Just recall the 4 points that's outstanding with the Indonesian defence agreement....

If RSN cannot train in the "traditional training areas" around South China Sea, does it mean we need ships with longer endurance to train elsewhere? Like those above mentioned by Gary1910?

Hope someone can explain here.

I believe that South China Sea is int'l waters, so everyone has a right to be there, in fact use by many navies for example FPDA exe , USN 7th fleet etc.

IIRC, the Indonesians weren't objecting to us training in these so-called "traditional training areas" but rather to us referring to these areas as being our "traditional training areas".

My take on this is that the Singapore negotiators were trying to sneak the term in for future use. Say if there ever should be a maritime border dispute over the said area, Singapore can then pull out these treaties and show that the Indonesians have acknowledged our "traditional" use of the area and in ICJ courts that will be very damning to the Indonesian case.

Credit to the Indonesian negotiators for picking up on this ... some countries have been known to miss out on pretty important points in bilateral treaties. ;)

BTW not all of the South China Sea is International Water ... a large part of it is International for passage purpose but only a very small part of it is actually international for Economic purpose (EEZ) and that's what, IMO, the whole slant about this point of traditional training area is about.

Thanks for the insight, Kotay.

May I just asked further how their mou/treaty with Malaysia contradicts allowing us to train in South China Sea under the defence co-operation?

South China Sea is part "traditional training areas"/ "area of oil exploration"/ "area whereby SAF is given the task of patrol, SAR and safety of friendly vessel using the water" Another bully method which Singapore have to stand firm as we have a right to use south china sea for all those years of effort.

it does not matter... if they want something from us which is under our juristiction and within singapore's border... under our sovereignty... we have an equal right to demand something from them under their juristiction and within their border or territorial water.

irreguardless whatever treaties they may have with malaysia.. its their problem to iron out with the them... we only seek wat we want.. their prior commitment to another nation is not our concern.

note: EEZ is not part of the territorial water.. countries are only permitted to exploit the resources within their respective EEZ only.

Excuse me, but I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you're angling at here ... what doesn't matter? What is it that they "want" from us that gives us a right to make demand(s) in return?

From what I understand, Singapore is trying to negotiate for the use of Indonesian territory for our military exercises ... I'd say that hardly puts us in a position to "demand" much ... ?

Dammit ... I hate it when I kenna write long post and I lagi hate it when it's to do with politicky stuff ... honestly LTK, political science is not my forte which is why I tend to steer clear of threads with a political slant. Maybe somebody else can explain better how a fisheries treaty affects defence co-operation in a nations' archipelagic waters.

Anyhow ... to just give some background info on this whole sticky issue. The point in contention is

I figure from this that the requested training area is somewhere in the Anambas/Natuna region of the Riau Archipelago. This would mean that the training area is definately not in international water as under the The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

"... for archipelagic States (States such as the Philippines and Indonesia, which are made up of a group of closely spaced islands), the territorial sea is a 12-mile zone extending from a line drawn joining the outermost points of the outermost islands of the group that are in close proximity to each other. The waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters, where ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage. In those waters, States may establish sea lanes and air routes where all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of expeditious and unobstructed passage."



This means the whole area stretching immediately from the East of Singapore is basically Indonesian waters but with special rights for innocent passage. This is distinctive from non-archipelagic territorial waters no rights of passage exist unless explicitly granted. It is perhaps because military excercises hardly constitute "innocent passage" that we have to get the Indon's permission to conduct military training in those waters.

I'd say that's pretty heavy handed and likely to lead to further labels of that arrogant little red dot. It is their backyard that we wish to play in ... that they have a prior commitment to let someone else use it is not our problem?

I'm quite aware of that. The point I made about EEZs was to address a comment that the South China Seas is Int'l Waters with free rights of use (by navies) for all parties. While it is true that much of the South China Sea has no restriction on use by non-economic entities, what I was positing was that the "traditional training ground" angle that S'pore was pushing for had nothing to do with right of passage or for naval maneuvers but more for future delineation of territorial boundaries disputes.

Also, countries are actually allowed to exploit resources outside of their 200 mile EEZs under very specific conditions through the extension of their continental margins (Shelfs). However, revenue from such resources are to be equitably distributed among States parties to the Convention through the International Seabed Authority

In any case, Singapore does not have an EEZ.

Conflict over Natural Resources in South-East Asia and the Pacific

And we're going way off topic here ...

Thanks for that, Kotay! :)

Sure puts alot of pieces into place, for me.

