OPEN LETTER FROM ROTENESE LED BY PROF.YUSUF L.HENUK, PH.D TO THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL TO GET BACK GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY BY AUSTRALIA
PLEASE THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL HELP THE ROTENESE TO GET BACK THEIR BACKYARD OR "GARDENS IN THE OCEAN" IN GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR IN THE TIMOR SEA OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY BY AUSTRALIA USED FAKE MOU BOX 1974
OPEN OFFICIAL LETTER TO:
?Mr António Guterres
Secretary-General United Nations
405 East, 42nd Street New York, NY,
10017 United States of America - USA
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
?CC. 1. PM OZ ANTHONY ALBANESE
?????? ??????E-mail: [email protected]
? 2. PRESIDEN PRABOWO SUBIANTO
?????? ?????????Kementerian Pertahanan Republik Indonesia
??? ???????????Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat, Nomor 13-14
??? ???????????Jakarta Pusat 10110
??? ???????????E-mail: [email protected]
?Number: 03/OL/KOMLILAMORI/IV/2024
?Regarding: OPEN LETTER FROM ROTENESE LED BY PROF. YUSUF L. HENUK, PH.D TO THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL TO HELP THEM GET BACK THEIR BACKYARD OR “GARDENS IN THE OCEAN” IN GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY BY AUSTRALIA SINCE 1970S & THEY MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PRABOWO SUBIANTO BEFORE? 2029
Dear Sir,
INTRODUCTION:
(1) VOTE OF THANKS: I have thanked you via Twitter on 28 April 2024 as you have supported Indonesia & condemned Australia to occupy illegally Gugusan Pulau Pasir known as the Rotenese's backyard or "Gardens in the Ocean" in Timor Sea used fake MOU BOX 1974.
(2) OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA AND AUSTRALIA TO RENEGOTIATE MARITIME BOUNDARIES USED MEDIAN LINE BETWEEN RI - OZ SO GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PRESIDENT PRABOWO SUBIANTO BEFORE 2029 = OZ - NZ (2004) = OZ - ET (2018):
(a) SURAT TERBUKA TO PRESIDENT PRABOWO SUBIANTO ON 26 APRIL 2024
(b) OPEN LETTER TO PM AUSTRALIA ANTHONY ALBANESE ON 27 APRIL 2024
[I] THE OWNERSHIP STATUS OF GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR BY ROTENESE ACCORDING TO HISTORICAL FACTS
The Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islands (Gugusan Pulau Pasir) are positioned at 120 and 15’ South Latitude - 1230?03’ East Longitude and 120?32’ South Latitude - 1230?33’ East Longitude. These islands has been a favoured destination of Rotenese fishermen for centuries in their search for?marine products to trade on Asian market to China.
Until now, the Rotenese strongly believe that they have inalienable rights to Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islands, and still refer them as their backyard or ‘gardens in the ocean’, especially the Ashmore Reef?(Pulau Pasir) which is home of to about 161 graves (“kuburan”) of the fishermen from Rote in the the three coral islets. Indeed, the Rotenese along with other seafares from diversity of?islands and fishing communities in eastern Indonesia have been crossing these sea waters in small sailing wooden boats for centuries. Early Rotenese visitors to Pulau Pasir also planted coconut trees (“pohon kelapa”) to provide supplies and useful materials, and to mark of the location of the best well (“sumur”).
They are commonly called Pulau Pasir as Nusa Solokaek by the Rotenese fishermen because it was firstly discovered by Foe Mbura in 1729. These islands located so close to the island of Rote, are about 75 miles (±?140 km) from the island of Rote, Rote Ndao Regency, East Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia, then to Australia about 190 miles (± 314 km) from north-west of North Western Australia.
According to Prof. Yusuf Leonard Henuk, Ph.D, Foeh Mbura, the 5th King of Nusak Thie and his entourage in 1729 sailed on the Sangga Ndolu Ship from Rote to Batavia or Jakarta and were stranded on Pasir Island. Foe Mbura then took a stick carved his name and stuck it in the sand and named it Nusa Solokaek. They then continued their journey to Batavia or Jakarta arriving in 1729 with the aim of seeking or seeking peace, prosperity and knowledge for the people of Nusak Thi'e in particular and Rote Ndao in general. After they finished studying for two years in Batavia, they returned to Rote in 1732.
