konflik an di asia pasifik; masa depan beserta kemungkinannya
TRANSCRIPT
SENGKETA PERBATASAN MARITIM DI ASIA PASIFIK ; MASA DEPAN BESERTA KEMUNGKINANNYA
Pendahuluan
Salah satu permasalahan yang terjadi di Asia Pasifik yang merupakan sengketa
multi nasional adalah sengketa perbatasan maritim yang terjadi di beberapa
tempat di kawasan Asia Pasifik. Hal ini menjadi sengketa multi nasional karena
adanya klaim yang tumpang tindih antara dua atau lebih negara. Sengketa yang
terjadi juga memiliki dasar yang berbeda-beda, masing-masing negara
mempunyai dasar sendiri-sendiri dalam melakukan klaim atas wilayahnya, ada
yang menggunakan dasar historis sebagai dasar klaimnya, ada juga yang
ditimbulkan akibat diterapkannya UNCLOS sebagai dasar dalam menentukan
batas wilayahnya sesuai dengan rezim yang dimuat di dalam UNCLOS.
Menariknya walau memiliki dasar yang berbeda-beda, namun semua klaim yang
merupakan hasil dari kepentingan nasional (National Interest) masing-masing
Negara yang terlibat. Setiap negara melihat wilayah territorial sebagai bagian
yang penting, dimana wilayah territorial merupakan media dalam penggalian
sumber daya yang sangat dibutuhkan oleh negara untuk mendukung
pembangunan dan kesinambungan Negara. Kemudian faktor lain yang memicu
terjadinya sengketa adalah rasa nasionalisme atau kebanggaan dari masing-
masing Negara.
Salah satu sengketa perbatasan yang paling kompleks di kawasan Asia Pasifik
adalah sengketa Spratly. Sengketa yang terjadi di wilayah Laut China Selatan ini
melibatkan 5 negara yaitu China, Vietnam, Philipina, Malaysia dan Brunei
Darusssalam. Seperti yang telah diuraikan di atas, setiap Negara mempunyai
dasar yang berbeda-beda dalam melakukan klaim atas wilayahnya, demikian
juga luas wilayah yang diklaimpun berbeda-beda satu sama lain dan terjadi
tumpang tindih dalam klaim wilayah tersebut, ini yang menyebakan sengketa ini
menjadi sangat kompleks dan sulit untuk diselesaikan. Klaim berdasarkan history
dilakukan oleh China, Vietnam dan Philipina, kemudian klaim berdasarkan
pemberdayaan wilayah dilakukan oleh China, Vietnam, Philipina dan Malaysia,
selanjutnya klaim yang didasarkan atas berlakunya UNCLOS dilakukan oleh
Vietnam, Philipina, Malaysia dan Brunei Darussalam. Setiap Negara memliki
beberapa dasar untuk mem-back up klaim yang dilakukannnya sehingga
membuat sengketa ini menjadi bertambah komplek.
Sengketa yang terjadi ini baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung akan
mempengaruhi lingkungan strategis dari kawasan tersebut. Sengketa ini akan
menaikkan suhu dan ketegangan dari Negara-negara yang terlibat, namun disisi
lain sebenarnya sengketa ini juga memberikan kesempatan bagi Negara-negara
yang berselisih untuk saling berkomunikasi dan bekerja sama dalam upaya
mendapatkan solusi atau pemecahan yang terbaik dari sengketa yang terjadi.
Tulisan ini akan membahas kemungkinan-kemungkinan yang diakibatkan oleh
sengketa-sengketa perbatasan yang ada di kawasan Asia Pasifik utamanya
sengketa Spratly dan juga kemungkinan-kemungkinan untuk mencapai resolusi
secara damai dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi.
SENGKETA PERBATASAN MARITIM DI ASIA PASIFIK
Pada bagian ini akan dibahas sengketa perbatasan maritim yang terjadi
berdasarkan kategori untuk memudahkan bagi kita memahami dan
mengidentifikasi factor-faktor yang menyebabkan sengketa tersebut terjadi.
