CIVIL MARITIME SECURITY ACTORS AND RESPONSES TO CURRENT ISSUES

Andrew W. Mantong

Centre for Strategic and International Studies

The Strucure

• Case Studies: Natuna Incident, The Kidnapping of

Indonesian Sailors, The PCA Ruling

• Lesson Learned

• Mapping out actors and policy

• Framework for policy coordination

• Rethinking the New National Sea Policy

The NatunaIncidents

• Historical context : not acknowledging Nine-Dash Line =

being a non-claimant in the dispute + being honest broker

• Increased strategic significance of maritime law

enforcement, esp. related to IUU fishing

• Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries called Chinese

Embassy in Jakarta, stating that Indonesia’s effort to

uphold peaceful measures in the South China Sea conflict

was “interrupted” and “sabotaged”. It sparked public

attention since it went viral through social media.

• Foreign ministry sent diplomatic note to Chinese

Embassy, while claimed that the incident was not related

to South China Sea dispute.

• Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security

Affairs emphasized Indonesia’s sovereignty while

reaffirming that China is a “friend” to Indonesia.

The Kidnapping

of Indonesian

Sailors

• The increasing danger posed by Abu Sayyaf group, also indicated that state’s capacity is getting more questioned while the hostage activities reflected the broader and vast network

• However, Indonesia managed to release the sailors. The success was claimed as the result of diplomacy and negotiation.

• The effort involved government representatives and civil society, e.g. Humanitarian team Yayasan Sukma (initiated by Surya Paloh).

– The team channeled efforts to create dialogue with community figures, NGOs, and humanitarian agencies in Sulu which have direct access to Abu Sayyaf, with critical connection was made to Moro National Liberation Front.

• The success of the effort prompt Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia to accelerate maritime cooperation agreement to manage water connecting those three countries

The PCA Ruling

• Historical ambivalence in China-Indonesia relations :

China as a strategic challenge

• Finally agreed that Indonesia would issue a statement,

because it was better than no statement at all

– Calls on all parties to exercise restraints and refrain from

escalatory activities

– Calls on all parties to remain committed to peace,

friendship and cooperation

– Urges to behave and conduct activities according to

agreed-upon principles

– Continue to strengthen ASEAN

– Urges to continue peaceful negotiations according to

international law

• Different ministries, different agenda prevented all

actors to coherently and consistently respond to day-

to-day challenges

Lessons learned

• State capacity is still the challenge. Indonesia will need to

juggle between state strengthening efforts and effective

foreign and security policy.

• Consistency of policy is needed. As the stake goes higher,

coherent policy is more needed.

– The influence of small number of advisers outside the

foreign ministry

– Personal figures can escalate bureaucratic infighting

– In terms of law enforcement, there have been overlapping

authority and functions between multiple agencies: TNI-Al,

Bakamla & Satgas 115

• President’s lack of personal interest in foreign policy may

prevent Indonesia to have a concerted efforts to respond

challenges.

• Policy coordination is getting more imperative, not only at

the national level, but also at the regional and

international level

Maritime Governance

in Indonesia: multidimensional, regime of law, multipleactors, cross-

sectoral

Overlapping function of multiple agencies

Strategi Kebijakan Kelautan Nasional Lembaga

Fungsi

Pro

gra

m

TN

I AL

BA

KA

ML

A

PO

LA

IR

KP

LP

KK

P

BE

A C

UK

AI

IMIG

RA

SI

KE

ML

U

KE

ME

NP

AR

KE

ME

NK

ES

HU

T-L

H

ES

DM

PE

MD

A

Postur Hankam P2 O O O O O X O X X X X X X

Koordinasi Fungsi Hankam P2 O O O O O X O O X X X X X

Pembangunan Frontier P2 X X X O O O O X O O O O O

Kerjasama Internasional P2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Patroli &/atau C4ISR P2 O O O O O X X X X X X X X

Penegakan Hukum P2 O O O O O O O X X X O O O

Keselamatan Pelayaran P2 O O O O X X X X X X X X X

Penataan Hukum P3 X X X O O O O X O O O O O

Implementasi Hukum Internasional P3 O O O O O O O O X X O X O

Tata Kelola Maritim P3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O

SAR P5 O O O O X X X X X X X X X

Manajemen Bencana P5 O O O O X X X X X X X X X

Konservasi Lingkungan Hidup P5 X X X X O X X X O X O O O

Keterlibatan dlm Forum Internasional P7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Latihan Gabungan P7 O O O O O O O X X X X X X

Penetapan Batas Maritim P7 O X X X X X O O X X X X X

Indonesia’s Maritime Defense Diplomacy

146

110

87

36

19 1610

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Treaty and Other Instruments Concerning Maritime

Affairs

Particip

ant

75%

Non-

particip

ant

25%

Indonesia's Participation in

Treaty and Other Instruments on

Maritime Affairs

Indonesia's Participation in Treaty and Other Instruments on Maritime Affairs

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Safety

Environmental

Security & Safety

Navigation

Sea

Naval Warfare

Documentary Requirement

Participant Non-Participant

Indonesia’s Multilateral Framework

17

8

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ASEAN ASEAN+Partners Non-ASEAN

Multilateral Fora on

Maritime Defense Diplomacy

Participant

26%

Non-

Participant

74%

Indonesia's Participation in

Non-ASEAN Fora on Maritime

Defense Diplomacy

Bilateral Policy Coordination

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Singapore

Australia

The Philippines

India

United States

Malaysia

Brunei

Japan

China

Thailand

Vietnam

South Korea

Papua New Guinea

Timor Leste

Coordinated Patrol Exchange of Visit Port Call

Joint Exercise Information Sharing Intelligence Sharing

Adoption of SOP/Code/Arrangement Technical Assistance Joint Operation

WOULD THE RECENT POLICY BE SUFFICIENT TO TACKLE CHALLENGES?

With regards to Global Maritime Fulcrum …

Global Maritime Fulcrum

• “Sovereign, developed, and strong maritime state

capable of positively contributing to the peace and

security of the region and the world, according to its

national interests.”

• National Sea Policy

– Marine and human resource development;

– Naval defense, maritime security, and safety at sea;

– Ocean governance institutionalization;

– Maritime economy, infrastructure, and welfare;

– Environmental protection and ocean space

management;

– Nautical culture; and

– Maritime diplomacy.

• Peraturan President No. 16 Tahun 2017

Breakdown of the

Document

12 policy missions

6 policy principles

7 policy pillars

76 primary programs

330 policy targets

Priority Proportions

Maritime boundaries, Sea Space & Maritime Diplomacy

16%

Maritime Industry and Sea Connectivity 13%

Resource Industry, Ocean Services, and Marine Environmental Management

37%

Maritime Security and Naval Defense 8%

Nautical Culture 24%

Remaining problems

• There is no single authoritative agency to ensure

concerted action

• Domestic policies remain dominating the current

policy posture

– The policy connects preexisting policies and programs,

not really proposing new ones.

• There is a tendency to focus on “norms-building” and

general cooperation measures e.g. multilateralism,

which only brief mention of challenging issues, like

South China Sea

– Which brings back question: how to ensure a coherent

policy? Is domestic structure geared toward more

responsive policy measures?

• The classical problem remains: the absence of grand

strategy or habits that reflect it whatsoever