Without doubt, we the Rotenese were discovered first Nusa Solokaek in 1729 than Australian's ancestor from Europe in 1811, because the islands and their surrounding waters known as Gugusan Pulau Pasir were visited by Indonesian fishermen beginning about 1500. The first European to reach Cartier Island, in 1800, was a British sea captain named Nash, who sailed aboard the Cartier. Ashmore Reef was discovered in February 1811 by Capt. Samuel Ashmore of the ship Hibernia, for which another nearby reef was named.
Early Rotenese visitors to Pulau Pasir planted coconut palms to provide supplies and useful materials, and to mark the location of the best well. They also built low stone fences running down into the water to make fish traps. One man would shake a coconut palm leaf at the open end of the trap to stop the fish escaping, while others would throw grated coconut into the water. The coconut oil would spread out over the surface and make the water clear, so that the men could easily see - and spear - the fish in the trap. Over time, graves were also built on the westernmost island of Pulau Pasir, for fishermen who failed to make the return trip, victims of disease or accident on the journey. The graves were carefully tended by subsequent visitors from not only the Rotenese, but all fishermen from other part of Indonesia.
Until now, Nusa Solokaek or Pulau Pasir, which is home to about 161 graves of the fishermen from Rote in the three coral islets. These sad stories are part of the catalogue of memory and history that embodies a collective attachment to place. In the minds of the Rotenese, and also have Indigenous peoples elsewhere, the presence of their ancestral remains and the fact of their ongoing presence here speaks of an attachment that is also one of ownership. The proximity of the island to their own was also cited as a reason for their sense of ownership.
(PULAU PASIR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC_nQjoqEAM)
[II] THE BASIC CLAIMED OF THE OWNERSHIP STATUS OF GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR BY ROTENESE ACCORDING TO HISTORICAL FACTS
There are the six main basis for the claim for the ownership status of Gugusan Pulau Pasir by Rotenese as descibed by Henuk (2008) in the table below:
The six main basis claims for sovereignty/ownership over Pulau Pasir by Rotenese need to be analyzed from international law in order to determine the extent of Indonesia's chances of winning its claims, if this case is brought to the International 'Court of Justice' in the Haque, The Netherlands. Without doubt, these six basic claims described in the book of Prof. Yusuf L. Henuk, Ph.D are evidence of discovery and Dutch East Indies government occupation of Pasir Island. Historically, the all Rotenese know well that the 1878 annexation of Ashmore, seemingly, was not ratified and only temporarily occupied rather than settled, and was not unoccupied ?at the time of annexation, as Rotenese traditional fishermen fished and processed fish ashore seasonally. The fishermen fitted the designation ‘civilised’ as their ships papers always revealed Dutch colonial government authorization.
Without doubt, the Rotenese people still claimed Nusa Solokaek as part of their home land as well as their backyard over centuries? long before white people from Europe arrived in Australia. The main brilliant reason for their claimed is that the vast majority of its Australian owners have never visited it and never will, and live little idea of where it really is as compared to the Rotenese from Indonesia. These historical facts and brilliant mind proved that Nusa Solokaek is owned by Rotenese and is colonised by Dutch and thus it must be handled to Indonesia.
The Rotenese claim to own Ashmore and Cartier Island from Australia are guaranteed in Article 18 B Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 26 the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which was ratified by the UN General Assembly in New York on September 13, 2007 provides that Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, developed and control the lands, territories and resources that they posses by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. Section 3 of the Article declares "States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources...".
On top of that, historical record on the activities from certain party over the island could be a good consideration in owning the island. This rule was applied on the Sipadan and Ligitan islands case that make Indonesia lost those islands (https://www.icj-cij.org/case/102). Another similar things is the case of the dispute over South 'China' sea the China uses their historical background in claiming the sea and the islands among the South 'China' sea (https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea).
