DOUBLE HEDGE DIPLOMACY: DIPLOMATIC OPTION FOR RESOLVING INDONESIA – CHINA FRICTION IN THE NATUNA ISLANDS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33172/jdp.v8i2.1003Abstract
The diplomatic strategy option open to Indonesia in response to escalating friction between Indonesia and China over possession of the Natuna Islands is highlighted in this article. The paper employed a qualitative research approach that utilized secondary data sources. The finding shows that intensifying competition among big power nations such as the United States and China facilitates this diplomacy strategy choice (hedging). Several countries have embraced this diplomatic tactic, known as double 'hedged' diplomacy, as a means of balancing and stabilizing the influence of powers in their territories. Hedging allows some leeway for nations to discover a balance between priority gains and inevitable costs, albeit it is far from ideal. The study shows that Indonesia could enhance its sovereignty by accommodating the interests of China and those of other major power nations like the United States on the Natuna Waters by balancing China's assertiveness with the investment interest of the United States. The paper conceptualized ‘hedging’ as strategic diplomacy options adopted by nations seeking a balance of influence; while using a balance of power theory to analyze the situation, actors and processes as it affects the concerns of Indonesia on Natuna waters. Indonesia engagement in numerous naval cooperation with regional and international partners, as well as her maritime force presence in the Natuna waters, is a critical tool to project her defence diplomacy. As a result, this study suggests that Indonesia could take a double-hedged diplomatic approach to resolving the escalating tensions between Indonesia and China on Natuna Island. Consequently, there is the need to design ways of balancing China's growing aggressiveness with the existence and interests of another large power nation like the United States on the Natuna waters.
References
Antonio, F., and Andrea P. (2015). Hedging in search of a new age of non-alignment: Myanmar between China and the USA. The Pacific Review 28(5): 679–702.
Chan, L. (2020). Strategic hedging: a ‘third way’ for Australian foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific. Asia Policy 15(3): 87–112.
Ciorciari, J.D. (2019). The variable effectiveness of hedging strategies. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 19(3): 523–555.
Ciorciari, J.D., and Haacke. J. (2019). Hedging in international relations: an introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 19(3): 367–374.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes 16(4): 271–287.
Darusman, Y.M., Fauziah, A. and Sumarna, B.D. (2020), The Study of Natuna Island Dispute Between Indonesia and China, Based on UNCLOS 1982. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 499. 2nd International Conference on Law, Governance and Social Justice
Goh, E (2005) The US–China relationship and Asia-Pacific security: negotiating change. Asian Security 1(3): 216–244.doi:10.1080/14799850500341916
Goh, E. (2005). Meeting the China challenge: the U.S. in Southeast Asian regional security strategies. Policy Studies, No. 16. Washington, D.C.: East-West Center. https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/meeting-china-challenge-us-southeast-asian-regional-security-strategies. Accessed 6 Jan 2006.
Goh, E. (2007) ‘Southeast Asian Perspectives on the China Challenge’, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 30 Issue 4 , p. 825.
Green, M.J. (1999). Managing Chinese power: the view from Japan. In Engaging China: the management of an emerging power, ed. Alastair Iain Johnston, and Robert S. Ross, 152–175. New York: Routledge.
Jackson, V. (2014). Power, trust, and network complex: three logics of hedging in Asian security. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 14(3): 331–356.
James, M. & Amilia, R. (2020). Natuna: an idyll on the front line between Indonesia and China. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/natuna-an-idyll-on-the-front-line-between-indonesia-and-china-20200617-p553g2.html
Johnston, A.I., and Robert S. R. (eds.). (1999). Engaging China: the management of an emerging power. New York: Routledge.
Jones, D.M., and Nicole J. (2021). Hedging and grand strategy in Southeast Asian foreign policy. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcab003.
Koga, K.. (2018). The concept of ‚hedging‛ revisited: the case of Japan’s foreign policy strategy in East Asia’s power shift. International Studies Review 20(4): 633–660.
Korolev, A. (2019). Shrinking room for hedging: system-unit dynamics and behaviour of smaller powers. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 19(3): 419–452.
Kuik C. (2020). Hedging in post-pandemic Asia: what, how, and why? The Asan Forum. June 6, 2020. https://theasanforum.org/hedging-in-post-pandemic-asia-what-how-and-why/. Accessed 6 June 2020.
Kuik, C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia 30(2): 159–185.
Kuik, C. (2016a). How do weaker states hedge? Unpacking ASEAN States’ alignment behaviour towards China. Journal of Contemporary China 25(100): 500–514.
