS+2013+(Www.isafis.org)

1/81i

JURNALISAFISKumpulan Tulisan Inspiratif dari Anak Bangsa

TowardsASEAN

Community2015

ASEAN Political Security Community

ASEAN Economic Community

ASEAN Socio Cultural Community

Contributors:

Lukman OesmanISAFIS President

2012

Kanyadibya C.PUniversitas Brawijaya

Steven Y PolhaupessyUniversitas Moestopo

(Beragama)

Mufalia NurfitrianiUniversitas Bina Nusantara

Monica AgnesUniversitas Indonesia

Kevin TanUniversitas Parahyangan

Gineng PratidinaPermana Sakti

Universitas Indonesia-ISAFIS Member

Gregorius Rinaldo Perdana

Universitas Airlangga


2/81ii

ISAFIS is a Non-prot student organization, which consists of students fromvarious universities in Indonesia, particularly in JABODETABEK (Jakarta, Bo-gor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi) such as University of Indonesia, Pelita Hara-

pan University, Bina Nusantara University, etc.

ISAFIS was established in February 14, 1984. At that time, the name of theassociation was International Student Association (ISA) of Indonesia. The

development from time to time insisted ISA of Indonesia to assert its exist-ence. On March 26, 1986, was added into ISA of Indonesia and thereforeadjusted its name into Indonesian Student Association for International

Studies (ISAFIS).

The mission of ISAFIS itself is to promote mutual understanding amongnations particularly between Indonesia and other countries and developingInternational studies among students and youth in Indonesia. The objec-

tive is to enhance interest and knowledge of Indonesian students and youthin international studies. ISAFIS believed that mutual understanding is oneof the corner stone to create better and more peaceful world. ISAFIS has

received recognition for its contribution in promoting mutual understandingamong nations from Javier Perez De Acquellar, Secretary General for United

Nations, who endowed ISAFIS with Peace Messenger Award in 1987. Untilnow ISAFIS is a non-governmental organization associated with the UnitedNations Department of Public Information (DPI).

About ISAFIS


3/81iii

Susunan Redaksi

JURNALISAFISPemimpin Umum : Rizki Amelia Fitriyani

Penanggung Jawab : Maya Susanti

Ketua Editor : Egalita Irfan

Editor Pelaksana : Colley WindyaLayout : Arya Satya Nugraha

Administrasi : Malinda Damayanti

Publikasi : Elda Claudia

: Alifia Firliani

Launching : Chaula Rininta

: Radiv Annaba

: Ilman Dzikri


4/81iv

Greetings!

Indonesian Students Association for International Studies (ISAFIS) is a student

non-prot organization that concerns in international studies. ISAFIS has stood for

more than 29 years as a student organization in Indonesia, with members coming

from various universities in Jakarta and around. Carrying its name, ISAFIS missions

are to develop understanding on international issues among youth in Indonesia andto eventually promote mutual understanding among nations.

As a consequence of our consistent missions, ISAFIS believes one of the steps

to achieve that mission is to empower youth and to take a part of the process.

Therefore, ISAFIS is extracting its missions to some programs consisted of discussions

on international issues held with the government, embassies and NGOs and also

some other program to develop its member skill and interest in international issues.

Throughout the programs, ISAFIS progressively develop the interest of its member

on international issues. In line with that, this year, ISAFIS tries to extend the result

of its discussions into an academic writing. We nally decided to compile it in form ofa journal along with some essays from students coming from all over Indonesia. By

launching this program, we hope Indonesian student will be more brave in delivering

and in elaborating their thoughts in order to be heard by all the stakeholders. This is

our rst journal, but we aim to make it continue with improvement in the future.

Finally, I would like to congratulate all the member of ISAFIS, JURNALISAFIS

team and contributors for all the hardworks and cooperation during the process of

producing this journal. Thank you for nally send this journal to you. I also would

like to extend my appreciation to all parties that support us. We do believe, a good

cooperation must be the key to develop international studies in Indonesia, and nally

reach the noble vision to promote mutual understanding among nations.

Maya Susanti

ISAFIS President 2013

Remarks


5/81v

Menyongsong 46 tahun terbentuknya ASEAN, begitu banyak hal yangtelah dilakukan dan berdampak baik bagi keberlangsungan Asia Tengga-

ra. Beragam bentuk keputusan dan tindakan yang dilakukan secara nyatamemberikan benang merah antara segi politik, keamanan, ekonomi, sos-ial dan budaya. Tindakan nyata tersebut merupakan cara yang dilakukanuntuk menghadapi beragam tantangan yang ada. Berkaca dari cetak biruyang telah ada, maka keberadaan komunitas ASEAN menjadi sebuah pijakanyang jelas, jawaban atas permasalahan yang ada. Dari sinilah, maka real-isasi komunitas ASEAN 2015 adalah sebuah hal yang tidak dapat terelakkan.

Berlandaskan atas Piagam ASEAN yang berlaku pada 15 Desem-ber 2008, maka terdapat instrumen hukum dan kerangka kerja yanglegal dan berorientasi pada rakyat. Melalui Piagam ASEAN tersebut,kerjasama ASEAN diharapkan dapat lebih kuat, integratif, mudah beradap-tasi dengan beragam tantangan dan perubahan, serta berwawasan pro-gresif dan futuristik dengan terbentuknya Komunitas ASEAN 2015.

Selain Piagam ASEAN, seperti yang telah dijelaskan pada paragraf sebe-lumnya, terdapat cetak biru yang merupakan road map pembentukan komuni-tas ASEAN 2015. Terdapat tiga pilar Cetak Biru yang digunakan dalam pemben-tukan Komunitas ASEAN 2015, yaitu Cetak Biru Komunitas Politik KeamananASEAN (ASEAN Political- Security Community Blueprint), Cetak Biru KomunitasSosial Budaya ASEAN (ASEAN Socio- Cultural Community Blueprint), dan Ce-tak Biru Komunitas Ekonomi ASEAN (ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint).

Keterlibatan seluruh komponen di Asia Tenggara yang tergabungdalam upaya realisasi Komunitas ASEAN 2015 adalah sebuah keharusan.Mulai dari kesiapan masyarakat dari masing- masing negara hingga pen-ingkatan solidaritas maupun efektivitas dari kerjasama antar negara. Halini pada akhirnya guna menciptakan keseimbangan dalam perkembanganekonomi, politik, keamanan, sosial, pengetahuan, teknologi maupun budaya.

Dari upaya- upaya dalam keterlibatan tersebut, maka di Indone-sia sendiri sebagai salah satu bagian dari anggota ASEAN, telah men-gupayakan beberapa hal demi sosialisasi kebijakan Komunitas ASEAN2015 dengan memberikan berbagai bentuk informasi ASEAN kepada ma-syarakat. Hal ini dilakukan melalui berbagai macam bentuk kegiatan, yai-tu adanya ceramah, diskusi maupun seminar. Beberapa kegiatan yangtelah dilaksanakan seperti pembanguan ASEAN Study Center di be-berapa perguruan tinggi, pemilihan duta muda ASEAN- Indonesia, pe-nyuluhan kepada siswa sekolah dengan kegiatan ASEAN Goes to School.

Dari berbagai bentuk kegiatan ini, beberapa sasaran yang ditu-

ju oleh ASEAN terlihat jelas, yaitu kalangan akademis. Namun, be-lum keseluruhan mendapatkan penyuluhan maupun informasi men-genai kerjasama ASEAN, Komunitas ASEAN 2015, bahkan mengenaiASEAN itu sendiri. Jurnal ini berusaha untuk menyajikan beberapa tu-lisan yang memberikan perhatian terhadap kesiapan dan persiapan Indo-nesia dalam menyongsong Komunitas ASEAN 2015 yang tinggal setahunlagi. Semoga tulisan- tulisan dalam JURNALISAFIS ini bermanfaat bagi in-san di Indonesia dalam proses pembentukan Komunitas ASEAN 2015.

Rizki Amelia F

Manager of Journal Research

Research and Development Division

Remarks


6/81vi

CONT

ENTS

APSC

Ideological Rifts and Democracy Prospects

in ASEAN Community 2015Lukman Oesman................................................................2

Indonesia, ASEAN & PemberantasanIllegal FishingKanyadibya C.P.........................................................................11

Indonesias Geopolitics toward the Malacca Straits:

Regional SecurityComplexSteven Y Polhaupessy............................................................22

Kepingan Bernilai yang Mampu MengakselerasiTerwujudnya APSC 2015Mufalia Nurfitriani.....................................................................33


7/81vii

AECPath of Regionalism in ASEANtowards the Economic Community 2015:The Implementation of Initiative ASEAN Integration

Work Plan I & II in Narrowing The Development GapMonica Agnes.................................................................................................39

Peran Keterbukaan Media dan Informasi Indonesiaterhadap Pembentukan AEC 2015Kevin Tan............................................................................................................45

Refleksi Menuju Era Baru Ekonomi Transregional:Menilik Kesiapan AEC di Masa DepanGineng Pratidina Permana Sakti..............................................................53

The Transformation of Private SectorTowards Gold Indonesia :The Establishment of CSR Supervisory Board

In 2015 Free Market ASEAN,Is it Essentially Needed?Gregorius Rinaldo Perdana.............................................63

ASCC


8/811

ASEANPOLITICALSECURITYCOMMUNITY

Source: http://cdn.asiancorrespondent.com/


9/812

Ideological Rifts and Democracy Prospects

in ASEAN Community 2015

Lukman Oesman

Abstract

This journal discusses the potential inuenceof the ASEAN Charter signing in 2007 towards

the political dynamics in its member countries.This study uses qualitative methods to explainthe behaviour of political actors in the processof signing and entry into force of the ASEANCharter in the context of the democracy prac-tice in ASEAN. ASEAN Charter which was signedin 2007 included the values of democracy andhuman rights as the identity and responsibilityof each member state, while on the other handnot all member countries, particularly Myan-mar, has a unied view of the two values. Thisstudy has found that the Charter has to facewith divided views on democracy and humanrights among the member countries. This divi-sion occurs even though, through the ASEANCharter, ASEAN wish to extend its internationallegitimacy as a resilient democratic region.