LATAR BELAKANG SEJARAH
Sebelum ada era kolonisasi oleh bangsa Eropa di kawasan Asia Pasifik,
kawasan ini dikuasai oleh kerajaan-kerajaan yang tersebar di kawasan.
Antar kerajaan-kerajaan ini tidak dibatasi oleh suatu batas wilayah yang
jelas satu sama lain secara administratif, melainkan lebih didasarkan atas
saling pengertian satu sama lain, sehingga batas wilayah ini tidak tertuang
dalam bentuk garis batas, dokumen-dokumen resmi atau aturan-aturan
yang mengatur untuk menandakan batas kekuasaan/wilayah dari
kerajaan-kerajaan tersebut. Namun demikian hubungan antara kerajaan-
kerajaan tersebut sangat unik, pengertian antara kerajaan demikian juga
dengan rakyat dari kerajaan-kerajaan tersebut sudah dapat dimengerti
secara mendalam oleh masing-masing pihak dan mereka saling
menghormati dan memiliki tenggang rasa yang tinggi dalam hal ini.
Rakyat di jaman itu hidup dalam kelompok-kelompok yang dikenal dengan
istilah suku serta membentuk bahasa dan budaya diantara suku-suku
tersebut. Dari budaya suku inilah kemudian berkembang cerita-cerita dan
dokumen-dokumen yang bersifat tidak resmi mengenai kewilayahan dari
masing-masing suku yang mana hal ini masih berlaku dan dipercayai
hingga saat ini.
Pada abad pertengahan, kawasan Asia Pasifik menjadi daerah koloni dari
bangsa-bangsa Eropa. Adanya kebutuhan untuk memdapatkan sumber
daya telah memaksa bangsa-bangsa Eropa untuk memperluas wilayah
kekuasaan mereka sampai ke seluruh pelosok dunia. Mulai dari Portugis
diikuti oleh Spanyol, Inggris dan Belanda datang ke Asia Pasifik dalam
usahanya mendapatkan sumber daya, diawali dengan perdagangan
dengan bangsa-bangsa di Asia Pasifik hingga akhirnya terjadi kompetisi
antar bangsa-bangsa Eropa untuk mendapatkan sumber daya tersebut.
Setelah kompetisi semakin meningkat, usaha ini semakin keras dilakukan
oleh bangsa-bangsa Eropa sehingga mulailah timbulnya monopoli
perdagangan sampai dengan akhirnya timbul klaim atas wilayah sebagai
awal dimulainya era penjajahan oleh bangsa-bangsa Eropa terhadap
bangsa-bangsa di Asia Pasifik. Klaim atas wilayah ini lebih didasari atas
dasar kepentingan dan kebutuhan mereka atas sumber daya pada saat
itu, dengan kata lain apabila di suatu wilayah mereka tidak memiliki
kepentingan atau tidak ada ketertarikan pada wilayah tersebut, maka
mereka tidak menarik garis di wilayah tersebut, sebagai contoh pulau
karang atau pulau-pulau kecil yang tidak memiliki sumber daya alam juga
batas-batas wilayah laut, karena pada saat itu pencarian sumber daya
lebih kepada sumber daya di darat berupa hasil-hasil perkebunan,
sehingga batas-batas wilayah laut tidak begitu diperhatikan dan menjadi
tidak jelas antara daeah-daerah koloni pada saat itu. Ketidak jelasin inilah
yang kemudian menjadi masalah setelah berakhirnya era kolonisasi di
kawasan ini. Negara-negara baru yang bermunculan setelah era
kolonisasi berakhir mempunyai wawasan dan kepentingan yang berbeda
dengan Negara-negara penjajah di waktu lalu. Kepentingan yang ada
berkembang sejalan dengan perkembangan teknologi dan pengetahuan,
tidak hanya sebatas kepentingan di darat namun berkembang ke wilayah
laut sebagai bagian dari wilayah Negara berdaulat. Pulau-pulau yang tidak
dimanfaatkan sewaktu jaman kolonisasi sekarang berubah menjadi
kepentingan strategis bagi Negara-negara baru yang muncul. Status
kepemilikan dari pulau-pulau yang tidak jelas pada masa kolonisasi dapat
menjadi sumber persengketaan dari Negara-negara yang ada di kawasan
ini.