Sorry for any aggravation caused.

your map a bit off... in fact... serious off... on the indonesian water.



i believe its written at the bottom left.. 12 miles territorial water?

extradition treaty for one... and who knows if there is other things the indonesian wants from us. if we had nothing to trade.. they wont even be bother with us.

the fisheries treaty is just an excuse.. that is why i believe singapore dont give a hoot about it and furthermore... it aint our problem... we make the demands.. if the indonesians are agreeable.. its up to them to resolve how to meet our demands.. even if that means renegotiate with the malaysians.

we really had no idea where is the area located... we are just merely speculating on the possible location.. but for singapore to insist on that particular location.. i believe we have our reasons.. either politically or military wise... so we cannot really say.. if the area are within indonesia territorial water (which i doubt)... though some overlap might be the case.

in negotiation.. you have to hard and fast... its your national interest that is on the line.. so what if they call us nicknames... ultimately its the interest that counts... you think they wont call us little red dot otherwise?

as to calling the area "traditional trainning area", i believe there must be a good reason for our negotiators to do so... even if the real intention is lost to the indonesians and the majority of us.

singapore do have EEZ. in fact..your red line in your google map.. just cut half of it east of horsburg lighthouse and gave it to indonesia.. :lol:

Honestly, I think the training area issue is a matter of a withheld negotiation concession. I doubt its anything crucial.

Perhaps if the negotiations got better, a revision of our desired training area might occur just to sweeten the deal?

Correction of mistake

So very sorry but it was kinda late and I got my terms mixed up. Archipelagic territorial waters have the same rights as "12 mile territorial waters". The "no rights of passage" bit was meant to refer to "Internal Waters" which are the waters between the coast and baseline.

The reason for the distinction for archipelagic waters is because normally islands off a coast have their baseline delineated separately from the mainland. The below diagram from Geoscience Australia shows this very nicely.

For defined archipelagic nations (such as Indonesia and Phillippines) a pseudo-baseline is drawn "joining the outermost points of the outermost islands of the group that are in close proximity to each other". The water between this baseline and the coast is not Internal Waters but rather "Archipelagic Waters" with pretty much the same rights as 12 mile Territorial Waters. Which should look something like this ... (I hope I got it correct)

The dotted yellow line is the archipelagic baseline.

About the Map

Please check the date on your map.

Indonesia was declared as an Archipelagic State on 17 December 1957 with their maritime boundaries defined as per "Act No. 4 Prp. of 1960 on Indonesian Waters". I believe your map was based on this 1960 definition.

In 1985, Indonesia ratified The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea through Act No.17 of 1985.

On 16 November 1994, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea came into force, one year after Guyana became the 60th State to adhere to it.

In 1996, Indonesia passed Act No.6 of 8 August 1996 regarding Indonesian Waters which in essence redifined Indonesia's maritime boundaries in accordance with Chapter IV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, specifically the special treatment of archipelagic states. This act revokes and replaces Act 4 Prp. of 1960 above.

In 1998, Indonesia further passed Government Regulation No. 61 of 1998 on the list of geographical coordinates of the base points of the archipelagic baselines of Indonesia in the Natuna Sea to clarify the delineation of their maritime boundaries in the Natuana Sea (Anambas & Natuna Archipelago) in the face of overlapping claims from Malaysia.

If you were to take the co-ordinates in the above regulation and plot them out on Google Earth, you get something like this ...



I'm sure one can do "connect-the-dots" to get the necessary line. In any case, if you do not wish to believe my plotting, have a look at this map from The Indonesian Directorate General of Sea Communications



i believe its written at the bottom left.. Sea Territorial 12 miles? ;)

My final say ;)

I believe that the extradition treaty and the defence cooperation treaty are no longer being negotiated in parallel, or at least the Indonesians do not want it to be. (re: The Straits Times article I quoted previously)

If there is no parallel negotiation or package deal, what is our basis for "demands" in a defence cooperation treaty that mainly benefits us?

I believe the intention has been picked up by the Indonesians, which is why they are objecting to the label. I agree that the intention is most probably lost to us and we can only conjecture as to what the "intention" is.

Have a read on the link that I posted ... Conflict over Natural Resources in South-East Asia and the Pacific. I'll quote the pertinent bit ...

"Singapore lacks an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a 200-nmi expanse from shore over which the coastal state has exclusive resource jurisdiction. It has little continental shelf, and its minuscule maritime territory is surrounded by that of other states."