Kuik, C. (2016b). Malaysia between America and China: what do weaker states hedge against? Asian Politics & Policy 8(1): 115–177.
Kuik, C. (2021a). The twin chessboards of U.S.–China rivalry: impact on the geostrategic supply and demand in post-pandemic Asia. Asian Perspective 45(1): 157–176.
Kuik, C. (2021b). Southeast Asian states and ASEAN: a centre of courtships and cooperation. In The International Relations of Asia, 3rd ed., ed. David Shambaugh. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield (Forthcoming).
Kurlantzik, J. (2007). Charm offensive: how China’s soft power is transforming the world. Binghamton: Yale University Press.
Lake D. (1996). ‚Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations.‛ International Organization 50 (1): 1–33.
Lee, H.L. (2020). The endangered Asian century: America, China, and the perils of confrontation. Foreign Affairs 99(4): 51–64.
Liao, J.C., and Ngoc-Tram D. (2019). The nexus of security and economic hedging: Vietnam’s strategic response to Japan-China infrastructure financing competition. The Pacific Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2019.1599997.
Lim, D. J., and Zack C. (2015). Reassessing hedging: the logic of alignment in East Asia. Security Studies 24(4): 696–727.
Lim, D.J., and Rohan M. (2019). Hedging in South Asia: balancing economic and security interests amid Sino-Indian competition. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 19(3): 493–522.
Medeiros, E. S. (2005). Strategic hedging and the future of Asia-Pacific stability. The Washington Quarterly 29(1): 145–167.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. (2021). Statement on Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines program. September 17, 2021. https://kemlu.go.id/portal/en/read/2937/siaran_pers/statement-on-australias-nuclear-powered-submarines-program.
Morton, K. (2016). China’s ambition in the South China Sea: Is a legitimate maritime order possible? International Affairs, 92(4), 909–940
Murphy, A.M. (2017). Great power rivalries, domestic politics and Southeast Asian foreign policy: exploring the linkages. Asian Security 13(3): 165–182.
New Straits Times. (2021). Malaysia concerned with trilateral AUKUS security pact. September 18, 2021. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2021/09/728403/malaysia-concerned-trilateral-aukus-security-pact.
Pitakdumrongkit, K. (2020). What causes changes in international governance details? An economic security perspective. Review of International Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1819371.
Putri, H. & Salim, W. (2020), The Maritime Silk Road’s potential effects on outer island development: The Natuna Islands, Indonesia. Island Studies Journal 15(2):155-172. DOI:10.24043/isj.136
Rozman, G. (ed.). (2015). Light or heavy hedging: positioning between China and the United States. In Joint U.S.–Korea Academic Studies 2015, 1–73. Washington, DC: Korea Economic Institute of America. http://www.keia.org/sites/default/files/publications/kei_jointus-korea_2015_final_lowres.pdf.
Schweller, R. L. (1994). Band wagoning for profit: bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security 19(1): 72–107.
Shambaugh D. (2007). ‚China and the US: To Hedge or Engage.‛ YaleGlobal Online. April 11, 2007.
Shambaugh, D. (2020). Where great powers meet: America and China in Southeast Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sukadis, B. (2021), Protecting Indonesia’s Sovereignty in the North Natuna Sea. https://thediplomat.com/2021/09/protecting-indonesias-sovereignty-in-the-north-natuna-sea/
Tan, S. S. (2020). Consigned to hedge? Southeast Asia and America’s ‚free and open Indo-Pacific‛ strategy. International Affairs 96(1): 131–148.
Teo, A. G., and Kei K. (2021). Conceptualizing equidistant diplomacy in international relations: the case of Singapore. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcab011.
Tessman, B. (2012). System structure and state strategy: adding hedging to the menu. Security Studies 21(2): 192–231.
Tunsjo, O. (2013). Security and profit in China’s energy policy: hedging against risk. New York: Columbia University Press.
VOI (2021). The Roots of the China-Indonesia Conflict In Natuna Waters. https://voi.id/en/memori/86864/the-roots-of-the-china-indonesia-conflict-in-natuna-waters
Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security 9(4): 3–43.
Waltz, K. (1979) ‘Theory of International Politics’, Addison-Wesley Publishing,
Wang, D. (2018). Hedging in international relations: the case of the Asia Pacific countries World Economics and Politics 10: 21–49.
Yoshinaka, A., and Christian R. G. (2011). Ideological hedging in uncertain times: inconsistent legislative representation and voter enfranchisement. British Journal of Political Science 41(4): 765–794.