Kolonisasi juga telah merusak kesepahaman/pengertian antara kerajaan-
kerajaan yang pernah ada. Pembagian wilayah kekuasaan yang dibatasi
oleh kepentingan dan dilaksanakan melalui perjanjian-perjanjian oleh
bangsa-bangsa penjajah telah merusak system yang telah ada
sebelumnya, dan hal ini juga menambah ketidak jelasan dari batas
wilayah Negara-negara serta memancing timbulnya sengketa antara
Negara-negara yang eksis di kawasan saat ini. Perjanjian-perjanjian
antara bangsa-bangsa penjajah pada waktu lalu tidak dapat memberikan
penjelasan yang jelas untuk menghindari terjadinya sengketa setelah
mereka meninggalkan kawasan ini.
Pengusaan wilayah pada saat perang dunia juga menimbulkan asumsi
bahwa suatu wilayah secara factual menjadi bagian wilayah suatu
Negara, dan ketika perang berakhir, pemenang perang mengembalikan
kembali wilayah-wilayah kepada Negara-negara di wilayah ini sehingga
dijadikan dasar bagi Negara-negar tersebut untuk mengklaim wilayah
tersebut sebagia bagian dari wilayah mereka. Hal ini juga menambah
ketidak jelasan batas wilayah dari Negara-negara di kawasan Asia Pasifik.
Dari uraian di atas dapat kita lihat dari latar belakang sejarah factor-faktor
yang dapat mempengaruhi terjadinya sengketa wilayah seperti system
politik sebelum era kolonisasi, kemudian adanya dekolonisasi itu sendiri
serta penggunaan wilayah era perang dunia yang semakin membuat
ketidak jelasan batas-batas wilayah antar Negara sehingga memicu
adanya sengketa wilayah antar Negara-negara tersebut.
UNCLOS
With the existence of UNCLOS, it makes the claimants have a legal basis
to the territory that they already had claimed before base on the historical
back ground and / or occupation. Furthermore it also causes new
claimants. Based on UNCLOS, the right to explore and exploit resources
becomes larger with the adding of territorial sea and ZEE. The adding
territorial sea and ZEE sometimes make overlap one to another. UNCLOS
doesn’t regulate specifically when it is happens, it should be solved by
specific agreement among the countries bilaterally or regionally. It also
makes the maritime disputes become even more complex than before.
FACTORS THAT INFLUANCE THE COUNTRIES TO APPLYING THEIR
CLAIM
Historical back ground and UNCLOS has been explained above, how they
can contribute to the maritime disputes that happens, however the main
reason of disputes itself is lying on the national interest of each country
that involve in the disputes. Long time ago at the pre colonization era,
maritime territorial disputes was not happen in Asia Pacific region,
because the interest at that time was different. People at that time saw the
sea as a free territory that can used by any other nation, both as a
transportation media and as a media to explore natural resources such as
fishing activities. The distribution of power that represented by territory
was much more lying on the land, furthermore oil was not invented yet.
With the invention of oil and the advancement of technology that make
possibility to explore and exploit more resources at the sea, the interest to
sea as a source of resources become bigger. Furthermore, the
advancement in maritime trade as well as the advancement of the ability
to project power from the sea makes the control and authorization over
maritime territory become more important for one nation. The need of
space to maneuver in order to protect their own territory changes the view
or consideration to the sea territory. Sea has seen not only as a
transportation media but also as an important part of nation to get
resources that needed for develop the economy, and furthermore sea as a
media to defense. It makes the explanation how vital to control the sea
territory for one nation, that also makes and force the countries to claim
sea territory in vicinity and even to claim sea territory as far as possible to
get a maximum space to maneuver for nation protection and maximum
advantages of resources from the sea.
The situations that mention above result a maritime disputes, and make the
disputes become very complex. One of the disputes that happen in Asia Pacific
region is Spratly Maritime disputes. In this case the dispute become very
complex since involving many countries as claimants, the bases from each
country also different and supported by both historical and UNCLOS, the area
that they claim are overlap one to another.