IINM, Singapore's defined continental shelf is a mere 300 sq. km. Even smaller than our land mass.

Anyhoo ...

Which is why I don't do political discussions ... you as fully entitled to your opinions as I am. There really is no point trying to push a particular viewpoint across, especially as without an indepth understanding of the negotiations, who's to say who's right and who's wrong? Sure we can both share our 2c worth of thoughts ... ;)

In any case, this has gone way way off topic. I'll leave it here ... if you wish to discuss this topic further I'd suggest starting a new thread. :)

that last map of yours is at best a unilateral map with no recognition from neighbouring states... just like malaysia happy happy draw our pedra branca into their territory in 1979.

as far as singapore is concerned.. our previous treaty with indonesia only cover up to a certain point east of east coast.. the remaining international territorial water boundary is dependent on future treaties between the neighbouring states...

check the red line... that is the only recognized boundary between singapore and indonesia... beyond the red line... its "uncharted" boundary...

:lol:

oh... the map above is an OFFICIAL map... :lol:

the big circle to the right is pedra branca island.

given your knowledge of LOS... can you tell us.. what is the possible sea border line between singapore and indonesia once pedra branca is officially ours?

The reason necessitating the negotiated "red line" you mention is simply that the land mass between Singapore and Indonesian are so close at that point as to render even the traditional 3 mile territorial sea limit meaningless. In any case, Indonesia claimed a 12 mile territorial sea limit from 1957 while Singapore claimed a 3 mile territorial sea limit (a colonial inheritance) also from 1957. The overlap was resolved by the treaty you mentioned on 25 May 1973. That the "red line" does not extend further is simply because there is (or was) no Singapore land beyond that point to make it necessary to negotiate a Singapore-Indonesia Boundary. Kind of like building a fence with your neighbour out onto the road and into the field opposite both your houses ... nobody does that .. do they?

Are you then trying to say that there is an International Body out there that draws these lines and that until this International Body draws these lines, all self-determined boundaries are suspect and unrecognised?

IINM, the UNCLOS provides for countries to self determine/draw their own maritime boundaries in accordance with the methodology spelled out (see article 5, 6 & 7 of the UNCLOS). As long as there are no disputes from neighbouring states, these "drawn" lines pretty much stands.

So when Malaysia "happy happy" redrew the lines on Pedra Branca, they had every right to do so ... just like we have every right to dispute their new charts. In the event that the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiations, then Part XV of the UNCLOS comes into play and 3rd party arbitration is used to resolve the dispute, as is the case with Pedra Branca. It'd be a very foolish nation that "happy happy" redrew charts if they did not have the means (legal or otherwise) to make it stand.

I don't even know why you're arguing over the maps ... The reason why I put up a map in the first place was to show that the Anambas/Natuna Islands form the boundaries for Archipelagic Indonesian waters that "are fishing grounds for fishermen from Malaysia and which are also used by them to travel from peninsular Malaysia to Sabah and Sarawak" ... making a guess at the likely training area being negotiated on.

The salient difference between "your" map and "my" map(s) to date has been the area shaded in red below ...



Which I have explained to you have been the result of Chapter IV of the UNCLOS and AFAIK is not a the subject of any counter-claims by any neighbouring states. Care to prove me wrong here?

Nice map by the way ... care to share? Link or hi-res available? Would love to archive for personal reference.

In any case, if this is a sea chart issued by Singapore or Indonesia, by your initial counter of nations "happy happy" drawing their own maps, how does this being an OFFICIAL Singapore/Indonesia map make it absolute? (Other than for the red line which is defined by a bilateral treaty). Unless you wish to tell me that
i) Because it is issued by Singapore, it is OFFICIAL and internationally binding or
ii) this map is issued by an International body with the jurisdiction to draw legally binding national maritime boundaries (in which case why are there still disputes over the Spratlys?)

Again, AFAIK, the delineations provided by the Indonesians on the Natuna sea are only being disputed by Vietnam and only with regards to the EEZ extending past the 12/24 mile territorial/contiguos zones. As there is freedom of navigation (not just innocent passage) in the EEZ, I'd say that the negotiated training grounds is not in the EEZ area but in the Archipelagic territorial waters of Indonesia.

Also, the portion of map you've shown does not cover the area of discussion, the Natuna Sea ... so how does this in any way change the delineations provided by the Indonesians in GR 61 of 1998 ? How does Pedra Branca change anything with regards to what we're discussing re: negotiation of a training area in Indonesian waters in the South China Sea?

