Why ASEAN matters - in the era of great power competition

STURM

Well-Known Member
During a session in Parliment the Malaysian Foreign Ministe announced that a phone conversation with held wuth his Indonesian counterpart and the subject of AUKUS was raised. In addition to calling for greater ASEAN defence cooperation, Malaysian Defence Minister emphasised that countries have to continue engaging AUKUS members.

It's unknown if it's related to AUKUS but an Australian envoy, an Admiral, will be meeting the Malaysian Foreign Minister. The Malaysian Prime Minister previously received a phone call from his Australian counterpart who explained AUKUS.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member

An interesting article on Indonesia and AUKUS. Amidst all the talk about AUKUS and what it's intended to achieve, it's easy to overlook the fact that ASEAN countries, which are much closer to China than any AUKUS member also have their legitimate concerns and although AUKUS - on paper - will contribute to regional stabilty, not eveything which serves the interests of its members will be in line with the interests of ASEAN countries.

Most ASEAN countries, despite sharing a common concern towards China, have different approaches in dealing with China. Malaysia which has intensive defence ties with the U. S. [unlike its other neighbours it downplays ties] and Australia, was labelled by some as being quick to appease China merely because it seeked China's views on AUKUS, yet it also was in contact with other countries on AUKUS. Like Malaysia, Indonesia has a tough balancing act to maintain, safeguarding its key interests, while also handling things with China and other countries. Both countries are also in no hurry to pick sides.

The article mentions and Indonesian official claiming that anti communist elements in the country were eager for it to be part of AUKUS. How much of how Indonesia views China is coloured by history is open to debate. At one point in the 1960's the Indonesian Communist Party [aligned with China] had a very huge following and attempted a coup. In the aftermath of Sukarno's ouster, the military went on a very bloody campaign throughout the archipelego to eliminate the Communist Party and its support base. Relations with China were severed.

One doesn’t have to swallow the line of some observers in Jakarta that Southeast Asians are universally upset by Australia’s ‘arrogant’ actions on the grounds that buying such boats will imperil the region’s aspirations to being a zone of peace.

They aren’t. Some have welcomed AUKUS and what it brings, including Australia’s boats. Their fears about China lie behind this.

Even many Indonesians are unconvinced that signing up to the ASEAN peace treaty guarantees either amity or cooperation when Beijing is busy enforcing its absurd nine-dash-line pretensions to ownership of the ‘North Natuna Sea".
 

KrustyKoala

New Member
An interesting article, i am confused on the author saying Australia shouldnt have informed Indonesia about AUKUS because we're "way too short of being truly strategic for that". But we should have done things differently and informed them. Indonesia was given the same heads up Japan, NZ, India etc. got before the AUKUS press conference.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #64
An interesting article, i am confused on the author saying Australia shouldnt have informed Indonesia about AUKUS because we're "way too short of being truly strategic for that". But we should have done things differently and informed them. Indonesia was given the same heads up Japan, NZ, India etc. got before the AUKUS press conference.
1. Rather than respond to a think tank article that way, which I think is less interesting, it may be more useful to see ADF-TNI and ADF-MAF communication as an ongoing active process.

2. Part of this process is sending senior ADF officers to address a forum for TNI officers, so that they can hear it from the horse’s mouth what AUKUS means for the ADF; and provide reassurance that Australia’s SSN plans are as stated and transparent (within the boundaries of permitted disclosures on nuclear matters). By now, I am sure all ADF chiefs of service have reached out to have a conversation with their counter parts in Malaysia and Indonesia — as part of the leg work necessary to keep the relationship cordial.

3. That is not to say there is no concern with AUKUS. The Indonesian parliament’s commission responsible for foreign and defence issues is used by Indonesian politicians as a bully pulpit to shape public opinion (often in the direction of nationalist populism). Given that Australia has often been a favourite target of this body’s more jingoistic members, and little could inspire them more than the prospect of their southern neighbour being up to its perceived usual tricks and treating Indonesia with contempt. The commission’s members have acted true to form, with some urging the administration to confront Australia for threatening the region’s peace.