SPRATLY ‘S MARITIME TERRITORIAL DISPUTES; CURRENT SITUATION AND POSSIBILITY
The Spratly Islands consist of 100 - 230 islets, coral reefs and sea mounts.1
Despite the fact that the archipelago is spread over 250,000 sq km of sea space,
the total land mass of the Spratly Islands is a mere 5 sq km. The land is not
arable, does not support permanent crops, and has no meadows, pastures or
forests.2 Furthermore, the Spratly Islands have not been occupied by humans
until recently.
The Spratly Islands are situated in the South China Sea, one of the largest
continental shelves in the world. Typically, continental shelves are abundant in
resources such as oil, natural gas, minerals, and seafood. One study conducted
by China estimated oil reserves in the South China Sea to be larger than
Kuwait's present reserves.3 Oil and natural gas reserves in the Spratly region are
estimated at 17.7 billion tons; Kuwait's reserves amount to 13 billion tons.4 The
fishing zone around the South China Sea ranks fourth among the world's
nineteen fishing zones in terms of total annual marine production.5
The security situation in the South China Sea region is characterised by a
multinational dispute over the territorial delimitation of the South China Sea.
1 http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html; b. Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute."2 http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html.3 Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute." Peacekeeping & International Relations. Jul/Aug 1995: 3-44 http://snipe.ukc.ac.uk/international/dissert.dir/marsh.html. 5 http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm
There are overlapping claims between 5 states to the Spratly area. The lack of a
firm security structure in the region makes the territorial dispute an explosive
issue. On the other hand, the dispute provides the regional states in Southeast
and East Asia with an incentive and opportunity to develop regional co-operative
institutions.6
Approximately 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are claimed or occupied by
China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict is the result of
overlapping sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands thought to possess
substantial natural resources --chiefly oil, natural gas, and seafood.
Disputes have been propelled by an aggressive China, eager to meet growing
energy demands that outstrip its supply capability. Overlapping claims resulted in
several military incidents since 1974 and in several countries awarding foreign
companies exploration rights in the same area of the South China Sea. Regional
nation-states not directly involved in the Spratly disputes became concerned
about regional stability and established a regional forum to discuss the peaceful
resolution of the disputes. Sovereignty and exploration disputes were thought to
be resolved with the drafting of ASEAN's 1992 declaration which committed
members to resolve disputes peacefully and to consider joint exploration of the
territory. Military aggression and exploration endeavors conducted by China
since 1992, however, have brought into question the validity of the 1992 joint
declaration and raises the question of what long-term, peaceful solution could
prevent the region from erupting into a continuum of military incidents over
sovereignty rights to the natural resource-rich Spratly Islands.7
6 http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm7 http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm
Claims to various islands of the archipelago began in the 1930s. Since the
1950s, the involved claimants have developed 29 oil fields and 4 gas fields in the
Spratly region.8
CHINA ‘S PERSPECTIVE
China's energy balance of trade has dramatically deteriorated since the
early 1990s, causing China to become a net importer of oil for the first
time in over 25 years.9 Dependence on imported oil is likely to continue,
given its low per capita energy consumption rate -- 40% of the world
average. Unless China can find a way of coping with the high start-up
costs, waste products and safety concerns affiliated with the
implementation of nuclear energy, oil will remain one of China's leading
energy sources for the mid-to-long term.10
Spratly offers oil to China. In 1992 China passed a special territorial sea
and contiguous zone act to legalize its claims to the Spratly. Article 2 of
this legislation specifically identifies both the Paracel and Spratly
archipelagos as Chinese territory.11 China’s basis of claim to the Spratly is
based on first discovery and historical claims.