This is getting way way way off topic ... please show how Pedra Branca affects our training in Indonesian waters in the South China Seas, if not then try not to go further off topic re: the original point of the training area within the South China Seas

Better still, start a new thread :)

Thanks to the Moderators team for moving these discussion points on SG surrounding & LOS (Law of the Sea) titled topic to this new thread.


Swift and Effective...that's what SG is !

singapore do NOT claim a mere 3 nautical miles territorial sea limit.. singapore MFA has already stated that while singapore abide by the 3 nautical miles territorial sea limit due to british heritage.. singapore does claim 12 nautical miles of territorial sea and an EEZ that would be publish at a later date.

in fact the agreedment between singapore and indonesia on sea border.. point 6 at 1°16'10".2N
104°02'00".0E
already exceeded singapore's 3 nautical miles by over 1.65 nautical miles.

with respect to the indonesia territorial sea under the archipelegic straight line as noted under the LOS part IV para 1. i would like to hold reservation regarding that in view of para 5, 6 and 9.

suffice to say.. the sea borders between singapore and indonesia including EEZ divisions remains to be resolved and the actual demarcation line remains to finalised.

What an accusation from Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla! :angry: : Indonesia accuses Singapore of holding on to dirty money

Now, it really make me wonder who is calling the shots in their government. Jusuf Kalla is always in the limelight. Has their President Susilo Banbang Bambang Yudhoyono being sideline? :huh:

Jusuf Kalla is someone we have to be wary of. He is a sharp politician, not to mention Golkar chief. There has been talk that SBY and him have some sort of rivalry due to both being from different parties, and naturally having different vested interests.

36th richest man in Indonesia according to Forbes.
--
Age 64
Net Worth $105 million

Took control of privately held Hadji Kalla, his family's trading company in 1967. Expanded into engineering, property, construction and telecom before entering politics in 1999 and passing company helm to brother Achmad. Now Indonesia's vice president and president of its Golkar Party.

Link

Another interesting article about Kalla's influence in national matters.
Link

Northeast Asian Countries Could Learn From Southeast Asian Diplomacy
Phar Kim Beng | Bio | 09 Nov 2006
World Politics Watch Exclusive

Diplomatic activities and discourse in Southeast Asia are popularly described as the "ASEAN Way."

What this amounts to is an informal, loose, and non-legalistic process of conducting regional relations among the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

That the bilateral conflicts among ASEAN members have not spilled over and affected regional relations serves as a significant testament to the diplomatic maturity of member states in ASEAN.

In the words of former Deputy Secretary General of ASEAN, Mokhtar Selat: "What is bilateral should be kept bilateral. What is regional should be regional. ASEAN works on this basis. And member states understand the divide."

This understanding has had a long process of gestation, however. When ASEAN was formed in 1967, no one knew for certain what it was trying to achieve.

Its existence relied primarily on its declaration, and on the good faith of the five founding members, to establish economic and cultural cooperation.

It would be another 9 years before ASEAN held its first summit in Bali, producing what is now known as the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), to which all aspiring members of the East Asian community must accede.

To this day, with the exception of the TAC, ASEAN is without a charter or constitution to guide its regional relations.

It has been only recently that 10 eminent representatives of ASEAN countries, including among others foreign policy stalwarts such as Ali Alatas of Indonesia and Fidel Ramos of the Philippines, have convened to help ASEAN acquire a charter similar to the U.N. Charter.

If the countries in Southeast Asia can overcome some of the most violent wars, explosive ethnic conflicts, and strident nationalisms of any region in the world to co-mingle with each other on the basis of the ASEAN Way, why have countries in Northeast Asia not been able to do the same?

Put differently, why are Japan, South Korea, and China, perpetually caught up in internecine squabbles over maritime borders, historical memories, and even academic textbooks?

The differences lie in the social and political peculiarities of each region. The ASEAN Way was able to succeed in Southeast Asia because in most Southeast Asian countries it takes just one phone call -- usually from the political secretary of the prime minister -- to quash negative reporting in the national daily.

When Malaysia and Indonesia went to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to contest the rightful ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan Island, the national dailies of both sides played down the legal tussle.

When a decision was made by the ICJ in 2003 concerning Sipadan and Ligitan Island, in the favor of Malaysia, again editors in both countries exercised due restraint.

During the dispute over the Ambalat area off the coast of Kalimantan in Indonesia, Indonesian vessels in 2004 staged huge maritime maneuvers in waters contested by Malaysia.

