You are on page 1of 6

Tussle for Control of waters: Where does Malaysia stands?

By Ahmad Naim bin Zaid For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself. Sir Raleigh The emergence of mercantilism in the 17th century has procreated a steady rise in sea exploration and the importance of maritime control has never been overlooked ever since. The words of Sir Walter Raleigh - an English aristocrat, writer, poet, soldier, courtier, spy, and explorer - are indeed very true. The trading world depends so much on the sea routes which account for more than 90 percent both by volume and value. Nations, meanwhile, depend very much on their trade for their economy as well as their political expedience. The common interest of all trading countries is to have a safe trading route to avoid disruption on their industries. However, things are far from being that simple. With economic power comes the desire for political power and vice versa. America has been the dominant maritime force over the last 6 decades or so. They have been both the major economic and military force. Before that there was the Great Britain with its vast navy fleet and resources originating from its colonies. The 21st century, as many analysts believe, belongs to China. China has been accumulating immense wealth since the end of its closed - door policy and has been using that wealth to modernize its military forces. The west, while depending on China for debt financing and acknowledging it as the global economic safety net, has been skeptical of the military expansion of the new economic powerhouse. Certainly, the status quo is changing and the shift in the balance of power is visible. The air of suspicion is already palpable and conflicts shall arise in the coming years between the old guards - America and Europe - and the new force - China - and their allies. The battle for control will definitely depend on the control of the major trading routes and the chokepoints which will define the might of each force economically and militarily. Walter

Malaysia is a small maritime nation strategically situated at one of the most important Sea Lines of Communications (SLOCs) namely the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca (Rosenberg D. and Chung C., 2008). These two waterways are crucial in Carriage of Goods by Sea (COSGS) which is the prevalent trading mode. These two bodies of water are also the main route connecting the east and the west. For both the economy and military interests, these two waters are critical for global geopolitical supremacy. Being at this critical juncture, Malaysia faces a dilemma i.e. how to juggle between America and China, the two dominant powers of this age in the Pacific region. One is the reigning global superpower whose dominance is waning while the other is fast on the rise. For both, maritime control is high on the priority list and the control of the busiest chokepoint is definitely at the very top of it. They both have allies. China has Russia and South Korea while the US has its traditional supporters in Japan, South Korea and countries who are wary of the growing dominance of China like the Philippines and Taiwan. Most regional players, however, prefer to be neutral in this race for influence, refusing to be absorbed by the overwhelming power play between the Eastern and Western blocks. Malaysia is a small nation with military might not comparable to these larger forces and thus has to play the diplomatic tools to preserve its interests. Despite its modest capabilities, thanks to tactful diplomatic maneuvers, Malaysia as small developing nation has been very successful in maintaining cordial relations with most countries since its independence. But then, the times are changing and so must the handling of foreign relations. Until the turn of the 20th century, Malaysia has been dealing with only one hegemonic force in upholding its sovereign control of its waters i.e. America. However, the 21st century is witnessing a meteoric rise of China and India which promises to shift the balance of power from the Western part of the globe. The dynamics of maritime control has also changed with the ratification of United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with Malaysia gaining a vast waters endowed with natural resources. The stakes are high for Malaysia in dealing with the existing and emerging international geopolitical forces and it has to play the cards right to ensure that any policy will be in its best interest. Nonetheless, being a small maritime nation at the busiest trading route means Malaysian waters is always a cause for struggle for nations with significant

geopolitical ambitions and stakes in trading and as such the interplays between them can have significant impacts on how Malaysia handles its foreign affairs. Being a maritime nation with extensive coastlines, both the sea and the strait are of immense economic and political significance to Malaysia. These waters are endowed with valuable natural resources which are of high significance to Malaysias economy and are the homes for important trading ports such as the Kelang and the Penang ports. Like other coastal states within the perimeter of South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca, Malaysias dominant interests are to maintain territorial control and sovereignty within its territorial waters as well as contiguous zone and control of resources within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Sparke M., et al, 2004). The geographical importance of the Malaysian waters is well known in maritime geopolitics. The South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca has been, for centuries, two of the busiest trading route. These trades are so significant that many of the maritime powers seek to gain control of these waters. The USA has, since the cold war, played the constabulary role in the pacific which in turn allowed for free passage of their flagged ships across the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea to the Pacific Ocean (Morse E. S., 2010). During the years subsequent to the World War II and the Cold War, the USA has enjoyed an almost unchallenged position in this part of the world. They were, as rightly pointed out by many political scientists, the hegemon of the 20th century (Dalby S., 2005). The USA has installed many military facilities and personnel to project their power in the Asia-Pacific region on the grounds of their primary allies in the region, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (Rosenberg D. and Chung C., 2008). These lily-pads are crucial for the USAs geopolitical ambitions both militarily and economically (Rogers J., 2009). However, the 21st century has witnessed the steady rise of China and India economically and these economic upturns have fuelled their geopolitical ambitions and therefore their naval capabilities. While India has been active in upgrading its navy (Indian Navy, 2007), it is China that worries the USA (Mokhzani Zubir and Mohd Nizam Basiron, 2005). It is a fact that China has thus far managed to stay one step ahead of India in their geopolitical strategies (Ross R., 2010). They have been aggressive in turning the navies from brown water navy to blue water navy (Mokhzani Zubir and Mohd

