Words That Matter: A Worrisome Mistake Made by H.E. Prabowo Subianto and H.E. Sugiono

“The two sides reached important common understanding on joint development in areas of overlapping claims and agreed to establish an Inter-Governmental Joint Steering Committee to explore and advance relevant cooperation based on the principles of “mutual respect, equality, mutual benefit, flexibility, pragmatism, and consensus-building,” pursuant to their respective prevailing laws and regulations.”

The recent joint statement between the Republic of Indonesia and the PRC, particularly the reference to “overlapping claims” and the creation of a Joint Steering Committee for development, raises several concerns not just for Indonesia, but for the broader ASEAN region. While the agreement may appear to be a diplomatic breakthrough, it comes with significant ambiguity, especially when it involves such a sensitive and contested area like the South China Sea?—?an issue that concerns all ASEAN member states.

The use of the term “overlapping claims” is particularly troubling. On the surface, it may seem like a neutral phrase, but it subtly opens the door to potential concessions, even if unintentionally. ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, have long been vocal about their refusal to recognize China’s expansive nine-dash line claim. For Indonesia, which has been adamant about not recognizing China’s maritime claims over Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the North Natuna Sea, this vague language could risk blurring the lines of sovereignty. More broadly, if this sets a precedent for other ASEAN states, it could undermine the region’s collective stance on maintaining maritime boundaries and international law. The concept of “joint development” further adds to the uncertainty. While joint development initiatives might sound beneficial in theory, they lack the specificity needed to safeguard national interests, particularly when those interests are so closely tied to sovereignty and territorial integrity. What exactly does “joint development” entail here? Is it limited to fishing rights, or does it extend to the exploration and extraction of other natural resources, like oil and gas? ASEAN, as a whole, must ensure that any such ventures are conducted with transparency and respect for international law. If not, the risk of exploitation or misinterpretation could destabilize the region. The principles of “mutual respect, equality, mutual benefit, flexibility, pragmatism, and consensus-building” sound admirable, but they are too idealistic when applied to the complex geopolitical landscape of the South China Sea. These principles are hard to uphold when the interests of China and ASEAN member states are so divergent, especially given China’s continued assertiveness in the region. ASEAN as a bloc must carefully assess whether these lofty ideals can be translated into concrete outcomes or if they will become mere diplomatic platitudes that fail to address deeper tensions. The reference to “prevailing laws and regulations” also raises significant concerns. Which laws are being referenced here? Is it Indonesia’s commitment to UNCLOS, or does it involve China’s domestic laws, which assert control over the majority of the South China Sea? For ASEAN, which has long emphasized the importance of international law in managing maritime disputes, such ambiguity could weaken the region’s unified stance on issues of sovereignty and legal rights.

Any agreement that is made in the name of bilateral comity must be clear and unambiguous. It must be one that unequivocally respects international law, particularly UNCLOS, and upholds the principles of ASEAN centrality and unity. For Indonesia, it is crucial not to act impulsively or rush into decisions that could have long-term implications. Any agreement should be thoroughly evaluated, considering both its immediate impact and future consequences. Patience and careful deliberation are necessary to ensure that Indonesia’s national interests, particularly its sovereignty and rights in the South China Sea, are protected. Rushed decisions could lead to missteps that compromise the nation’s position on the international stage and weaken the unity of ASEAN. It is vital that Indonesia maintains a thoughtful approach, prioritizing diplomacy, legal consistency, and regional cooperation over expediency. Only then can ASEAN maintain its standing as a cohesive regional bloc committed to peace, stability, and prosperity.