[III] THE OWNERSHIP STATUS OF GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR IN THE TIMOR SEA BY INDONESIA ACCORDING TO UNCLOS 1982
(1)??THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ILLEGAL MOU 1974 BOX
In the mind of?Rotenese, and also have indigenous peoples elsewhere, the presence of their ancestral remains and the facts of?ongoing presence here speaks of an attachment that is also one?of ownership. The proximity of the island to their own was also cited as a reason for their?sense of ownership. However, Australia blockaded Rotenese to enter their backyard or 'Gardens in the Ocena' in Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islands for long time.
In contrast, since 1974 Indonesia and Australia made illegally the MoU 74 Box signed on 7 November 1974 by ‘Lower level of officers’??or "Pegawai Rendahan" (A.G. Mollen, First Assistant Secretary of Fisheries Division, Australian Department of Agriculture (Australia) and Agus Yamak, Director of Consulate Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia (Indonesia)?not qualified compared to Foreign Minister to represent the two countries that are not a valid maritime boundary treaty because the meaning of a memorandum is not legally enforceable compared to a treaty is an agreement between two countries which is binding at international law.
Personally, I strongly agreed with former President of U.S. President: “During?trade talks?with a representative of China in Washington in April 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump was asked by a reporter how long he expected U.S.-China memorandums of understanding to last. "I don't like MOUs because they don't mean anything," the former president replied, ?because MOU is a legal document but it is not necessarily legally binding (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mou.asp).
(2) INDONESIA MUST WITHDRAW THE FAKE MOU 1974 RI-OZ OR SUBMITTING THE CASE TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE HAQUE, THE NETHERLANDS.
In clarifying the dispute resolution that occurred, that the direction of the struggle of the people of NTT, particularly Rotenese is most appropriate directed at the struggle or demands for protection and respect from Australia for the fishing rights of traditional Indonesian fishermen in the marine waters around Pasir Island. The form of this struggle or demand is the demand to amend the Memorandum‘ of ‘Understanding‘ between‘ the Governments‘ of Indonesia‘ and Australia regarding fishing by traditional‘ Indonesian‘ fishermen‘ in the ‘exclusive‘ fishing‘ zone and the Australian‘ continental‘ shelf, 1974. The provisions of the ‘Memorandum‘ of ‘Understanding that need to be amended are provisions that stipulate a prohibition on traditional Indonesian fishermen from taking fresh water, catching turtles and their eggs as well as a prohibition on catching birds and their eggs around sea waters or the coast of Pasir Island. Provisions regarding the prohibition of taking fresh water, catching fish and taking their eggs as well as the prohibition on catching birds and their eggs need to be amended because they are contrary to the traditional rights of Indonesian fishermen. As is well known, traditional Indonesian fishermen from generation to generation since hundreds of years ago always go to Pasir Island not only to catch fish but one of the main goals is to collect turtle eggs and seabird eggs. The tradition or habit of taking turtle eggs and seabird eggs in the waters or beaches around Pasir Island that has been going on for hundreds of years by Indonesian traditional fishermen according to customary international law which was later codified in Article 51 of UNCLOS 1982 must obtain respect and protection from the Australian government even though Sand Island and its surroundings are subject to Australian sovereignty. For clarity, the provisions‘ of ‘Article‘ 51 of ‘UNCLOS‘ 1982‘ stipulates that a coastal state or an archipelagic state must respect the traditional fishing rights of neighboring countries that are‘ directly affected to certain‘ areas‘ located in archipelagic or territorial sea waters. The situation in the implementation‘ of ‘traditional fisheries rights ‘including‘ the nature, scope‘ and‘ area‘ in which‘ such ‘rights and‘ activities‘ apply at the request‘ of one of the countries‘ ‘concerned‘ ‘must be‘ ‘regulated ‘by a ‘bilateral ‘‘agreement‘ between them. If Australia refuses to make amendments to the 1974 MOU, then there are two possibilities that must be taken by the Indonesian government, namely withdrawing the 1974 RI-Australia MOU or‘ submitting‘ the matter‘ to the‘ International‘ Court‘ of Justice or the‘ International Tribunal. For The Law of The Sea). If the termination of the MOU‘ is taken by Indonesia, the legal consequences, the 1974 MOU will end and the rights of Indonesian fishermen are returned to their previous position, which is what Indonesian ancestors did hundreds of years ago. On the other hand, if this issue is brought to an international court, the rights of Indonesian fishermen around Pasir Island have the opportunity to be restored because the obligation to respect the rights of traditional fishermen has been legally recognized in the 1982 UNCLOS (Pujo Widodo, Eko G. Samudro, Nining Parlina, Henny Saptatia Drajati Nugrahani, Mia Siscawati, & Lilly S. Wasitova. (2023). The Pasir Island Ownership Dispute between Indonesia and Australia Perspective from the Aspect of State Defense. RES MILITARIS, 13(2), 4179–4188).