Economic exploration endeavors appear to ignite the tenuous stability in
the Spratly region. China granted oil exploration rights to foreign oil firms
in territories with overlapping claims. In 1992, China National Offshore Oil
Corp signed a joint exploration contract with Crestone Energy Corp. for a
disputed area in the Spratly Islands. The Sino-U.S. contract infuriated
8 "Territorial Disputes Simmer in Areas of South China Sea." Oil & Gas Journal. Vol 90 No 28. 13 Jul 19929 Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr 199610 Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr 199611 Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation
Vietnam, who claimed the contract location is part of its exclusive
economic zone. The situation was further aggravated in 1996, when
Vietnam forged ahead with joint exploration plans in Spratly waters also
claimed by China. Vietnam awarded exploration rights to Conoco in 1996,
infuriating China. China claims that the area covered in the 1996 Vietnam-
Conoco deal overlaps with the block awarded to Crestone Energy by
China in 1992.12
The conflict is further exacerbated by foreign firms willing to undertake
riskier oil development projects in Asia. The foreign oil firms are looking to
profit from the current energy boom in Asia as well as to find replacement
reserves for those in the United States and the North Sea where
production approaches their peak.13
Aside from granting foreign firms exploration rights in disputed waters and
conducting military exercises in the Spratly area, China has also
committed itself to the build-up of its navy and air force. The Financial
Times reported in August of 1996 that China planned to purchase
advanced navy radar from the British. This radar would improve warning
signals to China of 'impending' attacks as well as facilitate naval task
group deployment in the South China Sea.14
Another interest of China in Spratly is fishing. Fishing remains an
important economic activity for China, and these waters hold abundant
supplies of numerous fish species. A recent study indicated that the
Spratly area in the South China Sea, covering some 390,000 square
kilometres, is one of the world’s richest fishing grounds, yielding up 7.5
tons of fish per square kilometre.15
12 "Risk and Return." The Economist. 27 Apr 1996: 6613 "Risk and Return." The Economist. 27 Apr 1996: 6614 "China to Buy British Advanced Navy Radar." Financial Times. 6 Aug 1996: 115 Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation
China need for stability and energy resources to sustain its economic
growth and fulfill its national objective. The world is beginning to accept
China’s role on the world stage. China’s economy is no longer and
isolated economy, and is increasingly plugged into the global economy.
China’s economy has grown, making her the world’s 3rd largest economy.
Besides the resources, Spratly also offers an access for China to maintain
their trading and security related. Access is necessary for trade flows
which are crucial to China’s continued economic growth. Spratly also
gives a space for China to occupy their naval forces to protect national
security from a sea-based attack; Spratly is seen as a strategic asset by
China.
VIETNAM ‘S PERSPECTIVE
The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is one of the six nations that has laid
claim to Spratly islands. Vietnam has been one of the most adamant in its
claims and that has taken assertive steps in attempting to establish its
control over the chain. Its willingness to go so far as to risk war with the
mighty People's Republic of China (PRC) is evidence enough that the
Spratly Islands are extremely important to Vietnam.16
While Spratly Islands had been utilized for centuries by fishers from
various countries, especially from Vietnam and China, the question
remains as to which people first discovered the archipelago. Most agree
that the Chinese were probably the first to find the islands, although
Vietnam contends that "not only the Chinese, but also the Vietnamese, the
Malays, the Persians, the Arabs made voyages to and from the waters of
the Truong Sa (Spratly)," and that any of these groups could have
16 Todd C. Kelly, Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed. Spratly Islands]
"discovered" the chain.17 Vietnam has also declared that "even if it is true
that the Chinese discovered these archipelagos," Hanoi will continue to
refute China's claim because discovery alone does "not constitute a legal
basis for the Chinese claim that they have been under Chinese
jurisdiction."18
Regardless of which nation actually discovered the islands, Vietnam
maintains that it alone exercised the earliest authority and control over the
Spratly Islands. Until the 17th century, no written documents existed to
prove this assertion. The first mention of Vietnamese exercise of
sovereignty over the island chain appears in an annotated atlas written
between 1630 and 1653. Although a 17th century document, textual
analysis including "historical references and linguistic style" indicates that
this early contact with the islands actually began some 200 years earlier,
under the reign of King Le Than Tong [1460 - 1497].19
During the 17th century that the Truong Sa was placed under the
administration of the Binh Son district within the Quang Nghia prefecture
of Vietnam. Route Maps from the Capital to the Four Directions by Do Ba
Cong Dao provides documentation of sovereignty over the Truong Sa
archipelago, the first Vietnamese documentation of formal exercise of
authority over the Truong Sa.20
Vietnam’s biggest threat in Spratly disputes context is China, which is its
largest neighbor. However, it is also highly dependent on China for
imports and exports. Consequently, Vietnam is seeking to balance the
17 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos and International Law (Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1988).18 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories (Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1982).19 Gerardo Martin C. Valero, Spratly Archipelago: Is the Question of Sovereignty Still Relevant? (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, 1993).20 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories, 1 - 2.