The tensions arose from the impact of the ICJ decision on the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Ambalat area. These maneuvers were not reported by the Malaysian press at all.

To the extent that newspapers in Jakarta made mention of the show of force, President Bambang Yudhoyono was careful to mention that it was a routine naval exercise.

When and how did such political and editorial discretion come to be? It began primarily as a matter of chance. But it was a chance that was seized as an opportunity too.

When Southeast Asia began its tentative steps to strengthen regional resilience in the 1970s -- which meant warding off any encroachments from the United States, China, the Soviet Union or even Vietnam -- it was a region led exclusively by elites.

President Suharto of Indonesia, for instance, could see eye to eye with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines could also deal with bilateral and regional issues on a one-on-one basis with Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, and later Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Dr. Mahathir, of Malaysia. And, the same goes for their respective foreign ministers.

Collectively, these so-called "great men" developed a modus vivendi on editorial and political restraint, which facilitated the formation of the ASEAN Way from the 1970s to the 1990s.

By the 1990s, the establishment of a slew of regional forums, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), the East Asian Eminent Persons Group, and the East Asian Vision Group, added more innovation and value to the ASEAN Way.

Although all the leaders in Northeast Asia are male, they have not bonded. Each speaks in different languages, and need translators to aid their communication and facilitate their work. In contrast, the early leaders in Southeast Asia could understand each other in either English or Malay.

When leaders speak in different tongues, the chances of a regional camaraderie are qualitatively reduced. Nor do Northeast Asian leaders tend to enjoy a round of golf together, as is the traditional diplomatic practice in Southeast Asia.

Without this more relaxed setting and avenue for socialization, the atmosphere is usually too tense for leaders to lower their nationalist guards.

Whereas ASEAN has created Golf Diplomacy, Conference Diplomacy, and lately even Retreat Diplomacy to allow foreign ministers to speak candidly to each other on issues without the attendance of their senior officials, leaders in Northeast Asia do not have the same possibilities.

Instead, leaders in Northeast Asia are constantly looking to convene formal summits, which add pressure on foreign ministries to more immediately reach agreements on difficult issues.

At the end of 2004, for example, former Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan invited Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea to the hot springs resort town of Ibusuki in Kagoshima Prefecture in western Japan.

The summit meeting was supposed to be held in a relaxed setting outside of the capital.

But Roh only accepted the invitation in the summer of 2005. Instead of a relaxing get-together, however, Roh insisted on a meeting at the Blue House in Seoul.

This was to avoid giving the impression that the two leaders' relations were very good. Roh also cancelled his planned visit to Japan in August 2005 after Koizumi made another visit to Yakusuni Shrine.

When Prime Minister Abe became the new leader of Japan, one of the first things he did was to convene two summits with leaders in China and South Korea, respectively.

In other words, before they allow informal diplomatic events and milestones to "socialize" them into a tight network of leaders, leaders from China, Japan and South Korea tend to jump straight into more formal discourse. Thus the issues that come up in summits are often centered on the unremitting protection of sovereignties, borders, identities, and interests.

For Northeast Asia to have some semblance of concord and harmony, the leaders must learn to tread sensitively so as not to step on each other's toes. And they must not take the maximalist view that only summits can solve their problems. They must also urge their editors to report national conflicts responsibly, lest opinions become inflamed.

Barring such steps, Northeast Asia would find it hard going to replicate the ASEAN Way so earnestly embraced and practiced in Southeast Asia.

Phar Kim Beng is currently a visiting scholar at Waseda University inTokyo where he is writing a book on East Asian community.


http://worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=328#

UN Law of the Sea Convention

Link here....

http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/lsconts.htm

The specific statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to which you refer to is a pre-UNCLOS press release dated 15 September 1980 quoted as follows;

I see that you choose to interpret the above statement as meaning that Singapore has already declared a 12 mile territorial sea limit and an EEZ, the demarcation of which will be published at a later date.

I choose to intepret it as that Singapore reserves the right to declare a 12 mile territorial sea limit and an EEZ. When it does declare one it will publish the delineating coordinates.

Which means to say that until Singapore does declare these coordinates, the territorial sea limit for Singapore will still remain at 3 miles ... Are you able to provide any said declaration from Singapore declaring a 12 mile limit or EEZ and the published coordinates?