ISAFIS President 2012

JURNALISAFISKumpulan Tulisan Inspiratif dari Anak Bangsa APSC 2015


10/813

Forty years since its foundation, November 2007 marks for the rst time

ASEAN has its own charter as the organizations constitution. The so called ASEAN

Charter has been ratied by all ten member countries of ASEAN and has been put

into force since December 2008. It works as a legal constitution, and is binding toall the member countries. It is a document that based on its functions and level of

attachment, for the rst time being held by ASEAN. As a constitution, the ASEAN

Charter also marks the rst time that ASEAN has a legal identity. Such a move has

been essential in bringing ASEAN closer to its main goal towards one community of

Southeast Asian countries, an ambition that has been declared since 2002.

The charter includes what has been a long avoided issue in ASEAN: democ-

racy and human rights. It shows an effort from ASEAN to create a democratic

environment within the organization. Such environment is no longer seen as aninternational environment, but more as an integrated community of nations. As

these values came into force within the ASEAN Charter, it also works as a basic

legal rule for the ASEAN Political Community. As what being mentioned in the char-

ter as the purposes of ASEAN is to ensure that the peoples and Member States of

ASEAN live in peace with the world at large in a just, democratic and harmonious

environment.1

As a consequence of the entry of these values in the charter, the pressure on

ASEAN to ensure the implementation of these values became stronger. Specicallyon the issue of democracy and human rights, ASEAN has a lot of problems inviting

pressure from the international community. One of most pressing issues for ASEAN

is Myanmars military junta autocratic governments with poor records on human

rights protection of its citizens. This issue is often used as an excuse to marginalize

the efforts of ASEAN in the international world.

Pressure is emerging when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, called

the country, Burma, as a tyrant along with countries such as Iran , Cuba , and

North Korea.2The position of ASEAN as a regional organization in which Myanmaris a member, made ASEAN cannot escape from international pressure. Rices suc-

cessor, Hillary Clinton even called for ASEAN to think to expel Myanmar from the

membership of the organization.3Furthermore, the United States and EU imposed

economic sanctions on Myanmar. The economic sanctions greatly inhibit the ambi-

tion behind the formationof ASEAN economic community.

1 to ensure that countries in the region live at peace with one another and with the world at largein a just, democratic and harmonious environment.. See 2003 Declaration of ASEAN Concord II,http://cil.nus.edu.sg/2003/2003-declaration-of-asean-concord-ii-signed-on-7-october-2003-in-bali-indonesia-

by-the-heads-of-stategovernment/.2 Rice targets 6 outposts of tyranny, The Washington Post, January 19th, 2005, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/19/20050119-120236-9054r/?page=all,3 Clinton says ASEAN should consider Myanmars expulsion, ChannelNewsasia.com, 22 Juli 2009,http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacic/view/444045/1/.html,



11/814

Thus, in order to strive for the achievement of the ASEAN community am-

bitions, ASEANs credibility needed it to be able to be revived as a democratic

political community by encouraging its member countries to abide by the values

of democracy and human rights. ASEAN needs to show its face as a democraticregional organization with political stability through the implementation of demo-

cratic values. The state of affairs in a number of ASEAN countries has shown an

opposite reality. This turn to be fact especially with Myanmars conditions that can

be said is the worst compared to other ASEAN countries in terms of stability and

democratic practice. Myanmar since 1962 continues alternately ruled by a military

junta regime. Starting with the results of the coup government of General Ne Win

called as Burma Socialist Program Party.

Based on this background, this study tries to focus on how the ASEAN Char-ter effects the political interaction in its member countries. Author tries to assess

on how ASEAN Charter as an international law that binds ASEAN member coun-

tries, can create conditions that greatly affect the member states. This is especially

due to the signing of the ASEAN Charter that indicate a stronger commitment to

make ASEAN as an organization that is based on its own legal identity. This means

a process of integration into one community of people has been the core process

of the programme.

With the strengthening of the integration process, the alignments of policiesthat reinforced the norms and shared values become very important. With democ-

racy and protection of human rights written in the Charter as norms and values,

then the alignment of the political system among the member states will determine

the success of the 2015 communitys formation. This alignment is vital, especially

in order to achieve a democratic face of the ASEAN organization itself. The fact that

currently the democracy and human rights outlook is still very heterogeneous in

ASEAN countries has become the obstacles for ASEAN to be dealt with. ASEANs

inability to nd a consensus on the value of democracy and human rights itself,makes alignment has the potential to be the source of division and political insta-

bility and security.

Based on that condition, the presence of international law has a direct con-

tact with the political life of a country, especially on the sustainability of the po-

litical system and the posture of the power relations in a country. Legal position

has the potential to be a moral force that can push political change in a country.

International law such as the Charter thus has the ability to become one of the

pressing forces for political power in its member countries. This of course, has tobe relied on the commitment of each country in implementing this law. Political

compromises and differing views on various issues will be very dominant on this



12/815

trip. Looking at the fact that the ASEAN Way still progressing with its swept un-

der the carpet diplomacy, it seems like political compromises will be far from any

progressive changes.

Therefore, this study is based on the underlying assumptions as follows.First, the ASEAN Charter along with the idea of community is based on the primary

motivation for improving the image of ASEAN in the international world. Second,

diplomacy culture in ASEAN which is still focusing on promoting political stability

and security with strict principle of state sovereignty has made minor transitional

reforms on politics to be the only way that ASEAN desired. Third, the Charter

addressed by ASEAN countries to meet both the expectations and hence makes

political change in ASEAN countries must be run in accordance with the rst two

assumptions.

Ideological Rifts and the Making of the ASEAN Charter

In what has become a confession of Tommy Koh, one of the members of the

HLTF, a high level team being tasked to drafting the charter, differences of opin-

ion in terms of democracy and human rights has led ASEAN countries divided into

three groups during the charter s drafting. The rst group consists of countries

that were so actively and rmly pushed on the submission of the values of de-

mocracy and human rights to be applied more thoroughly, namely Indonesia and

Thailand. The second group was those who opposed the use of democratic values

and human rights as a whole, namely Cambodia, Vietnam, Lao PDR, and Myanmar.

While the third groups, are countries that chose its position as a mediator such as

the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei.4

In the later progress throughout the drafting process, Cambodia, Myanmar,

Lao PDR, and Vietnam always stood on the same position. All four have already

been known as a sub-group within ASEAN known as CLMV, due to its similarity ofeconomic conditions and political ideology. These four countries strictly, in discuss-

ing the issue of the protection of human rights, have always disagreed with the

other six countries. They often used the terms, consensus and non-interference as

their fortresses.

Aung Bwa, HLTF members representing Myanmar, saying that the Charter

should be an appropriate document for each member state, strengthen friendship

and a sense of togetherness, oriented towards the future, bold, but not too ambi-

tious. Aung Bwa was not even hesitate to write that he used a lot of the word ofconsensus and debate in group discussions conning HLTF. Bwa said the two words

were used to protect the national interests of Myanmar. Bwas statements seem to

4 See Tommy Koh, The Making of The ASEAN Charter,



13/816

cause more benet for the military government instead of Myanmars people. In

line with his other statements, Bwa issued a statement loud enough to call coun-

tries that promote human rights should not act as a saint and pretend to be holier

than a pope. Bwa even added that the human rights mechanism that is able toavoid the commission form, as his success in negotiating. So it is clear then that

the attitude of Myanmar in this formulation is very hard to contain points that are

considered harmful to the political interests of the military junta.

This further reects the existence of signicant differences among the six

ASEAN countries that are relatively more advanced, with four Indochina coun-

tries that are relatively still lagging behind both economically and socio-politically.

It also represents the CLMV countries ways in dening security threats that still

focusing on the external and internal threats of a military nature. A different per-spective compared to the perceptions shared by the other six countries. Political

stability then, were cautiously being overlooked by the CLMV countries. Therefore

the protection of human rights is not listed in their top priority.

Tommy Koh also added that in the formulation of the ASEAN Charter by the

HLTF , high blood pressure and repeated loud debate among the group of coun-

tries such as Indonesia, Thailand , and the Philippines with the four countries of

Indochina. Divergence even more tapered to both groups chose to gather in two

different rooms.

From all of the arguments raised in the formulation of the ASEAN Charter,

political differences reinforce what is believed to be the ideological rifts among the

ASEAN countries. Such a view was conrmed by Pradap Pibulsonggram, HLTF rep-

resentative of Thailand in the group. Pradap recognize that ideological rift among

the ASEAN countries has been around since long. Pradap even more specic by

saying that the composition resulted from the joining of the new states (CLMV) had

widened the rift.

The Democratic Origins in Southeast Asia

However, despite the differences of opinion among the six ASEAN countries

with the CLMV countries upon the idea of democracy and protection of human

rights, the actual condition that occurs is not as simple as that. In a data released

by Freedom House in 2012, among all of the governments in ASEAN countries,

only Indonesia is categorized as free. While other ASEAN countries are still being

ranked as partly free and not free. What can be describes from the FreedomHouse data shows that the state of democracy among the ASEAN countries are

still varies. Then it becomes difcult to see how the shared values and norms of



14/817

democracy and human rights can be run in harmony.

