http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,251010,00.html?
INSIGHT Dire straits? Recent American and Singapore statements on the security problems in the Malacca Straits have provoked strong responses from Malaysia and Indonesia. Insight looks at the different national interests at play and the question of US involvement By Lydia Lim MANY container ships plying the Malacca Straits stretch the length of two football fields. Yet they are manned by only between 18 and 24 crew, not all of whom are on deck at the same time. A constant worry of captains, says master mariner James Fong, is that pirates could attack their ships under the cover of night in fast boats with low lights. In such an attack, a large carrier could end up with no one at the helm if both crew and captain are restrained while the ship is being ransacked. This only increases the risk of a crash into rocks or collision with other ships and chaos would result in the congested straits, where navigation is already difficult in the calmest of times. Steering a big vessel through the 900km long waterway used by some 600 ships daily is, says Captain Fong, like 'driving along the East Coast Parkway without any brakes and with lots of bicycles coming at you'. Adding to these security concerns is a growing fear in some quarters that it may no longer be just pirates who pose a threat. Terrorism researchers have warned of the possibility of ships being hijacked and used as missiles against pre-determined targets, in the same way commercial aircraft were used on Sept 11, 2001. There is a need, says Dr Andrew Tan of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, for security measures in the straits to be 'greatly enhanced... to detect and deter possible attacks'. PULLING APART AMONG the three states which lie adjacent to the Malacca Straits and the adjoining Singapore Straits, there is a range of views on the magnitude of the security problem. In the last two years, Singapore's leaders have consistently warned of the possibility of maritime terrorism. As recently as April 26, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean told members of regional navies that the security arrangements in place were 'not adequate, as it is an intensive and complex task to safeguard regional waters against maritime terrorism'. 'No single state has the resources to deal effectively with this threat,' he said. At the same time, he made clear that multilateral cooperation must proceed 'on the basis of consultation and within the bounds of international law'. Despite this, Malaysia immediately took umbrage. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said a day later: 'It is unfair for them to simply run down Malaysia, saying we don't have the capability.' Malaysia also maintained that the security issue had been blown out of proportion as the vast majority of reported cases were small-scale pirate attacks. There were no reports of terrorist involvement, it pointed out. Complicating the situation further was the timing of Rear-Admiral (NS) Teo's speech. It came three weeks after a top United States military commander, Admiral Thomas Fargo, spoke about Singapore's strong support for a regional maritime plan to counter terrorism, which could include the deployment of US marines in high-speed vessels along the Malacca Straits. Both Malaysia and Indonesia protested strongly against any suggestion of US patrols in the straits and rejected the possibility of a US-led plan. The widely reported dispute raises questions over why, despite broad agreement on the need to improve security in the straits, the three countries are pulling in different directions. For a start, what explains the different perceptions of the seriousness of the security threat? Why do sovereignty and territorial integrity figure prominently in statements by Malaysia and Indonesia but not in Singapore's? And why does Singapore seem more aligned with the US than with its two neighbours on this issue? It all boils down to diverging national interests, says maritime analyst Mak Joon Num, a former director of research at the Maritime Institute of Malaysia. Both Indonesia and Malaysia want to assert control over the straits but each for its own reasons. For Indonesia, what is of paramount importance is the concept of territorial integrity, says Mr Mak, now a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. As an archipelagic state that spans 17,000 islands, Indonesia considers control over its territorial waters to be crucial to the preservation of its national unity. History also has a role to play in this mindset, says Mr Mak, as foreign powers have in the past channelled help to separatist movements via the sea. Trade conducted via the Malacca Straits is of little interest to Indonesia. Its major ports are elsewhere, along the Sunda Straits and the Lombok Straits. As for Malaysia, it is worried that what limited control it has over the straits will be eroded further. In the 1970s, Malaysia failed to prevent the major maritime powers, including the US, Britain and Japan, from pushing through the Transit Passage Regime in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This regime means that littoral states cannot impede the passage of ships through a straits used for international navigation, even though the straits might lie within their territorial waters. This is the case with the Malacca Straits. Mr Mak says Malaysia felt the regime was 'extremely unfair since it imposed upon the littoral states the responsibility of ensuring safe navigation without the concomitant right of controlling navigation'. This sense of unfairness was made worse by the fact that the deep-water passage in the straits runs on the Malaysian side, by and large. However, most of the ships did not call at Malaysian ports but at Singapore's instead. Finally, there was also the perception that any shipwreck would hurt Malaysia most. There would be environmental damage, disruption of its west-coast ports' operations and worse, it would have to foot the cost of restoring navigational safety in the straits. These reasons explain Malaysia's reluctance to be burdened with more responsibilities. If anything, over the years, it has sought to recalibrate the balance between the rights and responsibilities of the littoral states and those of the users of the straits. In a 1992 address to the 47th session of the United Nations General Assembly, then Malaysian foreign minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said there was a need to review existing maritime laws. Littoral states, he said, should not be left to shoulder the burden of problems caused by the increasing international traffic in the straits. However, Malaysia's argument that the time had come for users of the straits to help fund the cost of ensuring navigational safety was rejected by the international community. As for Singapore, while it may regard itself as a littoral state, Mr Mak sees its interests as more closely aligned with those of the maritime powers, such as the US and Japan - two of the biggest users of the straits. What matters to maritime powers is the freedom of passage. This is also in Singapore's interests as an island state locked in at both eastern and western ends by the territorial waters of Malaysia and Indonesia. The right of international ships to free passage through the Malacca Straits is thus critical to its port, export-oriented economy and oil-refining hub. THE U.S. FACTOR THE recent US proposal to develop a regional security plan has in a sense united Indonesia and Malaysia, since neither would like to cede control over security arrangements for the straits to the superpower. Indonesian and Malaysian analysts say it is not US involvement per se that their countries are against. No one doubts America is in an unrivalled position to provide the equipment and know-how needed to beef up security. Rather, it is the possibility of increased US military presence in the region that has both countries worried. To allow US ships to patrol Malaysian and Indonesian waters, says one analyst, is akin to letting a stranger walk in and out of your house at will. Agreeing, Jakarta-based intelligence observer Muchyar Yara says: 'Indonesia has always been against the presence of foreign military elements in Asia.' If the US really wanted to help, it should do so in an 'invisible way', says Mr Iskandar Sazlan, a senior researcher at the Maritime Institute of Malaysia. 'Having US patrols is counterproductive. What the US should do, instead, is to provide intelligence and equipment,' he says. Anti-American feelings in both Muslim-majority countries are also running high, as a result of the superpower's recent actions in Iraq and its stance in the Middle East conflict. This makes it all the more vital that US offers of support are made quietly. Indeed, Japan has shown the way. Since 1968, it has channelled $150 million through two foundations in support of efforts to improve navigational safety in the straits. Even the international shipping community now agrees that any plan to improve security must recognise the local context, if it is to succeed. Captain Pottengal Mukundan, director of the International Maritime Bureau, says: 'It is important to build confidence that these measures will enhance security and not threaten sovereignty.' The current spotlight on security in the straits should serve as an impetus for all three countries to work towards such a solution. Do you have views on the issue? In what ways can all three countries agree to step up security in the straits? We would like to hear from you. E-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax us at 6732-0131. Please do not send e-mail attachments. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/BRUplB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.arsip.da.ru *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru; 4. Posting: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