In case you wish to argue that your interpretation is correct, let me draw your attention to the case of Kian Guan Industries Pte Ltd vs Transport Hellenic Inc (The "Trade Resolve") heard on 29 Apr 1999 in the High Courts of Singapore. (Adm in Rem 74/1999, SIC 1503/1999)

The relevants bits of the case to our argument is the one where the defendant sought damages for "wrongful arrest of the vessel". The wrongful arrest occured as the plaintiff's solicitor(s) had seized the defendant's vessel 4.05 nm from Singapore territory or 1.05 nm outside of the declared 3 mile territorial sea limit.

Please read articles 27 - 39 of the judgment. However, I draw your attention in particular to articles 35 - 37 (please especially read the bits in bold)

So counsel had relied on a statement by MFA as evidence that Singapore has declared a 12 mile territorial sea limit ... just like you did. Wrong. The court found for the defendant and awarded damages against the plaintiff for having exceeded their jurisdiction in seizing the defendant's vessel outside of Singapore's 3 mile territorial limit (where the plaintiff's solicitors had no jurisdiction).

Until Singapore explicitly declares a 12 mile limit or an EEZ and publishes the coordinates delineating them, it will still remain a 3 mile limit as it has been since 1878.

Yes, and this is a case where Singapore has published the said coordinates and inter alia exercised it's right to a 12 mile territorial limit. As I have asked you in previous instance(s), are there any other such delineations between Singapore and Indonesian other these 6 coordinates?

You would like to hold reservation with regards to the definition of Indonesia's Archipelagic baseline definition? When AFAIK, and I've invited you to show proof, no other nation has disupted the markings for the Natuna Sea in GR61 of 1998?

Indonesia has to redraw it's border's because IceStorm has reservations?

I also take it that you're referring to Paras 5, 6 & 9 of Article 47 of the UNCLOS?

5. The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner as to cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another State.

Care to demonstrate how any of Indonesia's Archipelagic delineations have cut us off from the high sea or our EEZ (if we have any)?. It is one thing to make a claim ...but the proof?

AFAIK, We still have an inviolate right of innocent passage through the Straits and Archipelagic waters (article 45 & 52 of UNCLOS) ... so how are we being cut off?

6. If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an immediately adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between those States shall continue and be respected.

So what 2 parts of Singapore are we talking about that are being seperated by Indonesian demarcation? As I've mentioned before, that there are only 6 points demarcating Singapore-Indonesia maritime borders is because Singapore has no land beyond these points to require any further demarcation. Until Pedra Branca (and only until then) be deemed Singapore's by the ICJ, there are no "2 parts" to talk about.

As it is, the original area of discussion is the Natuna Sea. You have yet to respond to my query as to how Pedra Branca (if Singaporean) will affect Indonesian Archipelagic waters in the Natuna Sea. The Anambas/Natuna region is 150 nautical miles away from Pedra Branca for crying out loud.

9. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Are you saying that Indonesia has not given due publicity by gazetting the coordinates or deposited a copy of the said charts with the UN?

I sometimes am of the view that some government bodies in the SEA region are quite incompetent but surely not so grossly incompetent?

Look I don't mean to come down on you but at every stage I've have responded to issues you've raised with answers that are substantiated and referenced.

I'd daresay that you have yet to return the favour, instead choosing to make sweeping statements and claims without providing references or the logical train behind your statements. This is not an insult or a challenge, but rather a request for more input from your side of the argument.

What sea borders between Singapore and Indonesia remain to be resolved? Are there any plots of Singapore territory out there that we do not know about that requires further revision/delineation of our maritime boundaries with Indonesia?

EEZ divisions? We haven't even declared any ...

What demarcation lines?

Care to provide a map with the area you view as contentious circled for my benefit as I know I can be pretty dense sometimes?

To our audience of two, Sierra 24 and LaserLordz ... I hope you've got your pop corn out and are enjoying this :P

:sheepish:

All this time and nobody had provided a link to the UNCLOS treaty? :D

You may want to try this link ... as they say straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agr..._convention.htm

And, for want of a better term, this is the home page for the UNCLOS

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

Also another interesting resource, a reference site of various country's maritime position (with some rather American-centric comments) ...

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/20051m.htm

Have fun reading!

