Indonesia’s Image from China’s Perspective on South China Sea Dispute (A Preliminary Study on China’s Perception on Indonesia)

This paper discusses the image of Indonesia in the eyes of China on the South China Sea (SCS) dispute. China circulated the map of Nine-dotted lines in 1993 and since then China has behaved ambiguously toward Indonesia as the dotted lines encompasses some part of Indonesia’s North Natuna waters. China insists two countries have overlapping interests over some of Indonesia’s Natuna Exclusive Economic Zone which China claims as it traditional fishing ground. China, however recognizes Indonesia’s sovereignty over the Natuna Islands and has been cautious when dealing with Indonesia on the Natuna issue. This behavior continues until the last three incidents occurred in Natuna waters in 2016. Although there are many studies on the South China Sea dispute and China’s policy toward Indonesia, few if any of them discuss specifically on China’s perspective toward Indonesia. Adopting image theory as an analytical framework, this paper figures Indonesia’s image on the eyes of China, which then shaped China’s perception toward Indonesia on SCS dispute. The main argument in this paper is China captures Indonesia’s image as an ally image. In this image, Indonesia is seen as an actor who can work together, has similar capabilities and cultural dimensions with China. Keyword: South China Sea, Indonesia, Natuna, Image theory Global Jurnal Politik Internasional 21(2) 177 INTRODUCTION The water around Natuna, located in the southwestern part of Kalimantan, has often become a hotspot in Indonesia-China relations. In 2016, tension between the two countries heightened due to three incidents which involved Indonesia’s authority with China-flagged fishing vessels (Kusumadewi, 2016). All three incidents were perpetrated by violations of border and illegal fishing by Chinese fishing vessels in the water around Natuna, which China’s claim of nine-dash line encapsulates. Nine-dash line was first revealed to the Indonesian officials in 1993, when ‘Workshop on Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea’ was commenced. For Indonesia, Chinese claim on nine-dash line did not affect its sovereignty over any of its islands, but it does violate its maritime sovereignty (Lumbanrau and Kusumadewi, 2016). Ali Alatas, Indonesia’s then Foreign Minister, scrutinized the claim. Yet, clarification on Chinese claim was only released in 1995, when China’s Foreign Minister at that moment, Qian Qichen, stated that China did not claim any of the islands in Natuna. A similar statement was made by Wang Yi, China’s current Foreign Minister, to Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi on June 3, 2016 in Paris (Agusman, 2017). Notwithstanding its statement of not having any claim on the islands in Natuna, Hua Chunying, the Spokesperson of Chinese Foreign Ministry, later stated in his protest on the incidents in Natuna that both China and Indonesia had overlapping claims on maritime rights and interests in South China Sea. The letter contained China’s first statement on both countries’ overlapping interest in the water of Natuna (Sinaga, 2017). The letter represented China’s changing claim, in which China’s initial claim did not problematized Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Natuna’s water. In addition, the incidents in Natuna Sea, which had inflicted escalating tensions in both countries’ relations, also represented the dynamic character of Indonesia-China relations, specifically China’s foreign policy on Indonesia. Although both countries have incorporated South China Sea dispute in their bilateral relations since the release of the 1993-version of “nine-dash line” map, I am not able to find a sufficient amount of studies which specifically scrutinize on China’s perception on Indonesia within the context of the dispute. Past studies on South China Sea mostly encompass a general view of China’s behavior and perspective, but none shows a specific analysis on how China enacts its policies on South China Sea to Indonesia. It is shown by my review of previous literatures on China’s policies to Indonesia, which are based upon four