4. In 2008, on a bilateral basis, Singapore and the US have managed a small trace leak from a US Navy nuclear vessel into a non-issue while complying with our laws and need for parliamentary oversight.
(a) On 1 Aug 2008, the media reported that the US nuclear-powered submarine USS Houston had been found to be leaking trace amounts of radioactive water. The leak had been discovered by the United States Navy during a routine dry dock maintenance of the submarine at Pearl Harbour Naval Shipyard in July 2008. The media noted that the US had informed Japan of the leak, as the United States Navy's investigations had determined that the USS Houston could have been leaking when the USS Houston made its port call in Sasebo, Japan in Mar 2008.​
(b) Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, Singapore asked the US on 4 Aug 2008 for information about the leak. The USS Houston had last called at Singapore nearly two years ago from 22 to 26 Sep 2006. Singapore also went through our own monitoring records for the period when the USS Houston was berthed in Singapore at Changi Naval Base. On 7 Aug 2008, the US informed MINDEF that the USS Houston had been leaking trace amounts of radioactive water since Jun 2006. This suggested that the USS Houston could have been leaking during her port call at Changi Naval Base in Sep 2006.​
(c) The US has assessed that the cumulative amount of radioactivity that could have been leaked in Changi Naval Base was approximately 0.095 micro curies. To put things into perspective, the US indicated that this was less than the amount of radioactivity found in a common smoke detector, and would not have any adverse effect on human health, marine life or the environment.​
(d) Apart from the information provided to Singapore by the US, MINDEF has its own independent monitoring system. Since Feb 2003, MINDEF has put in place a round-the-clock Integrated Environment Monitoring System (IEMS) at Changi Naval Base. The IEMS takes readings of air quality, and water and sea-bed samples to determine the normal background environmental radiation level, and to detect whether there has been any abnormal level of radiation which may be of safety concern. The safety limits are set by our National Environment Agency's Centre of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science.​
(e) The then defence minister reported to parliament that:​
“With the assurances from the US, verification from the data collected from our monitoring system and our own experts' assessments, I am confident that there was no adverse impact on public health, marine life or the environment as a result of the USS Houston's port call in Singapore in September 2006, and that the safety of Singaporeans was not compromised by the reported leak.”​

5. AUKUS is a non-issue for Singapore and it is very likely that there is quiet support for our Aussie mates behind the scenes — to ensure we sing from the same song sheet. With the assurance provided by IEMS, Changi Naval base will continue to host USN, RN and RAN submarines, LHDs and carriers, be it nuclear or otherwise.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
KrustyKoala,

Indeed, it was given the same heads up. In addition to making a phone call to several ASEAN heads of states, the Austalian PM also despatched a special envoy. In Malaysia's case a RAN Admiral met the Defence Minister.

The article addresses the key fact that whilst some ASEAN countries in private welcome AUKUS, they also have their own concerns about being caught in the middle of big power rivalries/competition and have their own issues to deal with. It's easy to get caught up with the larger issues at play regarding AUKUS members and China, whilst overlooking the fact that AUKUS also has wide implications for ASEAN members and that what's good for AUKUS doesn't or isn't necessarily good for ASEAN.
 

AndrewS

New Member
As I've pointed out in a previous post, in private Malaysian officials in probably welcome this new alliance/pact although they will not say it openly. A lot is not mentioned openly and a lot takes place via discreet back door diplomacy. Like other smaller non aligned countries Malaysia does have legitimate concerns, as any long time observer will know, even before the rise of China, unlike some of its neighbours Malaysia has traditionally downplayed the extent of its military ties with certain countries.
AUKUS means US/Australian nuclear submarines or US bombers being based in Australia
But to reach China or the South China Seas, they will have to transit through the internal waters of Indonesia and Malaysia
Those waters potentially will turn into war zones with Chinese forces intercepting, despite Malaysia and Indonesia both wishing to be neutral
It's not good to have a war zone when you need to run cargo ships between your domestic cities

So I don't see Malaysia privately welcoming AUKUS.
Plus Indonesia (the defacto leader of ASEAN), definitely doesn't welcome AUKUS

Note that deep distrust of China due to its previous moral support of the Communist Party of Malaya (a protracted insurgency campaign was waged both in Peninsular and East Malaysia), as well as a strong aversion to communism is still deeply ingrained in the Malaysian pysche, irrespective of the lenghts taken to mantain good ties with China for economic and security reasons.
Ethnic Chinese account for one-third of the Malaysian population
They also dominate the business landscape in Malaysia
China also sits at the centre of the Asian trade network and China is the largest trading partner for Malaysia

So there are very practical reasons for Malaysia remaining neutral in any US-China clash
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AUKUS means US/Australian nuclear submarines or US bombers being based in Australia
But to reach China or the South China Seas, they will have to transit through the internal waters of Indonesia and Malaysia
Those waters potentially will turn into war zones with Chinese forces intercepting, despite Malaysia and Indonesia both wishing to be neutral
It's not good to have a war zone when you need to run cargo ships between your domestic cities

So I don't see Malaysia privately welcoming AUKUS.
Plus Indonesia (the defacto leader of ASEAN), definitely doesn't welcome AUKUS



Ethnic Chinese account for one-third of the Malaysian population
They also dominate the business landscape in Malaysia
China also sits at the centre of the Asian trade network and China is the largest trading partner for Malaysia

So there are very practical reasons for Malaysia remaining neutral in any US-China clash
Of course Australian SSNs are going to be based in Australia; it's their home country for gwad sake. Where else do you expect them to be be based, Afghanistan, Nepal or Switzerland?

