Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery (ReCAAP): A Threat for Indonesia?
Armed piracy inside of Indonesian water has been one of the government problems for many years. Now, with the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, the piracy incident in Asia, especially in Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and the South China Sea, doubled only in the first half of 2020. This number marked a new wave of more problematic piracy incidents for Indonesia as this country already recorded a lot of piracy activities, actual and attempted. Yet, the Indonesian government seems less care to protect its territorial water from piracy act due to the lack of policy implemented to overcome the issue. Although Indonesia had signed a tremendous bilateral and even trilateral maritime security agreement with its neighbors, has Indonesia overcome its piracy troubles or becomes worse? Since Indonesia had long rejected the membership of the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery (ReCAAP) because of the sovereignty threat it might possess, it leads to a simple question. Stay stubborn and win nothing or compromise to win a lot? Easy to answer, a hard choice for Indonesia.
Indonesia’s Allergy to ReCAAP
The formal establishment of ReCAAP in Singapore on November 29th, 2006, was joined by prominent countries, such as Japan as the initiator, China, the US, India, Bangladesh, Australia, Norway, Denmark, United Kingdom, Netherland, Sri Lanka, South Korea, and eight members from ASEAN, to enhance the cooperation between states, especially information and data sharing, on the piracy activities across the Asia region. ReCAAP helps those countries to mitigate the problem by carefully emphasizing more towards community effort, instead of one-sided policy. For years, following its participation in the regional maritime security, ReCAAP softly called Indonesia to join its membership to help the country surmount its piracy activities in the Malaka Straits, Sulawesi Sea, and Sunda Straits. But the invitation has not yet been answered by Indonesia to this day.
Together with Malaysia, Indonesia becomes one of the only two ASEAN members who do not participate in ReCAAP cooperation. One of the most ironic things was, even landlocked countries like Laos, involved within ReCAAP to strengthen the safety of Asia maritime lane against piracy and armed robbery.
Indonesia’s allergy towards ReCAAP started due to a fundamental difference they have against Japan. While Japan vision a community cooperation to combat piracy through data sharing and capacity building which included as the foundation of ReCAAP, Indonesia hardly rejects this idea because of a “possible” other state intervention where it could jeopardize Indonesia’s sovereignty. Indonesia does not want any form of foreign intervention within its soil when comes to security as Indonesia believes they possessed what it takes to comprehend the threat, such as piracy. This is why in 2004, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, enacted MALSINDO Operation to limit piracy activities in the Malaka Strait through coordinated patrol of their navies.
Reflecting on ReCAAP Effectiveness
Indonesia and other countries might question the effectiveness of ReCAAP to comprehend the piracy issues across Asia. One of the best ways to give an example of how effective anti-piracy through data and information sharing that has been conducted by ReCAAP is by using the statistic of the overview in two major hot spots, the Malaka Straits and the South China Sea (SCS). Looking through the data of piracy activities (actual boarding and attempted) provided by ReCAAP and approved by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), in 2007–2012 there have been 72 activities in Malaka Straits and 78 in the SCS. However, the peak happened in 2013–2019. According to ReCAAP, Malaka Straits experienced 208 piracy activities which mean a 64% increased from the last six years, meanwhile, the SCS only recorded 84 activities or in other words, a 7.7% increased with the same last respective years. With the statistic provided, everyone can understand exactly how far ReCAAP successfully influenced and help participatory countries handling piracy problems, like in the SCS, where most of the ReCAAP members have a direct route to it.
Thus, Indonesia’s false perception of ReCAAP due to a “possible” of sovereignty breached by a foreign power, constructed its fear with the non-existent threat. The concern of the Indonesian government made them adamant towards ReCAAP and lost many opportunities to enhance its national maritime security. Meanwhile, successful stories of ReCAAP through their information and data sharing with none of its members face any malign action towards their national sovereignty, should be enough to convince Indonesia. For example, Vietnam, even with its Three Nos policy, can still consider ReCAAP as plausible cooperation. If it’s any lesson, Indonesia should look up to Vietnam. Now, it is time for Indonesia to compromise with its close and regional neighbors to overcome the piracy issue, which ReCAAP is an ultimate key for a better tomorrow to come.