Consequently, Australia is committed several crimes towards the Indonesian traditional fishermen by caught and beaten them, burned and sunk their boats and ‘tried’ them unfairly when they found fishing in the area like they treated their Aborigines in the past. Until today more than hundreds Indonesian fishermen are in prisons in Australia without proper trial and legal assistance. For this reason, we have urged to the Australian Government led by Anthony Albanese and particularly the Government of Indonesia under the presidency of Prabowo Subianto (2024 – 2029) to demand compensation for the many arrest and imprisonment of Indonesian traditional fishermen by the Australian Government using illegal Australian law based on the MoU Box 1974 until now which violates the provisions of Article 51 Paragraph 1 of UNCLOS 1982, reads:
领英推荐
“Without prejudice to article 49, an archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighboring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters. The terms and conditions for the exercise of such rights and activities, including the nature, the extent and the areas to which they apply, shall, at the request of any of the States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between them. Such rights shall not be transferred to or shared with third States or their nationals.”.
Without doubt, the lost of the Rotenese’s backyard to Australia due to the fact the fact that the Indonesian diplomats failed to defend it or Indonesian delegation led by Professor Mochtar Kusumaatmadja having ‘sold the farm’ to Australia?in 1972 without the approval of the Rotenese. The fake 1972 seabed treaty between Indonesia and Australia was based on the now superseded international law principle of ‘natural prolongation’ of the continental shelf. In October 1972, when this fake MoU 74 Box concluded, Australia celebrated a ‘diplomatic coup’, having gained sovereignty over?85% of the maritime area in the Timor Sea under the fake MoU?74 Box.
In?1997 a bilateral agreement on seabed lines was made by Australia and Indonesia concerning Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island. In this agreement Australia proposed the seabed lines based on the UNCLOS 1982 (Median Line of the EEZ) which was signed in Perth-Australia on 14 March 1997 by the Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas. Australia deploy this agreement to claim the Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island as part of its territory. Nevertheles, Indonesia until today?never ratified?it based on Article 11 of the 1997 Perth Treaty. Therefore, the bilateral agreement of 1997 cannot be applied and the rights of Indonesian traditional fishermen cannot be demolished.
Without doubt, the 1997 OZ-RI maritime boundary treaty illegal because it is not fixed with the six key steps in Australia’s treaty-making process suggested by the the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s International Law: Advising and Treaties Section (Treaties Section). They are: (1) a mandate to negotiate the treaty from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, (2) the negotiation with other interested Commonwealth Government agencies, state and territory governments, or other interested stakeholders, as appropriate, (3) All treaty actions (including signing, ratifying, amending, terminating or withdrawing from a treaty) must be approved by the Federal Executive Council (ExCo). Following the conclusion of negotiations, the lead minister first seeks the agreement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney?General and any other ministers with a portfolio interest in the treaty, for Australia to become a party to the treaty and for the matter to be submitted to ExCo, (4) Once ExCo approval has been received, the treaty may be signed by Australia’s representative, (5) Following signature, treaties are tabled in both Houses of Parliament for consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). Treaties are required to be tabled for 15 or 20 joint sitting days (days on which both Houses of Parliament are in session) depending on the category of the treaty (i.e. whether it is routine in form or not); and (6) Following receipt of JSCOT’s report, and prior to entry into force, any legislative changes required to implement the treaty domestically must have passed both Houses of Parliament. (https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/treaties/treaty-making-process).