Table 2.1 World Freedom Index 2012

Bru-

nei

Phil-

ippines

In-

donesia

Cam-

bodia

Lao

PDR

Rate 5.5 3.0 2.5 5.5 6.5

Not

Free

Not

Free

Not

Free

Ma-

laysia

Sin-

gapore

Thai-

land

Viet-

nam

Rate 4.0 6.5 4.0 4.0 6.0

Not

Free

Part-

ly Free

Not

Free

*Myanmar in this data is still referred to as Burma.

Data processed by the author from the website of Freedom Househttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012

These conditions cannot be separated from the condition since the begin-

ning of Southeast Asian countries independence. Political and democratic patternsthat occur in this region do not correspond to what the general view of the the -

ories of democracy or democratization. Bridget Welsh explained that the coun-

tries in Southeast Asia have shown deviations from the theory of development

and democracy. By citing Barrington Moore, Walter Rostow, and Adam Przeworski,

Welsh shows how the relationship between development and democracy which

are being promoted by those three scholars, do not applied in Southeast Asian

countries.5With Brunei and Singapore as the countries with the highest level of

prosperity in Southeast Asia, these two countries shows no intention to opening

tap for more democracy. While democratic countries such as Indonesia, Thailand,

and the Philippines, despite continue to grow economically, still unable to climb out

from a middle-size economy.

Welsh concluded that undemocratic regime development in Southeast Asia were

able to ourish thanks to the authoritarian characteristics of the stability-oriented

middle class and higher sensitivity of economic class rather than ethnic issues,

so that the middle class is not a key driver for the democratization in accordance

with earlier theories. Characteristics of the middle class is also heavily inuenced

by the ideology of development in the countries that make the country has such a5 Bridget Welsh, Unexpected Trajectories and Connections: Regime Change, Democratization andDevelopment in Southeast Asia, dalam Ann Marie Murphy dan Bridget Welsh. Legacy of Engagement inSoutheast Asia.Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, SIngapura, 2008.



15/818

dominant position in the economy. Such condition makes the middle class become

very dependent on the governments dominant positions. Welsh added that the

patrimonial and elitist nature of politics in Southeast Asia is supporting the middle

class to nurture such characteristics.6

However, Welshs conclusions above are not intended to deny that democrati-

zation is happening in a number of countries in Southeast Asia. It shows that there

is a justication of the earlier theories of democratization, such as Indonesia which

has its democratization process sourced from the nancial crisis that provoked a

mass action that manage to topple down Soeharto. But Welshs conclusion is still

relevant, especially when we take the example of democratization in Indonesia,

democracy in the Philippines and Thailand which is hard to prove that develop-

ment, especially in economic development, required further democratization as itsprecondition.

Welshs explanations may provide a signicant overview on what is happen-

ing in the South East Asia countries. Question regarding the precedence of devel-

opment over democracy is something that always a part of Southeast Asia political

system. Countries in this region since the beginning of their independence believed

that both of these cannot be combined in the implementation process. Not surpris-

ingly then countries with economies that are still lagging behind, such as Myanmar,

Cambodia, and Lao PDR are showing a great hesitation to embrace democracy asa whole.

These problems have been the source of a very minimalist view on democ-

racy in various countries of ASEAN. With the underlying legitimacy on economic

performance and socio-economic development always being prioritized, political

development through increased public participation were often forgotten. View of

democracy was not accompanied by a sense of political freedom. Political freedom

and democracy appear as something that is not compatible toward each other.

Both of them are considered different and are not seen as the two eyes of a coin,but rather as something that is truly distinguished.

It was started with the terms Asian Values promoted by Lee Kuan Yew and

Mahathir Muhammad. Both reject liberal democracy with the underlying argument

based on cultural relativity in Southeast Asia. In what is known as Lee Kuan Yews

view that society should take precedence rather than the individual. A similar view

was adopted by many rulers in Southeast Asia. Governments in Southeast Asian

countries too, although not in its entirety but the majority are still reluctant to rec-

ognize the universality of human rights. Views which later on were conrmed bythe argument rose in the process of drafting the ASEAN Charter.

6 Ibid.



16/819

In these conditions illiberal democracy can grow signicantly in ASEAN coun-

tries. Illiberal democracy means that democracy is not always embraced along with

liberalism views, but instead embraced differently. Countries such as Singapore

and Malaysia, from what Fareed Zakaria explained, categorized as a semi-demo-

cratic nations. Despite their semi-democratic status, both of these two countries

are actively implementing liberal idea in economic policy and trade. On the other

hand in the countries like CLMV, the claims of democracy are paired with socialist

economic ideology, which unfortunately does not mean the government has the

necessary capacity to build the country.

Therefore, the problems and questions about democracy or development

will continue to be the leading questions about democracy in ASEAN countries.

Countries such as Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam, by looking at theexperience of its more advanced neighbouring countries, will always be recalled

by the same questions in their development process. Not only in the view of de-

mocracy, but also look at things such as the issues of political freedom and human

rights protection. So it is normal to consider the same view that saying minimalist

democracy is still prevail in the majority of ASEAN countries.

This further complicates the problem of what has been the main reason

behind the creation of the Charter, the problems of political identity. The issue of

democracy and protection of human rights become very problematic when existingconditions are not in line with the ideals that the Charter dreamt about. ASEANs

translation for democracy and human rights has yet to reach a common view. From

what has been discussed previously in the drafting process of the charter, democ-

racy proposal that rst submitted by Indonesia since 2003 in the security commu-

nity, was being avoided to mention any specic reference to the ASEAN democratic

agenda. Democratic practice then are only limited to conditions such as elections,

the implementation of good governance, strengthening the judiciary, and to pro-

mote the protection of human rights. It also has to face the opposition from manyASEANs stakeholders.

ASEAN as a Democratic Region, a Long Way to Go?

In this study, we have found that democracy is important for ASEAN at least

for several reasons. First, ASEAN has its own desire to improve its image in the

international world. Second, political stability through democratization has become

imperative in order to maintain the stability of the region. Third, the economic

interest of the ASEAN region requires a more open but also stable under these

changes. Fourth, the ambition for ASEAN integration requires member states to

be able to harmonize the political system to make it more stable and sustainable.



17/8110

At this situation, the impact of the ASEAN Charter start to has its effect.

ASEAN countries see the condition of this organization as in need of a change

and transformation that can improve the performance and credibility of the orga-

nization. ASEAN by this charter starts to realize the importance to create a legalidentity with the norms and values to govern the behaviour of member countries,

in which democracy and protection of human rights appears to be the norms and

values in this charter.

However, dramatic and quick changes will only make ASEAN trapped in a dy-

namic that is even more dangerous. Without being accompanied by political stabil-

ity, economic development and ASEAN cooperation is threatened, bearing in mind

the experience of the nancial crisis in 1997 has given a very important lesson for

ASEAN countries. ASEAN emphasis on political stability make transitional changesis the only way that can be achieved in making ASEAN a more democratic region.

Then certainly it took a long time for ASEAN to be able to run as what has been

mandated by the ASEAN Charter.

However, it does not means that the Charter is without any inuence. Effect

of this charter at least has started to show on how the Charter works as the moral

force in ensuring the dynamics that occur in member countries including Myanmar,

to constantly adjust to the contents of the charter. In order to improve ASEANs

credibility, the collective member countries are well aware to maintain the rel-evance of this charter. Thus, the value of democracy and human rights contained in

it has to be very well maintained to keep it running in tandem with the conditions

in ASEAN member countries. In this condition the moral force of the Charter, in

particular of the two values, prevail in ASEAN cooperation mechanism.

The implication however, does not mean an automatic encouragement for a

further liberalization in the political realm. However, the trend of the previous four

ASEAN interests, then this charter is intended to achieve the objectives mentioned

earlier. Wherein, the slow process of political liberalization, limited and stable is thegoal ASEAN try to achieve. Not surprisingly, then, the limited illiberal democracy in

some of the member countries are being backed by ASEAN. However, it also shows

how the Charter could appear as the legal basis for the creation of the political

changes in the member countries in gradual and stable condition. In that way the

interests of ASEAN is set to be achieved.



18/8111

Indonesia, ASEAN,

dan Pemberantasan Illegal Fishing

Abstract

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU)

shing is a signicant problem in Southeast Asia

costing an estimated US$2,500 million or eight per-

cent of recorded landings (FAO, 2007:23). It is one

of the non-traditional security issues. It has been

noted that the uptake, by Southeast Asian States, of

international and regional initiatives to combat IUU

shing has been poor. Indonesia, as the largest ar-

chipelagic country in Southeast Asia, often becomes

victim of illegal shing. Every year more than 80 bil-

lion rupiahs lost because of illegal shing. This loss

is not only from the potential income of the sher-

men, but also the loss of sh stocks. The biggest

culprits, however, are its neighbor and ASEAN mem-ber states. Towards the creation of ASEAN Political-

Security Community (APSC) 2015, ASEAN remains

relatively silent towards the issue. The ASEAN Mari-

time Forum also cannot do much rather than engag-

ing discussions on governmental level. Therefore,

this paper tries to examine and analyze the nature

of illegal shing in Southeast Asia, the effect towards

Indonesia, the cooperation between ASEAN memberstates, as well as bring solutions on national and re-

gional level.