Next point I suggest that you acquaint yourself with a map of South East Asia and a copy of the UNCLOS. Australian and other foreign warships do not transit territorial waters of Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, or PRC to reach the South China Sea. There are international waters within both the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagoes. Furthermore the waters between Sarawak and the Malaysian mainland are international as well.

Finally, if the USN wants to base SSNs in Australia then that's a matter for the Australian and US governments to discuss and negotiate. Not for the CCP / PRC to interfere in. If they don't like it how sad, too bad, never mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AndrewS

New Member
Does it? Why do you think that? And when you say 'nuclear', do you mean powered or armed? And what bombers, with what weapons?
Australian nuclear powered submarines aren't going to be ready until 2040 according to the Australian Prime Minister.
But it's logical for US nuclear submarines to be based in Australia
I would expect long-range US bombers on Australian soil as well, because Guam is too vulnerable
They've already removed the B-2 aircraft shelters from Guam

There shouldn't be any nuclear weapons involved.
 

AndrewS

New Member
Of course Australian SSNs are going to be based in Australia; it's their home country for gwad sake. Where else do you expect them to be be based, Afghanistan, Nepal or Switzerland?

Next point I suggest that you acquaint yourself with a map of South East Asia and a copy of the UNCLOS. Australian and other foreign warships do not transit territorial waters of Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, or PRC to reach the South China Sea. There are international waters within both the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagoes. Furthermore the waters between Sarawak and the Malaysian mainland are international as well.

Finally, if the USN wants to base SSNs in Australia then that's a matter for the Australian and US governments to discuss and negotiate. Not for the CCP / PRC to interfere in. If they don't like it how sad, too bad, never mind.
You've said it yourself

SSNs (and bombers) based in Australia have to transit through waters/chokepoints which separate the internal parts of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines

Is China just going to sit there, or will it try to intercept those SSNs and bombers transiting through Malaysia and Indonesia.
Then you're talking about air or sea battles along routes connecting domestic cities within Malaysia and Indonesia.

Hence Malaysia and Indonesia don't like AUKUS
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You've said it yourself

SSNs (and bombers) based in Australia have to transit through waters/chokepoints which separate the internal parts of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines

Is China just going to sit there, or will it try to intercept those SSNs and bombers transiting through Malaysia and Indonesia.
Then you're talking about air or sea battles along routes connecting domestic cities within Malaysia and Indonesia.

Hence Malaysia and Indonesia don't like AUKUS
So you reckon you know that United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) do you? Do you actually know what the definition of internal waters are? I suggest that you go look it because it is definitely not what you think it is. I think that it would be very difficult for a RAN or USN SSN to sail unobserved in any Malaysian or Indonesian internal waters, in fact sailing in the majority of them by any SSN would be a physical impossibility. The term that you are looking for is territorial waters and they extend 12 nautical miles from the coastline of a mainland or island that is formed naturally with land continuously above the Mean High Water Spring Tide.

WRT to bombers and other combat aircraft, they are free to transit international airspace that doesn't impinge upon nation airspace, which IIRC is also set at the 12 nautical miles limit. You are also presuming that both Indonesia and Malaysia will both adhere to Beijings wishes, but you may find that the CCP / PRC actions in the South China Sea have annoyed them too much and they may very well push back against Beijing in unexpected ways. Your and the CCP arrogance is somewhat amusing.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
…I don't see Malaysia privately welcoming AUKUS.
Plus Indonesia (the defacto leader of ASEAN), definitely doesn't welcome AUKUS
… Malaysia and Indonesia don't like AUKUS
The mods on this forum don't much like unsupported statements; if you're going to say things like "Malaysia and Indonesia don't like AUKUS" then you probably need to provide references to your sources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
bkiayppcyaebstl.png

This is the map what Indonesia call ALKI (Indonesian Archipelago Sea Line). All the waters within archipelago (shades blue) is Indonesia territorial waters. The EEZ is 200 miles outside those shades blue waters.

So for Archipelago nation like Indonesia under Unclos the territorial waters lines draw between the outmost islands in the territory. However archipelago nations must also open sea lines for International traffic.