Nizam Basiron, 2005). At present, China has significantly improved its authority in its neighborhood by setting up a number of military installations at several strategic points. These areas are known in the west as the string of pearls which the USA fears to have the capability of radically changing the balance of power in the region and the world (Rogers J., 2009). The struggle for control of the sea mainly originates from the need for a safe and uninterrupted passage of trades especially energy and the need to gain control of strategic military choke points (Rosenberg D. and Chung C., 2008). Both factors are interrelated and they explain much of the suspicion of both sides. Energy trade is, in a way, a lifeline for industrial nations like China and the allies of the USA, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as any disruption in energy trade can have major economic and security impacts for them (Rogers J., 2009; Dalby S., 2005). The Straits of Malacca is also a vital chokepoint between the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, making it a crucial military consideration in the event of war or conflict. The complexity of the evolving geopolitics in the region especially the competition for influence between China and America and its ally, India puts Malaysia, as a small developing nation, in a very delicate position in its foreign policy especially involving maritime security. Historically, Malaysia has been very reluctant to be drawn into a struggle between powerful nations. The policy in that regard has been to be non-aligned. It is a cautious but safe approach and it has proven to be fruitful for Malaysia. To choose one side means to be an enemy of another. That is certainly not in Malaysias best interest. While not endorsing Americas presence in its surrounding water, Malaysia has been involved in joint military exercises with the US Navy and other countries like Japan, Australia and Singapore who are all apparent allies of the US. Malaysia also has strong trade relations with both the US and China. These two countries are major trading partners for Malaysia. It will not benefit the country if the two clashes in the Pacific. Therefore, Malaysia has been very accommodating to both while being firm in maintaining its sovereign control of its waters. In the dispute over the Spratleys Islands, Malaysia has opted for a joint claim with some other claimants to avoid a direct confrontation with China. It shows how mindful Malaysia is in dealing with more powerful countries. It also shows that Malaysia, just like other small nations in the region, is not comfortable with the presence of a dominant regional player.

Nonetheless, a military confrontation between the US and China in the region remains a possibility. Suppose a major conflict occurs, will neutrality still be an option? It is the worst case scenario for Malaysia and for both China and the US but looking at the increasing tension it is definitely worth planning for. Malaysia cannot afford to choose sides nor can it quietly ignore it. As track record shows, Malaysia would most definitely help avoid such tragedy. Diplomacy shall be key and regional as well as international organisation of nations will be used as platforms by Malaysia to appeal to the giant nations not to engage in a full scale war. Malaysias foreign policy has always been pragmatic with all variables carefully weighed. As such, until such event occurs, the course that Malaysia shall take remains a speculation. References Abd Rahim bin Hussin (2005). The Management of Straits of Malacca: Burden Sharing As the Basis for Co-Operation. Paper presented at LIMA International Maritime Conference 2005, Langkawi, Malaysia. Bradford J. F. (2005). The Growing Prospects for Maritime Security Cooperation In Southeast Asia. Naval War College Review, Summer 2005, Vol. 58, No. 3 Mustafa Aydn (2004). New Geopolitics of Central Asia and the Caucasus: Causes of Instability and Predicament. Center for Strategic Research (Stratejik Arastirmalar Merkezi- SAM) Dalby S. (2005). Geopolitics, Grand Strategy and the Bush Doctrine. Working Paper No. 90 for Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), Singapore. Emmers R. (2009). Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea: From Competition to Cooperation? S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Indian Navy) (2007). Freedom to Use the Seas: Indias Maritime Military Strategy. Directorate of Strategy, Concepts and Transformation, Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy), New Delhi. Megoran N. (2010). Neoclassical geopolitics. Journal of Political Geography 29 (2010) 187189

Mokhzani Zubir and Mohd Nizam Basiron (2005). The Straits of Malacca: the Rise of China, Americas Intentions and the Dilemma of the Littoral States. Maritime Institute of Malaysia (MIMA), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Morse E. S. (2010). Geopolitics in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean Region: Tiny Ripples or Shifting Tides? The National Strategy Forum Review. Rogers J. (2009). From Suez to Shanghai: The European Union and Eurasian maritime Security. Occasional Paper No. 77 of European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). Rosenberg D. and Chung C. (2008). Maritime Security in the South China Sea: Coordinating Coastal and User State Priorities. Journal of Ocean Development & International Law, 39:5168 Ross R. (2010). Chinas Naval Modernization: Cause for Storm Warnings? A paper featured at the 2010 Pacific Symposium. Institute for National Strategic Studies of National Defense University, US. Sparke M., Sidaway J. D., Bunnell T., Grundy-Warr C. (2004).Triangulating the borderless world: Geographies of power in the Indonesia - MalaysiaSingapore Growth Triangle. Royal Geographical Society and the Institute of British Geographers. Udom Kosakul, Soon Leong, Mohd Sofi Bin Mohd Lepi, Agus Renaldi, Nobuhide Nakamura and Sone Phet Phomlouangsy (2003). Impact of geopolitical and security environment in 2020 on Southeast Asian armies: Forging cooperative security. The Geddes Papers 2003 Australian Command and Staff College.

You might also like