Keywords: illegal shing, ASEAN, APSC

Kanyadibya C.P.Universitas Brawijaya

APSC 2015JURNALISAFIS

Kumpulan Tulisan Inspiratif dari Anak Bangsa


19/8112

Pendahuluan

Indonesia dikenal sebagai negara kepulauan dan berpotensi menjadi salah

satu negara maritim terbesar di dunia. Wilayah perairan menjadi penting bagi

Indonesia karena salah satu perannya yang berfungsi sebagai penghubung antar-

pulau dan menjadi sumber penghasilan bagi nelayan. Menurut situs www.indone-

sia.go.id, Indonesia memiliki 17.508 pulau dengan garis pantai mencapai hingga

54.716 km dan luas wilayah mencapai 1,9 juta mil persegi dan menjadi negara

kepulauan terbesar di dunia. Hal ini menjadikan Indonesia sebagai negara yang

memiliki garis pantai terluas di dunia setelah Kanada.

Wilayah perairan yang sangat luas tersebut tentu membutuhkan strategi

pertahanan dan keamanan laut yang tangguh untuk mengatasi segala bentuk an-

caman. Namun fakta di lapangan membuktikan bahwa pengembangan kapabilitas

militer Indonesia hingga saat ini lebih banyak difokuskan di daratan (land based).

Total Alat Utama Sistem Pertahanan (Alutsista) untuk Angkatan Darat sejumlah

27.115 unit, sementara untuk Angkatan Laut hanya sebanyak 150 unit (Global Fire

Power, 2012). Jumlah 150 unit peralatan yang dimiliki TNI AL jelas tidak mencu-

kupi untuk mengawasi dan menjaga keamanan wilayah Indonesia. TNI Angkatan

Laut juga memiliki 317 unit kapal patroli yang biasa disebut Kapal Angkatan Laut

(KAL) (Indomiliter, 2013). Dari segi kuantitas, Indonesia memiliki kapal perang

terbanyak di Asia Tenggara. Namun, kenyataannya tidak semuanya bisa berop-

erasi secara bersamaan. Sedangkan untuk operasi di wilayah perbatasan TNI AL ti-

dak bisa lepas drai dukungan kapal Landing Ship Tank(LST) dan Landing Platform

Dock(LPD). TNI AL setidaknya punya 30 LST dan 5 LPD namun sebagian besar

sudah berusia tua dan akan dipensiunkan (Indomiliter 2013).

Sederhananya, negara ini memiliki kondisi geogras berupa kepulauan yang

membentang sepanjang 1,9 juta mil persegi, namun kapasitas dan kemampuan

Angkatan Laut masih sangat minim untuk melakukan patroli di setiap wilayah per-

airan Indonesia. Jumlah dan kemampuan kapal yang digunakan patroli oleh TNI

AL belum memadai untuk mengcoverwilayah perairan Indonesia yang begitu luas.

Hal ini dapat menjadi celah yang dimanfaatkan oleh nelayan asing untuk melaku-

kan illegal shingdi Indonesia.

Undang-Undang Pertahanan Negara pasal 3 ayat 2 menyebutkan bahwa per-

tahanan negara disusun dengan mempertimbangkan kondisi geogras Indonesia

sebagai negara kepulauan. Untuk itu penyusunan strategi pertahanan seyogyanya

harus memperhatikan kondisi Indonesia sebagai negara maritim serta eksistensi

ribuan pulau-pulau Indonesia yang membentang dari Sabang sampai Merauke.



20/8113

Sementara itu, UU No 31/2004 tentang Perikanan telah mengamanatkan

Pemerintah Indonesia untuk berpartisipasi aktif dalam kerjasama regional dan in-

ternasional untuk mengatasi illegal shing(Jakarta Post, 23 Maret 2008). Hal ini

menandakan bahwa pemerintah Indonesia menyadari bahwa dengan kapabilitasTNI AL dan kondisi perairan Indonesia saat ini, Indonesia membutuhkan bantuan

dan kerjasama dengan berbagai pihak untuk memberantas illegal shing. Sebagai

pemimpin regional ASEAN dan negara yang wilayah lautnya berbatasan dengan 4

negara ASEAN, Malaysia, Singapura, Brunei Darussalam, dan Filipina, Indonesia

sudah selayaknya bekerjasama di tingkat ASEAN. Apalagi kerjasama keamanan

untuk mencegah illegal shingtelah masukASEAN Political-Security Community

(APSC)Blueprint.Sebagai bangsa Indonesia patutnya kita bertanya bagaimana

kita dapat memanfaatkan ASEAN, untuk kepentingan nasional kita, untuk mem-

berantas illegal shingyang mempengaruhi Indonesia?

Kerangka Teoritis

Pembahasan mengenai illegal shingsangat jarang dibahas dalam ranah kajian

HI tradisional. Namun, dalam perkembangannya kajian keamanan (security) da-

lam HI tidak hanya membahas keamanan atau konik antar negara. Para penstudi

keamanan mulai mengkaji keamanan non-tradisional seperti kejahatan transna-

sional, terorisme, illegal shing, trafcking, dan lain-lain. Keamanan negara tidak

lagi dipandang sebagai aman dari ancaman negara lain, namun juga aman dari

segala bentuk gangguan dan ancaman yang dapat membahayakan negara dan

warga negaranya. Salah satu konsep keamanan yang membahas keamanan seca-

ra komprehensif adalah konsep Comprehensive Securitymilik Barry Buzan.

Comprehensive Securityadalah sebuah konsep keamanan yang mengkombi-

nasikan berbagai level dan dimensi keamanan menjadi satu kesatuan sistem yang

padu (Rahman, 2009:18). Terdapat tiga level dan lima sektor yang perlu untuk

dipertimbangkan dalam perumusan kebijakan keamanan suatu negara. Menurut

Barry Buzan tiga level yang dimaksud adalah level individu, negara, dan sistem

internasional; sementara lima sektor di sini merujuk pada sektor militer, politik,

sosial, ekonomi, dan lingkungan (Rahman, 2009:6).

Pembagian ke dalam tiga level merupakan pembagian secara vertikal merujuk

pada aktor (individu dan negara) dan sistem. Level sistem internasional berkaitan

dengan faktor sistemik yang mempengaruhi perilaku negara berikut konsekuen-

sinya terhadap negara-negara lain. Pada level negara berkaitan dengan permasala-

han territorial dan kedaulatan negara. Sementara di level individu permasalahan

keamanan erat kaitannya dengan hal-hal yang mempengaruhi eksistensi individu/

manusia sebagai suatu makhluk hidup.




21/8114

Sementara pembagian ke dalam lima sektor merupakan pembagian secara

horizontal merujuk pada aspek-aspek kehidupan yang patut untuk dipertimbang-

kan dalam mengkaji masalah keamanan. Ancaman pada sektor militer didenisi-

kan sebagai ancaman yang berpengaruh langsung pada komponen kedaulatannegara (Stone, 2009:5). Ancaman sektor politik erat kaitannya pada eksistensi

negara sebagai entitas politik, ancaman dapat berupa persaingan antar ideologi

atau serangan sik terhadap negara itu sendiri (Stone, 2009:5). Ancaman pada

sektor politik dan militer tersebut merupakan sektor keamanan yang dikategorikan

sebagai sektor keamanan tradisional. Sementara itu ketiga sektor berikutnya dise-

but sebagai sektor keamanan non-tradisional di mana ancaman juga bisa berupa

hal-hal yang sifatnya non-material/sik. Keamanan sektor ekonomi merujuk pada

permasalahan pemenuhan kebutuhan ekonomi suatu entitas. Keamanan pada sek-

tor lingkungan berkaitan dengan aspek lingkungan alam di mana aktor itu tinggal,

kerusakan pada lingkungan alam dipersepsikan dapat berpotensi menimbulkan an-

caman terhadap entitas yang hidup di dalamnya. Sektor keamanan sosial berkai-

tan dengan permasalahan identitas dan budaya suatu entitas. Sektor keamanan ini

bersinggungan erat dengan sektor politik. Mempertimbangkan kesemua level dan

sektor itulah inti dari comprehensive security.

Dengan maksud tidak mengurangi kekomprehensifan pembahasan, di dalam

tulisan ini penulis menitikberatkan pada level sistem internasional dan negara. Hal

ini dimaksudkan untuk memberi batasan yang tegas sehingga pembahasan tidak

meluas. Level sistem internasional digunakan untuk menjelaskan perilaku dan si-

kap ASEAN sebagai organisasi regional di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Level negara

dipilih karena bagaimanapun juga negara adalah aktor utama dalam kajian ke-

amanan. Mengingat pada dasarnya negara adalah penyedia keamanan yang perta-

ma dan utama bagi individu (warganya) dari berbagai bentuk ancaman. Indonesia

adalah negara berdaulat sekaligus negara anggota ASEAN sehingga dalam tulisan

ini penulis akan menggunakan level analisa sistem internasional dan negara.

Illegal Fishingdi Indonesia

Minimnya kapabilitas militer Angkatan Laut menjadikan Indonesia rentan

terhadap ancaman dan gangguan keamanan di laut seperti illegal shing. Sistem

pertahanan dan keamanan lautan Indonesia yang menjadi tugas dan tanggung

jawab utama TNI AL hingga saat ini belum mampu memberantas illegal shing

secara signikan. Kejahatan di laut yang dilakukan negara asing tidak hanya mem-

perlemah kedaulatan negara Indonesia namun juga merugikan nelayan. Sedikit-nya, ada seribu kapal asing hilir mudik menangkap ikan secara ilegal di Indonesia

setiap tahunnya (Indomaritim, 2011). Apalagi, potensi kerugian negara sebesar



22/8115

Rp80 triliun per tahun. Kerugian tersebut terdiri dari potensi ikan yang hilang men-

capai Rp 30 triliun dan potensi kehilangan penerimaan negara bukan pajak (PNBP)

sebesar Rp 50 triliun setiap tahun (Indomaritim, 2011).