power asymmetry with China by engaging China through multilateral
organizations such as ASEAN.
Vietnam exports crude oil and imports refined petroleum. Having access
to the Spratly’s oil deposits will serve to enhance its oil reserves, which will
boost its economy.
Fisheries are an important part of the Vietnamese economy. Hence,
having access to the fishing grounds in the Spratly will serve to enhance
their fisheries industry, thereby contributing to their economic growth.
Control of Spratly will have some impact on SLOC access for Vietnam’s
trade dependent economy. However, the impact for Vietnam is not as
significant as compared to China’s. Due to Vietnam’s long coast-line
facing the South China Sea, it is in her interest to ensure that the SLOCs
remain accessible and that the islands are not dominated by a less than
friendly power.
Vietnam wants stability for continued economic growth. Hence, she does
not want the disputes to cause instability, which will affect her economic
growth. However, she also doesn’t want to see China dominating,
especially off Vietnam’s coast. Vietnam does not want to antagonize
China due to its economic dependence on China. Hence, Vietnam is
unlikely to allow the disputes to affect bilateral ties with China.
Vietnam is a credible naval power, and is the 2nd largest naval power
amongst the claimants. However, China’s navy is much larger, which
makes it unlikely for Vietnam to pursue a military solution to the disputes.
It is in Vietnam’s interests to keep the disputes issue alive. This will serve
register their position that the issue is not resolved and they do not accept
the current situation. This may be useful in the future to further press their
claims when conditions are more favorable.21 Vietnam is trying to
strengthen her claims by selectively working with other claimants to
countervail China’s influence. Hence, Vietnam prefers to work through
ASEAN and other international forums to balance China’s influence.
PHILIPINA, BRUNEI AND MALAYSIA
Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratly on the issues
of res nullius and geography. Philippines contend Kalayaan was res
nullius as there was no effective sovereignty over the islands until the
nineteen thirties when France and then Japan acquired the islands.
Philippine claim to Kalayaan on geographical bases can be summarized
using the assertion that Kalayaan is distinct from other island groups in the
South China Sea.22
A second argument used by the Philippines regarding their geographical
claim over the Spratly is that all the islands claimed by the Philippines lie
within their archipelagic baselines, the only claimant who can make such a
statement. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) stated that a coastal state could claim two hundred nautical
miles of jurisdiction beyond its land boundaries. It is perhaps telling that
while the Philippines is a signatory to UNCLOS, the PRC and Vietnam are
not. The Philippines also argue, under Law of the Sea provisions, that the
PRC cannot extend its baseline claims to the Spratly because the PRC is
not an archipelagic state. Whether this argument (or any other used by the
Philippines) would hold up in court is debatable but possibly moot, as the
PRC and Vietnam seem unwilling to legally substantiate their claims and
have rejected Philippine challenges to take the dispute to the World
Maritime Tribunal in Hamburg.23
21 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mysvnm_33_2009.htm22 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the spratly islands.html
23 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the spratly islands.html
Brunei and Malaysia base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratly
purely on UNCLOS. Due to low military capability compare to the two-first
claimants, the three-latter claimants have so far kept quiet. However they
keep trying to open their chances and take any advantages when there is
any, such as Philippines where they call China as a big brother, they keep
their chance remain open to gain advantages from their relation with
China.
THE POSSIBLITY OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Due to demand for energy security, there will be a time dimension as the demand
for energy increases over time. Hence, the pressure for exploration to determine
oil and gas deposits will increase on the claimants, particularly when oil price
increases.