(3)??INDONESIA WIN OVER AUSTRALIA OF THE OWNERSHIP OF GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR IN TIMOR SEA IN THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS ACCORDING TO UNCLOS 1982
For more than 50 years the "Three Musketters" originally from Rote Island fight against the illegal occupation of of Gugusan Pulau Pasir by Australia (1974 - 2024), the Indonesian Government, i.e. Ministry of Foreign Affairs always neglected the ownership of Gugusan Pulau Pasir as well as the traditional fishing rights of its own people and strongly supported Australia's claimed foolishly over Gugusan Pulau Pasir without proved any logical documents.
Current maritime border between the two countries [RI-OZ] is “outdated” and “unfair” to Indonesia. Historically, in 1972 to 1997, Indonesia and Australia agreed to four treaties (however, one of these isn’t ratified) which would determine the boundaries between the two countries in the Arafura and Timor Sea. The treaty established by Australia and Indonesia back then was based on the concept of the continental shelf – the underwater land mass which extends from a continent. Australia’s claims that its continental shelf stretches to the Timor Trough resulted in it gaining more territory, resulting in greater access to petroleum resources.
History records that bilateral negotiations between Indonesia and Australia regarding Gugusan Pulau Pasir in the Timor Sea consisted of four stages. The first stage, fill in the memorandum of understanding or MoU between Indonesia and Australia on 7 November 1974 regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australia Exclusive Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf”, or what is known as the 1974 MoU Box – regulates the rights and obligations of traditional fishermen, fishing provisions and other provisions in the Gugusan Pulau Pasir in 1974.
The second stage, in 1981 RI-Australia produced: "Memorandum of Understanding between the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Australia Concerning the Implementation of Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Arrangement" or what is called a temporary understanding between the two countries in the implementation of supervision of fisheries areas and actions continued from the 1974 agreement.
The third stage, on March 2 1989 officials, namely the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Alatas and Australian Foreign Affairs Senator Gareth Evans discussed and discussed the activities of Indonesian vessels and fishermen in the Australian fishing area (Australian Fishing Zone: AFZ) starting from the West Coast of Australia to the Arafura Sea and the waters between Java Island and Christmas Island.
The fourth stage, in 1989 the Indonesian-Australian Government produced another agreement on "Agreed Minutes of Meeting Between Officials of Australia and Indonesia on Fisheries" or the so-called meeting agreement agreed between Australian and Indonesian officials on fisheries areas on April 28 1989. And the final stage , on March 14 1997 in Perth, Australia an agreement was implemented regarding the determination of EEZ boundaries and certain maritime boundaries and not reducing the traditional rights of Rote Island fishermen to catch fish in the Gugusan Pulau Pasir. The 1997 Perth Agreement, known as the RI-Australia Cooperation Agreement on EEZ and certain seabed boundaries in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea, also includes the Gugusan Pulau Pasir which has not yet been ratified. The agreement, which only contains 11 articles, clearly states (Article 11) that: "This agreement must be ratified and will come into force on the date of exchange of ratification charters", however Indonesia itself has not ratified this agreement in its internal law, so this agreement is practically not yet applicable.
Currently, maritime law has moved away from using the continental shelf to determine a nation’s territory. ?The maritime law has moved away from using the continental shelf to determine a nation’s territory. Using the continental shelf as a means to gain territory in the seas is now seen as outdated as it usually favours the more “advanced” and dominant nation at the negotiating table. Which is why many now refer to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Currently, maritime law has also moved away in Indonesia from using the continental shelf to determine a nation’s territory. Therefore, President Joko Widodo has signed the Indonesian Law Number 16 of 2023 concerning the Continental Shelf on May 12, 2023. Using the continental shelf as a?means to gain territory in the seas as now seen as outdated as it usually favours the more “advanced” and dominant nation at the negotiating table. Which is why many now?refer to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982.