Negara Indonesia sendiri memiliki sumber daya perikanan yang sangat besar.Volume produksi perikanan tangkap di laut pada tahun 2010 sebesar 5.039.446

ton dengan nilai produksi sebesar 59 triliun rupiah (Statistik Perikanan Tang-

kap Indonesia, 2011). Tidak hanya itu, 62% wilayah Indonesia berupa lautan dan

separuh diantaranya merupakan Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif (ZEE). Wilayah laut In-

donesia yang berada diantara 2 benua dan 2 samudra telah lama menjadi jalur

utama perdagangan dunia (Bandoro, 2005).

Di kawasan ASEAN, Indonesia merupakan negara dengan jumlah pulau

terbanyak dan wilayah lautan terluas. Indonesia menjadi pusat dari Kerjasama

Maritim ASEAN yang termasuk dalamASEAN Political-Security Community(APSC)

Blueprint. Hal ini menjadikan Indonesia memiliki peran vital menuju ASEAN Po-

litical-Security Community (APSC) 2015. Namun, fakta di lapangan menunjuk-

kan superioritas wilayah laut Indonesia tidak berbanding lurus denganpowerdan

kapabilitas Indonesia dalam menjaga lautnya. Berdasarkan data dari Indomiliter

(2013) Indonesia hanya memiiliki 317 unit kapal patroli, 30 kapal LST dan 5 LPD.

Itupun tidak semuanya bisa beroperasi dan sebagian sudah berusia tua.

Kapal-kapal asing masih sering beroperasi di wilayah Indonesia tanpa ijin.

Contohnya pada tahun 2010 terjadi 108 kasus illegal shing di wilayah perairan

Natuna dengan total kerugian mencapai Rp 30 triliun (DKP Kabupaten Natuna,

2011). Hal ini salah satunya diakibatkan oleh minimnya regulasi dan kontrol ter-

hadap kapal asing. Selain itu, perairan di Laut Sulawesi, Selat Malaka, Laut Na-

tuna, Laut Cina Selatan, dan Laut Arafuru sering menjadi lokasi illegal shing. Hal

ini menunjukkan rentannya wilayah perbatasan Indonesia terhadap ancaman ke-

amanan di laut. Wilayah perbatasan yang berbatasan dengan Malaysia, Singapura,

Filipina, dan Australia kerap menjadi pintu masuk bagi kejahatan di lautan. Pelakukejahatan illegal shingini juga ternyata berasal dari anggota ASEAN, seperti Ma-

laysia, Thailand, Vietnam dan Filipina. Hal ini tentu bertentangan dengan seman-

gat Kerjasama Maritim ASEAN dan esensi visiASEAN Political-Security Community

2015 yang digagas pada tahun 2009.

Illegal Fishing di ASEAN

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated(IUU) shingmasih menjadi masalah

yang signikan di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Pada tahun 2007 FAO melaporkan keru-

gian akibat illegal shingmencapai 2,5 milyar dollar AS atau sekitar 8% dari total




23/8116

tangkapan ikan (Baird, 2010). Kasusillegal shingtidak hanya dialami oleh Indo-

nesia, namun juga negara tetangga seperti Filipina dan Malaysia. Hal ini dikarena-

kan hampir semua negara anggota ASEAN memiliki wilayah laut, kecuali Laos, dan

wilayah lautan memiliki pengaruh penting bagi perekonomian negara-negara ini.Di wilayah Asia Tenggara pengakuan Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif (ZEE) sepan-

jang 200 mil laut oleh berbagai negara malah membuat kebanyakan illegal sh-

ing terjadi di ZEE bukan di laut lepas. Hal ini karena perbatasan negara-negara

seringkali berbatasan dengan ZEE negara lain (APEC, 2008). Hal ini justru mem-

buka kesempatan bagi terjadinya illegal shing. Secara historis, peluang terjadinya

IUU shingdi Asia Tenggara cukup tinggi karena struktur pemerintah yang lemah

(FAO, 2007:23 dalam Baird, 2010). Sistem registrasi kapal yang tidak efektif men-

gakibatkan kurangnya kontrol terhadap registrasi dan lisensi kapal. Hal ini men-gakibatkan ribuan kapal kecil mudah memasuki wilayah negara lain secara illegal.

Akibatnya adalah lingkungan yang kondusif untuk melakukan illegal shing baik

bagi nelayan lokal maupun asing. Kurangnya peraturan nasional untuk menghu-

kum nelayan yang mencuri ikan di ZEE negara lain semakin membuat kontrol dan

pengawasan kurang efektif.

ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) Blueprint telah menyebut-

kan kerjasama untuk mengatasi kejahatan transnasional (transnational crimes)

dalam kerangka kerjasama dalam isu keamanan non-tradisional. Hal ini termaktubpada poin xiv Pasal B.4 tentang isu keamanan non tradisional sebagai berikut,

Strengthen close cooperation among ASEAN Member States, to combat IUU sh-

ing in the region and where applicable, through the implementation of the IPOA

- IUU shing. Hal ini menunjukkan isu illegal shingtelah mendapat perhatian di

tingkat ASEAN namun isu ini masih menjadi masalah yang cukup serius di kawasan

ASEAN.

Menghadapi arus kapal asing yang panen sumber daya laut yang ilegal, In-

donesia telah meningkatkan upaya untuk menyelesaikan masalah di tingkat dae-rah dan nasional. Diantaranya ialah memperkuat kerjasama lintas sektor, menin-

gkatkan partisipasi masyarakat dan kapabilitas pertahanan dan keamanan di laut.

Namun, upaya pemerintah di tingkat nasional akan sia-sia jika tidak didukung

upaya di tingkat regional, yakni di tingkat Asia Tenggara. Sayangnya, tidak mudah

untuk mendorong tindakan dalam ASEAN, meskipun semua diskusi tentang illegal

shingtelah dilakukan diantara anggota organisasi regional ini.

Menurut I Gede Ngurah Swajaya, Wakil Indonesia di ASEAN, memerangi

illegal shingsebenarnya termasuk dalam program aksi di Komunitas Politik-Ke-amanan ASEAN (APSC) Blueprintyang seharusnya dilaksanakan pada tahun 2015

(IPS Asia Pacic, 2012). Namun, masalah ini adalah isu yang sensitif bagi sebagian



24/8117

negara anggota ASEAN. Selain itu, negara-negara tersebut adalah rumah bagi

banyak nelayan ilegal. Di Indonesia, banyak kapal asing bahwa ikan ilegal datang

terutama dari negara-negara Asia Tenggara seperti Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam,

dan Filipina.Permasalahannya, ASEAN tidak datang dengan kesepakatan konkret tentang

bagaimana menangani masalah Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) shing,

meskipun masing-masing negara anggota telah berkomitmen untuk memerangi il-

legal shing. Ada upaya pertukaran pandangan dan membangun mekanisme ASE-

AN yang berfokus pada pengelolaan sumber daya kelautan, khususnya perikanan,

tetapi tidak banyak hasil yang nyata (IPS Asia Pacic, 2012). Menurut Ngurah

Swajaya jika program aksi Cetak Biru itu diterapkan secara ketat, masing-masing

negara harus memantau kegiatan nelayannya (IPS Asia Pacic, 2012). Kita tidakhanya berhati-hati memantau aktivitas nelayan asing di perairan lokal, namun

juga mencegah nelayan sendiri mencuri ikan di perairan negara lain.

Kerjasama Maritim ASEAN dan APSC 2015

Trend nyata yang berhubungan dengan keamanan maritim ialah dengan

meningkatkan pendekatan multilateral atau melibatkan berbagai negara dalam

menangani masalah keamanan di lautan. Indonesia telah terus-menerus men-

gupayakan untuk mendorong negara-negara ASEAN untuk memiliki rencana aksi

terhadap illegal shing. Namun, sejauh ini tindakan ASEAN masih minim.

Dari 11 isu politik keamanan yang menjadi prioritas kerjasama ASEAN, em-

pat isu diantara mempunyai keterkaitan langsung dengan TNI Angkatan Laut dan

illegal shing. Kedua isu tersebutthe setting up of an ASEAN Fisheries Forum, the

enhancement of cooperation with civil society organizations in the ght against

non-traditional security problem. Apabila mengacu padaASEAN Political Security

Community Blue Print (2009-2015), sebagian dari empat isu tersebut tercakupdalam bidangA Rules-Based Community of Shared Values and Norms, sebagian

lainnya digolongkan dalam bidangA Cohesive, Peaceful and Resilient Region With

Shared Responsibility for Comprehensive Security. Kerjasama maritim ASEAN

sendiri merupakan salah satu sub bidang dalam A Rules-Based Community of

Shared Values and Norms.

Tentang isu the setting up of an ASEAN Fisheries Forum, keterkaitan TNI An-

gkatan Laut adalah menangani tindak pencurian ikan di laut dan aktivitas perikan-

an lainnya yang membahayakan kelestarian lingkungan laut. Masalah pencurianikan merugikan negara bukan saja dari aspek pendapatan, tetapi juga menyentuh

pula aspek kelestarian lingkungan laut. Isu kerjasama berikutnya yaitu the en-




25/8118

hancement of cooperation with civil society organizations in the ght against non-

traditional security problemmempunyai keterkaitan pula dengan TNI Angkatan

Laut. Bidang kerjasama ini pada dasarnya menekankan pada penguatan kerjasa-

ma dengan organisasi LSM untuk memerangi masalah keamanan non tradisional,salah satunya illegal shing.

