Posted by Michael Vatikiotis on June 10, 2009. Filed under Indonesia, Malaysia, Maritime Security, Regional Organizations.

Rising tensions between Indonesia and Malaysia over the disputed Ambalat maritime area off East Kalimantan have brought the two neighbours close to open conflict in the past two weeks, highlighting once again the paucity of formal mechanism of dispute resolution in the ASEAN region.

Malaysia claims part of the oil-rich Ambalat region based on a 1979 maritime chart, while Indonesia bases its claim on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states that the area belongs to Indonesia.

Leaders in both country have thankfully stressed they wish to see dialogue leading to a formal resolution of the overlapping claims. But as with all bilateral issues that pose a threat to peace in the ASEAN region, the problem is not the willingness to talk, but the lack of access to proper mediation of disputes. 

It seems that no sooner than the threat of conflict appears in this region, two things generally happen: First, tensions immediately rise as nationalist drums are beaten on both sides, there usually follows a flurry of contacts and the hurried exchange of visits by high officials as attempts are made to defuse confrontation that could lead to armed conflict. 

Second, in subsequent bilateral negations much is achieved in terms of finding ways to avoid an armed clash, but rarely is a formal a settlement of the dispute achieved.  One of the few things the two sides tend to agree upon is the need to keep out meddling third parties to avoid internationalizing the issue.

Yet it is precisely this reluctance to engage impartial third party help that these boundary disputes, such Ambalat and also the Thai-Cambodian border dispute over Preah Viharn, which did result in armed conflict earlier this year, tend to fester unresolved. 

In the case of Ambalat we can expect to see a flurry of bilateral contacts as the two sides seek to find a better way to avoid clashes in the region whilst each maintains the legitimacy of their claim. In other words, as is so often the case, they will seek to manage, rather than resolve the conflict so neither side loses face and risks a domestic political backlash. 

It’s not that the region isn’t equipped with mechanisms for mediating disputes.  Member states can always refer disputes among themselves to the ASEAN High Council, a forum for mediation that has never once been convened in the regional association’s more than 40 year history. This sort of spat is precisely what the ASEAN Secretary General should be empowered to use his good offices to help resolve. Doing so would give substantive meaning to ASEAN’s agreed development of a security community.