Australia and Indonesia's maritime boundaries were agreed upon as early as 1971, when most of Australia's maritime boundaries were still based on the continental shelf, which extends well beyond the mean and very close to the coastlines of the Indonesian islands, i.e. Rote island. But international law has changed a lot and now prioritizes the median line, and no longer the continental shelf. The Article 76 of 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, for example, stipulates that "where the coasts of two states face or are close to each other, neither state has the right to expand its territorial sea beyond its median line."
Therefore, Yayasan Pulau Pasir Rote (YPPR) and Komunitas Median Line Laut Timor Indonesia (KOMLILAMORI) led by Prof. Yusuf Leonard Henuk, Ph.D has urged Indonesia to take Australia to The Hague - The Netherlands, they would have a very strong case over Australia. According to the Article 76 Paragraph 1 UNCLOS 1982, reads:
In general, An Exclusive Economic Zone (0-200 nm from shore or out to a maritime boundary with another country) must be formally declared and established by a relatively straightforward procedure set forth in the Convention. A coastal Nation has sovereign rights over the natural resources in the waters above the seabed, the sea bottom and the underlying soil. It also may exploit and explore the water, current and winds for energy production, and includes jurisdiction for marine scientific research, protection of the marine environment and establishment of artificial structures.
According to Article 287, Paragraph 1 UNCLOS 1982, reads: “Article 287, Choice of Procedure, “When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choice, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputing concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a)??The International Tribune for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex IV;
(b)??The International Court of Justice
(c)? An arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) A special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one of more of the categories of disputes specified therein.”
As Indonesia in 1985 and Australia in 1994 have ratified UNCLOS 1982 so If new border between the two countries were to be redrawn and based on the Article 76 UNCLOS 1982 and the Indonesian Law Number 16 of 2023 Article 3 Concerning the Continental Shelf, Indonesia will gain the majority of the territory where the Greater Sunrise fields are. Aside from its claims the Greater Sunrise fields, Indonesia also claims that the islands of Ashmore Reef and Cartier (Gugusan Pulau Pasir) belong to the Rotenese.
At the moment, both these islands fall under Australia’s territory according to the ‘fake’ 1972 treaty so it is logically stated by Prof. Yusuf Leonard Henuk, Ph.D that the border between two countries is redrawn to the median line between the two nations before 2029 same as OZ-NZ ?in 2004 and OZ-ET in 2018, then it would made these islands part of Indonesia owned by the Rotenese and they are prepared to build new province in the region called Rote-Ndao-Gugusan Pulau Pasir (RONDAPAS).
(4) THE BEST SOLUTION FROM KOMLILAMORI LED BY PROF. YUSUF L. HENUK,PH.D (A CURRENT CANDIDATE FOR FOREIGN MINISTER UNDER THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF PRABOWO SUBIANTO) HAS PROPOSED TO SOLVE THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN RI - OZ IN TIMOR SEA ACCORDING TO UNCLOS 1982,i.e. LYBIA - MALTA (1985) & OZ - ET (2018):
(a) INDONESIA CAN LEARN FROM LIBYA & MALTA (1985):
(b) INDONESIA CAN LEARN FROM AUSTRALIA - TIMOR LESTE (2018):
Treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Establishing their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea?(the Agreement) which was signed in New York on 6 March 2018 and tabled in the Parliament on 26 March 2018.
?(i)? The Timor Sea maritime boundary has been in dispute since the 1970s. Australia has negotiated with Portugal (1971–1975), Indonesia (1975–1999), the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) (1999–2001) and Timor-Leste successively in attempts to establish a permanent boundary. A gap was left in the Indonesia and Australia maritime boundary established in 1972 which became known as the Timor Gap. In 1989 Australia came to an agreement with Indonesia regarding this area in order to establish a ‘stable environment for petroleum exploration and exploitation’ without prejudicing either country’s maritime boundary claims.2?The Timor Gap Treaty?was an interim measure to allow development of the oil and gas reserves in the area:
?The outcome was the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty which provided for an innovative joint development that shared the oil and gas revenue on a 50/50 basis in a central area, and a 90/10 revenue split in favour of Indonesia to the north and Australia to the south of the central area.