Hal ini sesuai dengan konsep comprehensive securitydimana illegal shing

tidak hanya masalah ekonomi, melainkan juga berkaitan dengan politik, lingkun-

gan, sosial, dan militer. Keamanan militer dilihat dari TNI AL dimana TNI AL ditun-

tut untuk selalu siap siaga mencegah ancaman yang masuk ke wilayah NKRI. Se-

dangkan sektor keamanan politik bisa dilihat dari komitmen negara-negara ASEAN

untuk menjamin keamanan di wilayah lautan Asia Tenggara. Keamanan di sektor

lingkungan disini dapat diartikan sebagai aman dari gangguan dan ancaman yangdapat membahayakan biota laut dan lingkungan hidup. Keamanan di bidang sos-

ial artinya rasa aman yang dirasakan masyarakat dan kerjasama dengan TNI AL

untuk mengamankan wilayah perairan mereka. Keamanan di bidang ekonomi ma-

syarakat memiliki sumber pendapatan yang tetap karena tidak tertanggu dengan

pencurian ikan. Jika pencurian ikan dapat ditekan, masyarakat lokal tentunya lebih

mendapat manfaat secara ekonomis karena tidak perlu bersaing dengan nelayan

asing yang melakukan illegal shing.

Indonesia saat ini tengah melihatASEAN Maritime Forumsebagai cara un-tuk membawa kasus illegal shingke tingkat regional. Pada pertemuan ASEAN

Maritime Forum(AMF) ke-2 di Pattaya, Thailand yang diselenggarakan pada 17-19

Agustus 2011, para Pemimpin ASEAN berusaha memperluas jangkauan AMF dan

mengajak negara-negara di kawasan Asia Timur. ASEAN juga mempertahankan

sentralitas penuh ASEAN dalam proposal dan inisiatif baru terkait dengan ker-

jasama maritim di kawasan dan sekitarnya (Tabloid Diplomasi, Desember 2011).

Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut ASEAN berencana menjadikan AMF un-

tuk mulai mengembangkan pendekatan dan langkah-langkah kooperatif untukkerjasama maritim lebih lanjut. Untuk tujuan tersebut, para Pemimpin ASEAN

berkomitmen untuk menciptakan mindset kerjasama maritim yang efektif pada

isu-isu terkait serta memberikan rekomendasi dan solusi terhadap berbagai tan-

tangan yang muncul saat ini.ASEAN Maritime Forum(AMF) merupakan inisiatif

untuk melakukan kerjasama dalam berbagi informasi antar negara anggota ASEAN

dan juga mengakui pentingnya promosi dan harmonisasi dalam kerjasama perlind-

ungan lingkungan maritim, termasuk kegiatan ilegal yang berkaitan dengan ling-

kungan maritim. AMF mengupayakan peningkatan kerjasama yang berkelanjutandalam memerangi pembajakan dan perampokan bersenjata di laut, memberantas

illegal logging, penyelundupan barang dan manusia migran, perdagangan gelap



26/8119

obat-obatan dan semua kejahatan maritim (Tabloid Diplomasi, Desember 2011).

Hal ini merupakan sejumlah upaya ASEAN untuk menyongsong ASEAN Political-

Security Community2015.

Upaya pemerintah Indonesia mendorong ASEAN dalam berbagai forum dankerjasama regional untuk memerangi illegal shingsejalan dengan kepentingan

Indonesia. Upaya Indonesia ini antara lain melalui ASEAN Maritime Forum (AMF),

kerjasama bilateral, pusat Kerjasama Maritim ASEAN, meningkatkan kapabilitas

TNI AL, dll menunjukkan upaya pemerintah untuk membawa isu illegal shingke

tingkat regional, khususnya ASEAN. Indonesia kerap menjadi korban dari illegal

shingdan yang paling menderita kerugian adalah nelayan lokal. Selain itu, negara

menderita kerusakan lingkungan yang disebabkan oleh penangkapan ikan ilegal

(Walhi, Desember 2006). Illegal shingmenyebabkan antara 1,5 dan 3 juta tonikan diambil dari Indonesia setiap tahunnya (Forum Keadilan No 20/03-09 Sep-

tember 2007). Oleh karena itu, kerjasama di tingkat ASEAN dan rencana aksi ses-

uaiASEAN Political-Security CommunityBlueprint diharapkan mampu memerangi

illegal shingdan menghentikan negara-negara ASEAN mencuri ikan di wilayah

Indonesia.

Solusi

Diperlukan mekanisme kerjasama yang konkret di tingkat ASEAN untuk

menjaga perairan negara-negara ASEAN dari berbagai kegiatan Illegal, Unreport-

ed, Unregulated(IUU) shing. Rencana aksi (action plan) yang sudah dibuat dan

kerangkaASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprintperlu menjadi guidelines

bagi semua pihak untuk memerangi illegal shing. Selain itu, perlu ada kerjasama

lintas sektor dan lintas batas, terutama melibatkan satuan kepolisian, Angkatan

Laut, dan pemerintah lokal dan masyarakat nelayan. Rencana aksi (action plan)

yang sudah ada perlu diadopsi menjadi regulasi oleh negara-negara ASEAN di

tingkat nasional. Regulasi ini nantinya menjadi peraturan hukum yang bersifat

mengikat sehingga setiap negara bertanggung jawab terhadap kasus illegal sh-

ing.

Selain itu, diperlukan sistem pendukung untuk menutupi kelemahan sistem

pertahanan dan keamanan di wilayah lautan di kawasan ASEAN yang memiliki an-

gka kejahatan illegal shingyang cukup tinggi. Dukungan tersebut akan sangat

tepat bila berasal dari masyarakat sendiri. Hal ini dikarenakan masyarakat, khu-

susnya nelayan adalah pihak yang paling merasakan dampak langsung dari pen-

curian ikan tersebut. Hal ini dapat berupa patroli laut yang bekerjasama dengan

masyarakat lokal. Selain itu, pemerintah Indonesia harus lebih tegas menindak ka-

sus illegal shingyang dilakukan nelayan dari negara lain, khususnya ASEAN. Ker-




27/8120

jasama maritim ASEAN dan adanyaASEAN Political-Security Community(APSC)

bukan berarti kita melunak dalam memperlakukan pelaku kejahatan dari ASEAN,

namun justru harus membuat kita tegas dalam menindak setiap tindak kejahatan

maritim di wilayah ASEAN.

Kesimpulan

Saat ini ASEAN tengah menyongsong ASEAN Political-Security Communi-

tyyang rencananya dicapai pada tahun 2015. ASEAN telah membuat cetak biru

(blueprint) yang berisi tujuan dan roadmapuntuk mencapaiASEAN Political-Se-

curity Community. Salah satu isi dalamASEAN Political-Security Community Blue-

printadalah kerjasama untuk mengatasi kejahatan transnasional (transnational

crimes) termasuk illegal shing. Dalam tulisan ini penulis telah mengungkapkan

bagaimana kondisi illegal shingdi Indonesia dan kawasan ASEAN pada umumnya.

Kejahatan illegal shingsendiri belum bisa diberantas secara efektif oleh Indonesia

karena berbagai kelemahan, baik dari kapabilitas TNI AL maupun dari peraturan

dan kontrol pemerintah terhadap kapal-kapal asing yang secara illegal memasuki

wilayah Indonesia. Oleh karena itu, pemerintah Indonesia berupaya membawa

kasus illegal shingdibicarakan di lingkup ASEAN agar menjadi isu regional yang

menjadi perhatian bersama. Berbagai kerjasama dan forum telah digagas oleh

ASEAN, namun keefektifan kerjasama tersebut harus dijalankan dengan langkahkonkret.

Penulis berpendapat bahwa untuk memerangi illegal shingdi wilayah In-

donesia terdapat 3 level dan 5 sektor yang perlu mendapat perhatian Indonesia

sesuai konsep comprehensive security. Ketiga level diatas ialah level sistem in-

ternasional, yang diwakili oleh ASEAN dimana Indonesia telah berupaya mendo-

rong ASEAN meningkatkan kerjasama maritim. Level kedua adalah negara, yang

mencakup upaya Indonesia di tingkat nasional. Level ketiga adalah individu, yakni

partisipasi masyarakat Indonesia. Sedangkan 5 sektor yang dimaksud adalah sek-tor militer, politik, lingkungan, sosial dan ekonomi. Artinya, untuk mencapai ke-

amanan yang komprehensif, pemerintah harus memperhatikan kelima sektor dia-

tas dalam membuat regulasi atau kebijakan. Ada 2 solusi yang penulis tawarkan

untuk meningkatkan upaya pemberantasan illegal shing. Pertama, mekanisme

kerjasama yang konkret di tingkat ASEAN untuk mengatasi berbagai kegiatan Il-

legal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) shing. Kedua, adanya sistem pendukung

untuk menutupi kelemahan sistem pertahanan dan keamanan yang berasal dari

masyarakat lokal. Jika hal ini berjalan dengan baik, comprehensive securitydalammemberantas illegal shingdiharapkan tidak hanya dijalankan oleh Indonesia, na-

mun juga oleh seluruh negara anggota ASEAN. Sehingga visi dan cita-citaASEAN

Political-Security Community2015 akan tercapai.