Just to sidetrack here. VP Jusuf Kalla, a Bugis from Sulawesi, is well known for his off-the-cuff blunt and often times insensitive remarks, as well as his strong anti-Chinese sentiment

Anyone remember his meeting with our MM Lee last August in Batam? Don't know what else may have transpired during the meeting, which was officially to discuss the SEZ, but something must have been discussed that made an impression on MM. Because shortly in the following month, the MM made the now controversial remark about "marginalized Chinese" in Malaysia and Indonesia. IIRC, that remark shook up alot of people, incl Singaporeans, given the smooth bilateral ties that Singapore was enjoying with the relatively new adminstrations of both neighbours

Thought this may provide some context to that remark ;)

How about a visit to the Police Coast Guard / RSN to get to know how we maintain security on our coastline & maritime boundary ?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Coast_...s_and_equipment

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...get=htworld.htm


................... often due to the fact that these two countries have a dispute over a maritime boundary in the ....................

The major threat to ?????? interests would be maritime. ............ as an island nation ............ that relies on maritime trade. This is the same reliance faced by the United Kingdom, and Japan. The major potential opponent is ?????

http://www.sghousing.com/category/construction-industry/

Link to SGHOUSING....on reports of sand purchase ban and SG is looking for alternatives...

Title : Ministries seek clarification from Indonesia after granite supply is disrupted
By : Priyia Paramajothi, Channel NewsAsia
Date : 03 Mar 2007 2023 hrs (GMT + 8hrs)

SINGAPORE: Singapore's Foreign Affairs, and Trade and Industry Ministers have asked their Indonesian counterparts to clarify why the supply of granite has been disrupted in the last few days.


This was revealed in parliament on Saturday by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan - who said the Indonesian authorities have stepped up checks and detained some barges carrying granite materials to Singapore.


According to importers this was being done to prevent any smuggling of sand, following the recent export ban on land sand.


"We're quite puzzled. We do not know how long these actions will continue. I have informed Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo and he has raised the matter with his Indonesian counterpart, Minister Hassan Wirajuda, to seek clarifications on these latest actions by the Indonesian authorities," said Mr Mah.


"Minister Hassan told Minister George Yeo that there was no export ban on granite from Indonesia and that he would check what is the reason for the actions being taken that has caused the disruption in supply. Minister for Trade & Industry Lim Hng Kiang has also spoken to his Indonesian counterpart, Minister Mari Pangestu, who confirmed that there is no export ban on granite, and that they are now verifying the situation," continued Mr Mah. - CNA/yy

Comments: anyone have any idea if these Barges carrying granite were released?

If that's the case, then we should withhold our financial aid packages to them.... send them the aid in kind (food, shelter, water, medicine etc) but no cash...

Actually, this is what I am afraid of.... they try to push the boundary... a scenario, if we send our naval vessels to "escort" these granite barges, and the Indonesian vessels try to stop, what would our navy do? Would we idly sit there watch as SG registered, legitimate cargoed vessels be taken away?

thats a "What If" that'll never happen
would Sg send RSN to escort Sg registered vessels in Indo waters?

Come on, thats intrusion and how conflicts are created

The strongest alternative presently is to present the detention as acts of piracy and take it for international arbitration

Title : MFA "baffled" at report on proposed granite ban to S'pore
By :
Date : 09 March 2007 2349 hrs (SST)
URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin.../263065/1/.html

SINGAPORE : The Foreign Affairs Ministry said it was "baffled" at a report released by Batam Pos on March 7.

That report had quoted Indonesian State Minister of Environment Rachmat Witoelar as saying that the Indonesian government would issue a regulation banning the export of 'granite and materials' to Singapore.

According to the report, the proposed ban was approved at the Cabinet level.

In a statement, MFA said it found the report "rather perplexing".

This was because, only about a week ago, Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda and Trade Minister Mari Pangestu had categorically told MFA that there was no ban on the export of granite. So Minister Witoelar directly contradicted them.

MFA said it would seek clarification from the Indonesian Embassy. - CNA /ls

http://www.dephan.go.id/ranahan/harga/02BU...ALATHAN2005.htm

interesting link. TNI full budget for 2005. See how much they paid for what! Scorpion tanks, SU-30, nuts and bolts...

Mari Pangestu was from St.Margarets. That's what I heard..