(ii)??Australia and Timor-Leste took opposing views on the delimitation of any proposed maritime boundary. Timor-Leste supported the principle of ‘equidistance’ under which a median line should be drawn between the two countries.?Australia favoured principals of ‘natural prolongation’11?which take into consideration geographic and geomorphic conditions, as defined by UNCLOS:
?The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.
?(iii)??The Agreement between Australia and Timor Leste ?respects third states’ interests and does not prejudice future negotiations between Indonesia and Timor-Leste. The Agreement links Australia’s seabed boundary with Timor-Leste to its seabed boundary with Indonesia at defined points on the boundary (points A16 and A17), as described in the?Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on Seabed Boundaries in the Area of the Timor and Arafura Seas?(Jakarta, 10 September 1972, [1973] ATS 32).
?(iv)??However, submitters to the inquiry suggested that Indonesia has indicated that it may seek to reopen negotiations over the earlier?Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries?(Perth Treaty).?To date, that treaty has not been ratified by Indonesia and could therefore be subject to renegotiation. Professor Rothwell cautioned that Indonesia may see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation to obtain a more satisfactory outcome:
?… given the significant concessions Australia made to Timor as a result of the conciliation Indonesia may be keen to press Australia for an equivalent set of boundary arrangements that reflect a more equitable outcome consistent with UNCLOS.
Without doubt, Indonesia must take Australia to The Hague is very clear. What is clear though is Indonesia’s entitlement to the territory. Most of the border agreement that were established were agreed upon when there were clear power imbalances between Western countries and Asian countries. Furthermore, when Indonesia’s treaty with Australia was signed, proper institutions to oversee such treaties were still being developed. Resources in the Timor Sea?should not be disputed between Indonesia and Australia to serve only a specific county’s interest like Australia, but should ideally be shared with Indonesia as good friendship nations in Indo-Pacific regions.
Therefore, the Australian Government led by Anthony Albanese and the Government of Indonesia under the presidency of Prabowo Subianto (2024 – 2029) must agree to renegotiate for the sea boundary between Indonesia and Australia using the Median Line guaranteed by Article 76 of the International Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 and Article 3 of Law Number 16 of 2023 concerning the Continental Shelf so Indonesian state border?from North in Miangas Island to South in Pasir Island and then we will built new province in the region called Rote-Ndao-Gugusan Pulau Pasir (RONDAPAS) same as it ?has been implemented between the maritime boundary of Australia-New Zealand in 2004 and Australia-Timor Leste in 2018;
In conclusion, we all Rotenese now declared that there is no time for Australia has continued to cling to the principle of natural prolongation to support its rights to exploit seabed resources and retain its extensive borders in Timor Sea, yet in the past fifty years the continental shelf principle has fallen out of favour in the international courts, and no longer holds much legal value. Instead, it is the principle of equidistance, a median line between two coastal countries, that holds favour in international law. In which case, Australia would lose everything as it has been proved clearly in 2018 so the maritime boundary between Australia and East Timor was applied the principle of equidistance, a median line same as Australia and Indonesia must apply before 2029.
[IV] CELEBRATION OF ROTENESE AS GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR WILL BE PART OF THE REPUBLIC INDONESIA & THEY ARE READY TO ESTABLISH PROVINCE OF ROTE-NDAO-GUGUSAN PULAU PASIR (RONDAPAS) BEFORE 2029:
Finally, no matter what the final results we will receive from our OPEN LETTER to the UN Secretary-General, but the most important message we have done our best to our duty to our beloved country, Indonesia and particularly to fulfil the wishes of not only Rotenese fishermen from the Regency of Rote Ndao soon will be a Province of RONDAPAS before 2029, but our fellow Indonesian fishermen elsewhere, which have long been apprehended and accompanied by resultant suffering of cruel treatment from the Australian authorities since 1970s up to now.