28/8121

Daftar Pustaka

Khalid, Nazery. 2008. Yang Berat Sama Dipikul: Kerjasama Keselamatan Mari-

tim Di Asia Tenggara. Diakses dari http://www.mima.gov.my/mima/wp-content/

uploads/Yang%20berat%20sama%20dipikul%20-%20Samudera%20-%20Mar08.

pdfpada 5 September 2013

Tabloid Diplomasi. Edisi Desember 2011. Kerjasama Maritim ASEAN. Diakses

dari http://www.tabloiddiplomasi.org/previous-isuue/162-desember-2011/1289-

kerjasama-maritim-asean.htmlpada 5 September 2013

Baird, Rachel. 2010. Transnational Security Issues in the Asian Maritime Envi-

ronment: Fisheries and Piracy. Paper delivered to the Sino- Australian Joint Re-

search Program, Collaboration and Governance in the Asia Pacic, Brisbane. 22-23

July 2010.

IPS Asia Pacic. 2012. A Lot More Talk by ASEAN than Action. Diakses dari

http://www.aseannews.net/a-lot-more-talk-by-asean-than-action/ pada 5 Sep-

tember 2013

Jakarta Post. 23 Maret 2008. ASEAN 2009: Time to deal with illegal shing.

Diakses dari http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/23/asean-2009-time-

deal-with-illegal-shing.html pada 4 September 2013.

Indomiliter. 2013. Gelar Kekuatan TNI di Pulau Terluar.http://www.indomiliter.

com/2013/01/03/gelar-kekuatan-tni-di-pulau-terluar/

Kementrian Perikanan dan Kelautan (KKP). 2010.Statistik Perikanan Tangkap

Indonesia. Vol. 11, No. 1. Diakses dari http://statistik.kkp.go.id/index.php/arsip/

le/29/statistik_pt_2010_pub.pdf/ pada tanggal 1 April 2013

Kementrian Perikanan dan Kelautan (KKP). 2011. Kelautan dan Perikanan dalam

Angka. Diakses darihttp://statistik.kkp.go.id/index.php/arsip/le/37/kpda11_ok_

r06_v02.pdf/ pada tanggal 1 April 2013

Pangaonan, Y. 2012. Indonesia Menuju Negara Maritim. Diakses dari http://in-

domaritimeinstitute.org/?p=501 pada tanggal 3 April 2013

Rahman, C. 2009. Concepts of Maritime Security. New Zealand: The Centre for

Strategic Studies Discussion Paper.

Global Fire Power. 2012. Indonesias military strength. Diakses dari http://glo-

balrepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Indonesia




29/8122

Indonesias Geopolitics

toward the Malacca Straits:

Regional Security Complex?

Abstract

This paper analysing Indonesias Strategic

Geopolitical chances toward the Malacca Straits.

Malacca Straits has offered strategic advantages

to Indonesia. Conversely, rather than maximiz-

ing its power in Malacca Straits, Indonesia de-

cided to cooperate and bound under the ASEAN

rules in order to promote peace and stability to

the region. In times of peace, it is adequate for

Indonesia to maintain current status quo of its

geopolitics policy, but when conict deteriorated

(at least a war situation) Indonesias geopolitics

policy should be questioned. This paper aims to

depict Indonesia opportunity to play a signicant

geopolitics strategy, particularly in times of con-

ict which caused by energy security issues. The

writer dismantling this paper with a closer ap-

proach of Realism perspective and will encompass

Barry Buzan theory of Regional Security Complex.

To conclude, by proposing Indonesias signicant

role within ASEAN Defence Minister Meeting Plus

(ADMM-Plus) to maintain Indonesias current ge-

opolitics through the Malacca Straits while alsoensure the regional stability. Keywords: Indo-

nesias Geopolitical, Regional Security Com-

plex, ADMM-Plus

Steven Yohanes Polhaupessy

Universitas Prof. Dr. Moestopo(Beragama)



30/8123

Introduction

Malacca Straits as one of the busiest Sea Line Of Communication (SLOC) is lo-

cated on the Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore borders. 550 miles long and 300

miles wide at its northwest end, it is shaped like a funnel that eventually narrows

into the Strait of Singapore and the Phillips Channel, only 1.5 miles wide at its nar-

rowest point. Malacca Straits is the worlds most important maritime chokepoint.

The Straits connects maritime route from Indian Ocean to the South China Sea.

Through Malacca Straits ows as much as 40% of worlds trade and also 80% of

China oil imports, equal as South Korea and Japan oil imports and gas imports

(Percival, 2005). Growing economic industrialisation in the region will consume

for more energy and the demand of energy is estimated will increase, in which

transported through the Malacca Straits. Every year, between 50,000 60,000

ships weighing in various tons across the straits and it is estimated have a trend

to increase (Ho, 2007).

As an archipelagic state, Indonesia sees Malacca Straits contains opportunity

as well as risk because it has cover the longest route between Sumatera island

and Malay peninsula. Malacca Straits as Indonesia given territorial has a strategic

implication toward Indonesia geopolitics policies in the region as their strategic

environment.

Indonesias Geopolitical Sphere

Because of the Asia-Pasic economies heavily rely on the sea for transportation

for trade and energy matters, the Malacca Straits has give number of implication

to world trade connectivities. Each states in the region is highly dependence to Ma-

lacca Straits. It can be potrayed by a study of the US National Defence University

in which showed that if Malacca Straits were blocked and the ships route diverted,

thus the extra stemming cost would account for US$ 8 Billion dollars a year, it evenwill be higher if the energy commodity prices hike up (Coulter, 2002). Therefore,

any threat that could have been occured would disrupting trade stability regionally

and internationally. For Indonesia, it also will threathening Indonesias sovereignty

as their core national interests.

Beyond the importance of Malacca Straits, piracy, armed robber and threat of

maritime terrorism are the major problems which often colouring the situation in

Malacca Strait. These problems understood in shared understanding as maritime

security. Act of the piracy and armed robber have occured within Malacca Straitsfor many years. Between 2001 and 2008, the act of actual and attempted piracy

in Malacca Straits account for 208 cases (RSIS, 2009). Even trend of the act of



31/8124

piracy and armed robber is decreasing, the international community perception of

piracy and armed robber threat is still remain strong. States seems to supervised

their ships and tankers under their navies supervision. In fact, the user states of

Malacca Straits are often armed their ships and tankers, convoyed their ships andtankers with costguard and navies, and even deployed their navies in the Malacca

Straits (Jalal, 2006). Moreover, those activities was not related to the UNCLOS

1982 Article 19 which regulate the user states as innocent pasage. Accordingly,

the user states stressed that guarantee of maritime security under the UNCLOS

1982 from Indonesia (as litoral state) is questionable since its lack of capabilities,

but conversely the user states inderectly not implementing their duties as noted in

UNCLOS 1982 Article 43 (Jalal, 2006). This sort of activities has threatened Indo-

nesia national interest to protect their territorial.

As an archipelagic state, Indonesia strongly believe that the sovereignty of their

waters are equal as well as their land. Therefore, arrangement over the Malacca

Straits viewed as Indonesia responsibility. This proposition was endorsed under the

UNCLOS 1982, as a litoral states Indonesia have a sovereignty over the straits to

rule under the reections of UNCLOS Article 34. In geopolitical context, state has

the spatiality of power that represented by sovereignty to exercise power (Agnew,

2003). This is the advantage of Indonesia, in simply means, Indonesias control

over the Malacca Straits could be exerted to inuence the region since it contains

energy security dimension of the region.

The vastly changing over international economic development with the rise of

PRC and India has also changed geopolitical policies over the region. It shown by

the increase of both countries in expanding their navies capabilities. India on the

one hand, develop and modernise their navy capabilities to be a blue water navy.

It presumes that India profoundly concerned about energy security which trans-

ported through the sea and control over the energy resource is crucial while India

industrialised their economic (Hoverholt, 2008). PRC on the other hand, was doingthe same thing. PRCs modernisation over its navies directed to ensure their na-

tional interests over the South China Sea, as well as their desires to ensure energy

security in oil and gas rich area of South Cina Sea. Besides, the U.S. pivot to Asia-

Pacic stressed that defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is one

of America strategic interest (Clinton, 2011). In ASEAN context, the shared vision

toward peace and stability not merely inuencing member states capability to in-

crease their military expenditure. Singapore has improved their navies combatants

eet with 6 Freegate Formidable, 2 Vastergotland Submarines and 4 Sjoorman

Submarines, while Malaysia has imporved their navies capabilities by adding other

military bases (Yudhoyono, 2012).



32/8125

All of it has depicted that many states has an interests toward the security of

Southeast Asia waters, include also for Malacca Straits. It has to strategically noted

that Malacca Straits connects Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and economi-

cally it also will increase the cost of shipping if the Straits were blocked and di-

verted. Those coincidence are not given, but it has crucially shaping future conict

in the region. Conict of maritime dispute which caused by energy security.

All of those geopolitics vastly changing phenomena explicitly shows that the

future tension over the maritime security which actually not only cover for the is-

sues over maritime security (piracy, armed robber and maritime terrorism), but

also encompass the future maritime disputes in which causes by energy security

dimensions and could stimulate wars (The writer referred to name it as scenario).

Based on this changing geopolitics context, Indonesia policy will choose either tolikely play a signicant role for maintaining peace and stability for the region or

maximizing its power for the crucial role of ensuring its national interests toward

their sovereignty if the scenario occured.

Indonesias geopolitics policy option should be debated. For now Indonesia

have conducted to play signicant role in ensuring regional stability by creating

security in Malacca Straits, which is related to the main responsibility of Indonesia

toward UNCLOS and ASEAN rules. But if it the case that scenario occured, status

quo over the Indonesia policy to ensure regional stability will be altered. Therefore,next section of this paper will elaborate crucially geopolitics decision which could

be considered by Indonesia government as policy response to the worst scenario

of energy security led to maritime disputes. This scenario probability is low to hap-

pen, high impact if it were.

