Are we losing more island after Sipadan-Ligitan?

Are we losing more island after Sipadan-Ligitan? I Made Andi Arsana ; The writer is a lecturer at the department of geodetic engineering, Gadjah Mada University; He is currently an Alison Sudradjat Award Scholar for research fellowship at the Australian National Center for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong

JAKARTA POST, 30 Januari 2013

On Jan. 19, okezone.com reported that Indonesia’s Semakau Island had been claimed by Singapore. In Indonesia, news about island claims, sovereignty issues and international disputes easily attract more attention compared to other matters. Such issues are sexy content for the media to play with.  In response to that, the governor of Kepulauan Riau, HM Sani sent a letter to Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, for clarification. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that there was more than one island called Semakau and the one in question was in fact Singapore’s. The issue came about because Semakau Island was depicted on an official Singaporean map, apparently the governor thought that the island depicted on the Singaporean map was Indonesia’s.  It is now clear that was not the case. Ramadhan Pohan, deputy chairman of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Commission I, also clarified the issue by providing comprehensive data obtained from both Indonesia and Singapore (JPPN.com, Jan. 22). This case reminds us of another similar case in 2005 regarding Berhala Island.  It was found that Malaysia promoted Berhala Island as a tourist destination and some parties in Indonesia thought that the one promoted was Indonesia’s. In fact there are several islands called Berhala and the one promoted was Malaysia’s.  Lesson learned: Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are similar in many aspects, so it is not uncommon to have similarities even island names. Now, enough with Semakau and Berhala: The most important question is “are we really losing more islands?” Is it really true that the case of Pulau Sipadan and Ligitan, which Indonesia lost in 2002, can happen to other islands?  The case of Sipadan and Ligitan is always cited whenever cases concerning sovereignty over islands are raised. Indonesia, with thousands of islands, is likely to face similar issues concerning island claims and even sovereignty disputes in the future. How are we required to anticipate these potential issues in the future? First and foremost, it is important for us, citizens, and especially government officials, to know the geographic configuration of our country as well as other neighboring countries. It certainly is not nice to panic or to be confused about such a serious thing as sovereignty just because we do not know that other country shares island names.  Second, it is important to understand that the sovereignty of an island that has been officially part of one country’s territory cannot be taken over easily by other country through effective occupation.  The case of Sipadan and Ligitan is completely different. Malaysia won the case for the reason effective occupation because those islands were ownerless (terra nullius) when they were disputed by Indonesia and Malaysia.  Many people misunderstood, thinking that the two islands were once Indonesia’s and then taken over by Malaysia.  It was not the case. Indonesia and Malaysia claimed the islands and they did not manage to settle the dispute through negotiation so they brought the case before the International Court of Justice. The court then decided the case based on a principle called “effectivités” or effective occupation. It confirmed that Malaysia and its predecessor, Great Britain, had done a lot to the ownerless islands compared to Indonesia and its predecessor, the Netherlands, had done.  As a senior government official once said and I agree, Indonesia did not lose any islands it just failed to add two more. This might sound like a joke but the statement explains the situation nearly perfectly. Third, it is important to take care of small islands — especially the outer ones. For an archipelagic country like Indonesia, those small outer islands are essential in defining baselines, the imaginary lines from which maritime areas are measured. It is worth noting that taking care of those islands should not be motivated by a phobic reason: Not to lose them.  We take care of small islands not because we are afraid that other countries will take them away from us but for the prosperity of people residing on or around the islands. Sending a lot of people from the capital to hold a flag-raising ceremony on a small island might be a good idea but we should not forget that people residing in the island need more than just a-few-hours of happiness on Independence Day.  A flag-raising ceremony can certainly boost the spirit of nationalism but it will not solve the problems they are facing: Education, health, transportation, to name a few. Fourth, it is a good idea to have a general understanding of cartography, how maps depict territory of countries. It is important to understand that the inclusion of an island belonging to country A in a national map of country B does not necessarily mean a sovereignty claim by country B. A complete Indonesian map, for example, may also show Singapore and other neighboring countries.  The use of color, tone, intensity and legend in particular will tell what a map really means by showing an object of territory. So, are we losing more islands? As much as we should take care of small islands, we are not doing it merely to prevent other countries from claiming them.  We are doing it for more practical reason: Prosperity. So no, we are not losing more islands. ●

Australia’s long journey to multiculturalism

Australia’s long journey to multiculturalism Ratih Hardjono ; The writer, a former journalist, is secretary-general of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID)