Thus why Indonesia open 3 ALKI line (represented by those blue lines). Within this lines all International traffic (commercial and military) can pass through unhindered, as long as they're only passing through and not doing any military and commercial activities.

SSNs (and bombers) based in Australia have to transit through waters/chokepoints which separate the internal parts of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines
As long as they're moving through ALKI, and they're only passing through, then they can do it. However most likely any SSN size that want to use ALKI will use ALKI 2 and 3 (the middle and right lines). This because ALKI 1 (the left ones) that directly goes to SCS is shallow waters.

That's why Indonesian Navy itself opted to use SSK in order to enable them operating on shallow waters in archipelago. Submarine sizes do matter to work on shallow waters on Western Indonesia waters.

Then you're talking about air or sea battles along routes connecting domestic cities within Malaysia and Indonesia.
Yes there're concern on that within Indonesian and Malaysian Political circles. However not with the defense establishment. This has been talk in this Forums on other threads also. Simply put Indonesia and Malaysia has to shown 'concern' on AUKUS Politically. However it's not the same with 'do not like or reject' AUKUS.

Face it if War broke out in SCS, the most likely happen Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore will not be on China sides.
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
Indonesia is warmer to AUKUS than what they say in public and are not surprised by its arrival. A lot of SE Asia does not want to see the region dominated by the USA or China. They do not want to go back to being vassal states and would be looking to see how they can benefit. This is a good watch.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
It makes you wonder what Indonesia would consider to be worse - AUKUS SSNs transiting imperceptibly through its archipelagic waters en route to the SCS (which is surely happening already), or PLAN SAGs and MPAs overtly entering those waters (and the associated airspace) with the intent to destroy the SSNs while they are in proximity to Indonesian coastal population centres and fisheries. Hmm...
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #76
Given that Chinese and American nuclear boats have been operating in the SCS for decades…

It makes you wonder what Indonesia would consider to be worse - AUKUS SSNs transiting imperceptibly through its archipelagic waters en route to the SCS (which is surely happening already), or PLAN SAGs and MPAs overtly entering those waters (and the associated airspace) with the intent to destroy the SSNs while they are in proximity to Indonesian coastal population centres and fisheries. Hmm...
If you flip the script, I would likewise wonder what Indonesia would consider to be worse — that PLA(N) SSNs are operating in the SCS and transiting imperceptibly through its archipelagic waters en route to the Indian Ocean (or beyond the 2nd island chain); or USN, JMSDF, and RAN (plus Quad / FPDA) SAGs, KHI P-1s and Boeing P-8As are hunting PLA(N) SSNs and SSBNs, in the SCS or when these Chinese nuclear boats are in proximity to Indonesian coastal population centres and fisheries.
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
With SSNs it also makes RAN Submarines coming in from the Eastern approaches more feasible, coming around East of the Solomon Islands, especially if the RAN opens a East Coast Sub Base.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
If you flip the script, I would likewise wonder what Indonesia would consider to be worse — that PLA(N) SSNs are operating in the SCS and transiting imperceptibly through its archipelagic waters en route to the Indian Ocean (or beyond the 2nd island chain); or USN, JMSDF, and RAN (plus Quad / FPDA) SAGs, KHI P-1s and Boeing P-8As are hunting PLA(N) SSNs and SSBNs, in the SCS or when these Chinese nuclear boats are in proximity to Indonesian coastal population centres and fisheries.
Fair point. That said, I was responding specifically to the claim that Indonesia/Malaysia "don't like AUKUS" because it would entail AUKUS SSNs transiting through the waters of the Indonesian archipelago, and introduce the possibility of PLAN/PLAAF attempting to interdict them within it. The logic in this claim strikes me as flawed on multiple levels.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #79
The logic in this claim strikes me as flawed on multiple levels.
I flipped it to show the flaw in this line of thinking —we cannot simply buy the idiotic CCP propaganda point that Indonesia/Malaysia "don't like AUKUS".

SSNs from all sides are in the SCS to stay, and this would include even French and British SSNs. Plus Malaysia is part of the FPDA and USN SSNs have been making regular port calls in Malaysia for decades.
 
Last edited:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I flipped it to show the flaw in this line of thinking —we cannot simply buy the idiotic CCP propaganda point that Indonesia/Malaysia "don't like AUKUS".

SSNs from all sides are in the SCS to stay, and this would include even French and British SSNs. Plus Malaysia is part of the FPDA and USN SSNs have been making regular port calls in Malaysia for decades.
Oh I see, and yes I agree that submarines of all persuasions transiting these waters represents the current status quo. ASW forces entering them or the associated airspace (to destroy them) would break it.
 
Top