Regional Security Complex: Theory Building and Analysis

To explain what precisely rational policy could be made if those scenario oc-

cured, the writer emphasised Regional Security Complex (RSC) theory as a tool

of analysis. Regional Security Complex dened as group of states whose primary

security concerns link together sufciently closely that their national securities

cannot reasonably be consider apart from one another (Waever, 2003, hal. 44).

Related to Malacca Straits, Southeast Asia region thus is a space where the ex-

tremes of national and global security interplay, and where most of action occurs.

Regional Security Complex therefore dichotomised patterns of amity and enmity

which is coherent to security interdependence analysis (Waever, 2003, hal. 45).

Besides, RSC also tends to securitise issues in the region (Securitisation Proccess).

Based on descriptive tenets of Regional Security Complex, theoritical frame-

work of analysis that could be concluded as tool of analysis. There are; First, anal-

sysis based on domestically in the state affairs in the region, Second, state to state



33/8126

relations (which generate the security in the region), third, the region interaction

with neighbouring regions, and fourth, the role of global powers in the region

(Waever, 2003, hal. 51).

In realist realm, situation of peace is considerably as pre-condition of war (SiVis Pacem Para Bellum). Indonesia as the main actor analysis will be placed in

realist perspective. The RSC analysis will begin with the worst situation of energy

security led to maritime disputes or future wars, particularly in South China Sea

before RSC analyse Indonesia probability to response this situation in context of

geopolitical policy through the Malacca Straits.

Firsttenets of RSC emphasis on domestis affairs of states related to the secu-

rity issues. Therefore, Indonesia domestic security affairs toward maritime security

is important to be discussed. Based on Indonesia Defence White Paper, Indonesia

dened that maritime security has no relations to energy security and maritime

conict in the future, such as in the South China Sea, in spite of Indonesia has

acknowledged conictual situation in the South China Sea (Indonesia, 2008). In-

donesia lack of understanding in determining its strategic environment would led

to weakness in producing its geopolitical policy, in other words Indonesias lack

responses toward the changing of its strategic environment would make Malacca

Straits strategically invaluable for Indonesia Geopolitics policies. Indeed, Indonesia

Military Doctrine is Passive-Defense supported by Indonesias philosophical valueson Constitution (Indonesia, Doktrin Pertahanan Negara, 2007). Indonesia also will

hard to defend its territorial and sovereignty when worst scenario of maritime

disputes or wars occured, since their navies capabilities also insufent enough to

undergo that sort of situation. At this point, Indonesia domestic affairs centered

their focus on the status quo of its strategic environment, while it supposed to be

centered as future circumstances.

Even Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore defence white papers has never stated

that the importance of maritime security which also included its relation to energysecurity. Malaysia and Singapore at this point clearly understand the vastly chang-

ing towards its strategic environment rather than Indonesia perceived. It can be

shown by comparing Malaysia and Singpore military expenditure to modernise its

military capabilites, Indonesia lay behind the both countries. It means that chance

in domestic measures to play any signicant geopolitics role toward maritime is-

sues are low because of government preferences toward their defence arrange-

ments. Singapore on the one hand has stressed their interests to re-think their sta-

tus under the UNCLOS about the litoral states and the user states (Desker, 2007),while Malaysia stands on the same position with Indonesia to protect the status of

litorral states (Defense, 2010). This efforts will be directly threathening Indonesia



34/8127

Sovereignty caused with the changing over the status of the litoral states and the

user states under the UNCLOS, Indonesia duties and rights to regulate the straits

will disappear. Supported with Singaporean Navy as an instrument to alter those

status, the opportunity to re-think it will be widerly open. Challenged from Singa-

pore desires supposed to balance by the Indonesia government not only diplomati-

cally questioning the alteration, but also strengthening its navy to counterbalance

Singaporean navy.

The scenario of energy security led to wars in South China Sea or at least de-

teriorated tensions, Indonesia can play crucial low to stop the wars or armed clash

with bargaining to block or diverted Malacca Straits. But the precondition from its

domestic affairs are strengthen their navy capabilities and alter their perception

toward the signicance of energy security which caused maritime disputes or warsin the region.

Second tenets of RSC is State to State relations to generate security in the

regions. Indonesia relations with other litoral states (namely, Singapore and Ma-

laysia) in maintaining maritime security looks like living in harmony when it came

to issues as piracy, armed robber and maritime terrorism. Several cooperation

among them have been concluded and came entry into force bilaterally or trilater-

ally. Indonesia and Singapore have conducted joint surveilance sytem (SURPIC)

that covers the edge of Malacca Straits over the Singapore Straits, Indonesia andMalaysia have also conducted the same cooperation with Malaysia (Malaysia-Indo-

nesia Cordinated Patrol) (Ho, 2007). Trilaterally, Indonesia along with Malaysia and

Singapore announced cooperation to secure Malaca Straits for maritime security

purpose under Operation MALSINDO since 2004 and renewed as Malacca Straits

Sea Patrol in 2006.

According to scenario of energy security led to maritime disputes or wars, co-

operation among them will be hardly to achieve. There is no cooperation to prevent

such situation. Overlapping claims over each sovereignty will led eets and subma-rines to pass this route while accordingly they were agreed under the UNCLOS that

any means of navigation that threathen their territorial integrity and sovereignty

is restricted. Singapore, for instance, on the one hand parked their 6 submarines

at their backyard with also they have amity relationship with the US navies. When

scenario occured, they will also control the Malacca Straits. It has a meaning to-

ward the regional stability as means to show their concerns over the energy se-

curity led to maritime dispute. On the other hand, Malaysia also have a security

arrangement over their state through the Five Power Defence Agreement in whichif they were attacked by other states, they will be backed by their security umbrella

alliances. Both litoral states has inderectly recognised and performed some worri-



35/8128

ness toward the energy security led to maritime disputes or wars while. Indonesia

position is in dilemmas whether to protect Malacca Straits by blocking it but they

also should face Singapore and Malaysia behavior, or they will join to ally with them

since deteriorated situation also pushed them. Moreover, geopolitics preferences ofsuch sort cannot be supported with Indonesia navy capabilities, since Indonesias

naval capabilities have not been tested in conict since the 1960s (Muhibat, 2012).

Indonesia chance in securitising this issues perfromed lack of capabilites. In-

deed, Indonesia Foreign Policy characterised that Indonesia foreign policy should

be based on Independent and Active principle, but it is a good behavior when

peace time. But in the war times, it is unprepared. Therefore Indonesia also have

to prepare to worst situation when it came into war. Should Indonesia being inde-

pendent and active when its sovereignty and territorial integrity threathened whileIndonesia defence also lack in navy capabilites? Si Vis Pacem Parra Bellum.

Third, the region interaction with neighbouring regions. It means that rela-

tions with Southeast Asia with other region either Northeast Asia or Pasic. South-

east Asia region institutionalised their focused through the ASEAN Regional Forum

(ARF). The focus of ARF since 2000 have been endeavours toward maritime se-

curity just as stated at ARF meeting in Cambodia in 2003. The interplay concerns

of each region toward the ARF itself has only relating to maritime security which

is contain of piracy, armed robber and maritime terrorism. Until the current ARFmeeting in Bandar Sri Begawan in 2013, the perception among members of the

strategic environment of the region (either Southeast Asia or Northeast Asia) is

limited to maritime security. It supposed to put energy security issues of the re-

gion and relating it to maritime security issues despites each states from each re-

gion recognised the future probability for this issues. For instance, the PRC, South

Korea, and Japan are highly depending their energy supply passed through the

Malacca Straits and South China Sea. This situation supposed to build shared un-

derstanding. Thus, institutionalised in norms and rules bound up together.Besides the ARF, the ASEAN Defence Minister Meeting (ADMM) and ADMM-Plus

has also taking important place in shaping the interaction among region toward

the issues of maritime security. By conducting ADMM or ADMM-Plus, each region

wants to have a shared understanding to response the security issues. But since

the ADMM guided with ASEAN norms just as noted under the TAC 1976, sphere

of ADMM action to inuence region with its policy is limited. ADMM or ADMM-Plus

forum has potential, but it needs to be prepared to take on difcult issues (Mukher-

jee, 2013).In context that scenario energy security can causes the maritime disputes or

wars, the lack of institutionalised rules within the region will prevail and cause the



36/8129

scenario. There were shared perception among region of energy security issues

which can led to maritime disputes or wars, but they were lack to institutionalise it

when it come to the forum.

Eventually, the RSC also analyse the role of global powers in the region. The USas the most important actors to Southeast Asia region. The US presence will bring

the regional balance of power arrangement when it is dealing with the rising PRC.

In context of the US rebalance to Asia-Pasic, both Southeast Asia and Northeast

Asia countries are welcomed and eager for the US leadership (Clinton, 2011). The

US strategic engagement to the region seen as the threat upon PRC.

Related to the Scenario of maritime disputes or wars caused by the energy

security issues. The presence of the US to become signicance balancer when

PRC postition toward the current issues increased and escalating tension over the

claims of South China Sea. Despite the US engagement to the region rely on their

interests to peaceful means, the endorsement of freedom navigation and preserv-

ing regional sea line stability is the main reason they have appeared. Based on this

situation, Indonesia interests toward its security and the regional stability will be

shaped with the engangement of other global power. In this level analysis, when

the worst scenario came into effect, Indonesia can play crucial role to play between

the great power. Moreover

jurnalisafis+2013+(www.isafis.org)

Documents