The growing importance of SLOCs for all nations to gain access to import/export
markets may lead to a situation where no one country is allowed to dominate the
Spratly. Particularly for countries that are traditionally not transparent about their
intentions.
Given the complex overlapping claims on different basis by the various
claimants, the Spratly disputes might not be resolved solely on one basis alone,
for example using historical background only or UNCLOS only. Hence, there is
currently no established basis or framework for resolution of the Spratly disputes.
Thus, there is a need for a different approach to conflict resolution.
Considering the complexity of the issue, it is better to have conflict prevention
rather than seek a permanent resolution, since none of the claimants are likely to
compromise their sovereignty claims.
With the rise of China, the power asymmetry between the claimants will
increasingly be skewed in favor of China. Being the biggest player; China’s
actions would determine the potential for inter-state conflicts in the region.
Whether act as an aggressor by using military power, or maintain status quo
while she can still enjoy and take an advantages of current strategic environment
in South China Sea, or establish cooperative approach to gain respect in the
region and to be seen as a responsible international player. For the last option,
China might leverage on deepening China – ASEAN relation or use her economy
might to influence the other claimants to play in China’s way.
As the volume of world trade increases, the cost for going to conflict amongst the
claimants increases due to the disruption to world trade that such conflicts will
cause. Hence, it is in the claimants’ interests to avoid conflict and seek peaceful
resolution. More and more countries are looking towards a common international
framework to resolve disputes rather than resort to force. Increasingly, countries
are seeking to resolve disputes amicably. International norms increasingly
regulate how nations conduct their relations with other countries.
From this, we can deliver three possibilities path of conflict resolution in the
context of Spratly maritime disputes. First, China takes all the territory using its
power to force other claimants to give up on the disputes, consider the other
claimants will not try to contend China by exercising their military power, due to
the powerless military power compare to China as well as the need of stability
and dependence to China in order to keep and maintain their economic growing.
Second path is maintaining status quo over the disputes. The situation will
remain the same; it can be seen as conflict prevention rather than conflict
resolution, but it still leaves the potential oil problem unclear. The last path is
establishing agreement on division of economic gains. This can be achieved if
each claimant can decline the nationalism. The strong relationship between
China and ASEAN could be used as an important tool.
CONCLUSION
Maritime territorial disputes in Asia Pacific region were aroused as a result of
national interest. In order to achieve their interest, states are using some different
reasons as base for their claim. The overlap claim creates the disputes over the
region and with the various basis that are used by claimant, make the dispute
become very complex. The dispute that happens also creates tension among the
claimants and also influences other countries which also need stability in the
region to conduct maritime trade. On the other hand it is also given an open
chance to establish cooperation among the countries in the region.
Current geo political within the region also lead the claimant in their effort to
achieve conflict resolution over the disputes. The need of stability within the
region, inter dependant in order to maintain economic growth as well as power
comparison among the claimant have form certain paths to the conflict resolution.
In this case, a hundred percents of satisfaction of each claimant might not be
achieved; however there is a possibility where peace full agreement might be
achieved in solving the disputes in Asia Pacific region.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html; b. Kiras, James. "The
South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute."
2. http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html.
3. Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute."
Peacekeeping & International Relations. Jul/Aug 1995: 3-4
4. http://snipe.ukc.ac.uk/international/dissert.dir/marsh.html.
5. http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm
6. “Territorial Disputes Simmer in Areas of South China Sea." Oil & Gas
Journal. Vol 90 No 28. 13 Jul 1992
7. Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr
1996
8. Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China
Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation
9. "Risk and Return." The Economist. 27 Apr 1996: 66
10. "China to Buy British Advanced Navy Radar." Financial Times. 6 Aug
1996: 1
11. Todd C. Kelly, Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed.
Spratly Islands]
12. The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos and International Law (Hanoi:
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1988).
13. Gerardo Martin C. Valero, Spratly Archipelago: Is the Question of
Sovereignty Still Relevant? (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International
Legal Studies, 1993).
14. The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories, 1 - 2.
15. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcsnew/submissionsfiles/submission mysvnm
33 2009.htm
16 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the
spratly islands.html