Yes, it was reported in our press before that she's an alumnus of St Margaret's

Until the recent emoting about sand and the extradition treaty, this cabinet's been the most serious minded than all of, arguably, previous post-New Order administrations. This could indicate that cabinet's divided, among other reasons. If so, between the SBY and JK camps, with the instigations against S'pore coming from the latter (as evidenced by his recent outburst abt our govt hanging on to 'corrupt' money). In spite of past denials cos of his being a Bugis, JK still harbor strong presidential ambitions

Then again, the current spate of disasters (both natural and man-made), on top of other really pressing security, economic and social matters, vis-a-vis an already stretched government, may have resulted in the need to resort to time-honored political posturing to distract and steal the march from the opposition... of which the silence of SBY to date abt bilateral issues with S'pore seems to lend credence

Excuse my unclear statement MilFan, what I did not mean that SG naval vessels intrude into Indonesian waters to do the escort. But what I meant was if the SG naval vessels are within helping distance from SG registered vessels carrying granite and they are stopped by Indon navy and they seek SG navy's assistance....wat would our guuys do? Of course there's always a chain of command but it can't be our navy not do anything right? Of course it has to be within international maritime regulations... but what if this happens in international waters?? You are putting the scenario of it occurring in their territorial waters....but if not?

If SG registered ships are seized in International waters...and within our reach (distance) RSN should rescue them...right??...that's the least what we expect?

((Indonesia ups the ante on granite
By TODAY | Posted: 12 March 2007 0747 hrs

BATAM: A second Indonesian navy commander has urged his country's government to impose a ban on the export of granite, barely weeks after Jakarta halted the sale of sand to other countries.

According to Antara news agency, the commander of the Indonesian Navy's Western Fleet, Junior Marshal Mulyono, said over the weekend that Jakarta should impose a granite export ban because of the impact granite mining has had on the environment.

"If the impact (on the environment) is similar (to sand mining), we should also impose similar regulations on granite," he said.

This latest call for a granite ban echo earlier calls by the Commander of Tanjung Pinang Naval Base, First Marshal Among Margono, who was reported to have also proposed a ban to the central government, while Indonesian State Minister of Environment Rachmat Witoelar was quoted by the Batam Pos last week as saying that the proposal had been approved at the Cabinet level. Singapore has asked for an explanation.

Antara had reported that excessive granite mining has triggered environmental damage in a number of areas in the Riau Province, such as Bintan and Karimun, and several Indonesian ministries are discussing the issue.

Indonesia's Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry is reported to be studying the extent to which granite mining can be tolerated, the Environment Ministry is studying the impact of such activity on the surroundings, while the Trade Ministry is evaluating the potential profit and loss from granite exports.

If granite exports are also banned, it will impact Singapore's construction sector, Antara reported. Indonesia's earlier ban on the export of sand has forced Singapore builders — among the biggest buyers of sand — to look to alternative sources. The Singapore Government has also released sand from its stockpile.

Political analysts say the latest threat is meant to up the ante and force Singapore towards signing an extradition treaty, which would be a feather in the cap for some quarters in the Indonesian government. Some Indonesian politicians have said publicly that this was the agenda behind the sand ban.

This despite the fact that Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had agreed in Oct 2005 to negotiate the extradition treaty in tandem with a defence agreement. - TODAY ))

Its strange that military commanders can offer their views to the government.... but I guess that's common stuff to Third World countries.... just like the other one who also has issues with SG.

What the hell is their President doing.... he's neither doing anything or saying anything at all...just like royal clown in Thailand....

I think they are trying to be funny.... if we're being neighbourly and that's the response to our efforts, then I think our government and investors should carefully consider and move away from supporting them.... why should be the fall guy around here?

What's up with all these bit players talking loudly all of a sudden?

I have not heard SBY for a long time, not even when the plane crashed. it's always been this minister or that admiral..

Something's not right.

Sayaret, Callsign ; I don't know the official line that MFA and MINDEF have on incidents in International waters :huh:
So far, none of the seizures are in International Wates
Your guess on this is as good as mine, unless of course you're in the know ;) that definitely better than my assumption :P

But will RSN drop 2 shells over the bows of a indo naval vessel?
Will Indo vessels open fire indiscrimately at approaching RSN vessels?
Does Sg wanna start a shooting incident over a granite barge?
Will RSN seize Indo Naval vessels and created our version of the Pueblo Incident?
Will the Indo Navy do likewise?
Are both parties willing to commit in International waters, incidences that can be considered as Acts of War, or very least maritime terrorism; over money laundering?

But in Indo, there is no way to tell if the seizures - international or not, has been authorised by SBY, their Foreign Ministry, or the trade Ministry. In a fragmented gahman like theirs, there are a lot of independant actions driven by private agendas, all acting on their own accord.

Fact is - any ill-conceived reaction will alienate the entire Indo entity, when they start playing up on Nationalism and flag-waving ... won't it?