JAKARTA POST, 30 Januari 2013

I remember arriving at Kingsford Smith Airport in Sydney 30 years ago amid hysterical Italian-Australian women dressed in black, who were waiting for the arrival of a relative and yelling out “Maria, Maria!” There was hardly an Asian face in the crowd.  Back then, one was conscious of the segregation of those of English and Irish descent and those of Mediterranean origin.  When I visited Sydney last December, the wave of Mediterranean immigrants had well and truly left its imprint on everyday Australian life. When visitors step out of the arrival hall, the smell of brewing coffee from the coffee stall fills the air.  At the same time there are now many more Asian faces, not just as visitors but also in the crowds, awaiting the arrival of friends and relatives. In the 1970s only Mediterranean people drank coffee in Australia. The first wave of Australian settlers, the English and Irish, had drunk tea.  Another influence brought about by the Mediterranean culture has been the use of garlic. The traditionally baked dinners of the English and Irish back then were devoid of garlic.  For someone like me, coming from the Indonesian culinary tradition, eating without garlic was like just swallowing a meal and not worrying about taste. Yet today, looking at the vast number of restaurants and food stalls around Sydney, it seems that garlic farmers are the pulse of culinary Sydney. On a recent trip I watched a little blond girl standing in front of a Japanese food stall at Bondi Junction in Sydney. She was explaining to her elderly Anglo Saxon grandmother that it was safe to eat sushi. Her grandmother replied: “But it is raw fish and you will get a stomachache.”  The little girl answered: “No, grandma, the whole of Japan eats sushi and they are all OK.” Old grandma shook her head and said: “It really needs to be cooked!” Nevertheless she pulled out a AUS$20 note to pay the Japanese seller. In a way this little girl sums up Australia’s historical multicultural journey.  The tolerant, multicultural Australia has not always been there. The White Australia policy, which permitted only people from England and some European countries to remain in Australia, was revoked only in 1966. It was first implemented in 1850 when Australian miners clashed violently with Chinese rivals in Victoria and New South Wales.  In 1901, the Australian government passed the Immigration Restriction Act, while former prime minister Curtin in 1941, during World War II, pronounced the philosophy of the White Australia policy. The Australian Census of 2011 shows that 26 percent of Australia’s people were born overseas and that they originated from more than 25 countries. Asians, as the last wave of immigrants, still account for only 9 percent of Australia’s population.  Asian immigration remains a sore point with some as there are still a small number of conservative Australians who are worried about the threat of the so-called “yellow peril” from the north of Australia. Most of Southeast Asia, however, is also grappling with the growth of China up north as a superpower and with its economic domination in the region. It is not a uniquely Australian problem.  There have always been Australian leaders who have stood fast, determined that Australia must be a tolerant country and insisting that the White Australia policy must not return. Australia does, however, still face challenges with its indigenous population, the Aborigines. Multicultural Australia has not managed to absorb them. Indonesia on the other hand, known to be multicultural and tolerant for centuries, is going through a stage in which this long tradition of tolerance is being tested. It was this tolerance that produced the national motto “Unity in Diversity”. Yet it also produced a diversity in unity, a crucial part of the consolidation of Indonesia in 1945 when the Republic of Indonesia was declared.  It is ironic that it was the authoritarian New Order period that insisted we all be tolerant of each other, respecting our differences in culture, language and religion. It is worrying that incidents of intolerance, many leading to conflict, have been on the increase in Indonesia recently.  I for one, having been based in Australia for 16 years as a Kompas correspondent, never thought I would find myself acknowledging the presence of a strong tradition of tolerance within Australian society. The reason for the change is simple. Australian leadership has been forced throughout the years to take a stand and advocate tolerance; those who advocated otherwise have lost in elections.  There are still many issues that need to be addressed between Australia and its Asian neighbors. Perhaps the quality of political communication still needs fine tuning. A change of government in Australia usually means that the incoming government needs time to get acquainted with the right “Asia literate” language. It does not come naturally.  But people-to-people relations between Australia and its Asian neighbors have been going from strength to strength. An important sign was the way in which Australians and Balinese dealt with the tragedy of the Bali bombing. It was an important learning process for both Australia and Indonesia as it acknowledged that the threat of terrorism was a global problem and a threat to mankind everywhere. Sane and peaceful people should always band together, no matter what their race or religion might be. ●