MOU BOX

MoU Box

Australia-Indonesia MoU regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf – 1974

In 1974, as part of negotiations to delineate seabed boundaries, Australia and Indonesia entered into a MoU which recognised the rights of access for traditional Indonesian fishers in shared waters to the north of Australia. This access was granted in recognition of the long history of traditional Indonesian fishers that have fished the area. The MoU provides Australia with a tool to manage access to Australian waters while for Indonesia, it enables Indonesian traditional fishers to continue their customary practices and target species such as trepang, trochus, abalone and sponges. New guidelines under the MoU were agreed in 1989, in order to clarify access boundaries for traditional fishers and take into account the declaration of the 200 nautical mile fishing zones. The MoU area became known as the MoU Box.

A CSIRO report into reef top species in the MoU Box area was completed in 1999. The study indicated that reef top stocks in the MoU Box area were severely depleted. Recognising the existence of a shared problem, Australian and Indonesian officials met to discuss the issue in April 2002 and further meetings are scheduled to take place in 2003.

Bilateral Fisheries Priorities

In relation to fisheries and marine affairs, the key current issue for the Australia-Indonesia relationship is IUU fishing. Australia is working with Indonesia in several fora, but primarily the Working Group on Marine Affairs and Fisheries, to address the issue.

Cooperation to progress management arrangements for the MoU Box is also a priority for the bilateral fisheries relationship, along with the cooperative management of shared stocks such as snapper and shark. Australia will also be continuing to work with Indonesia to facilitate their participation in regional fisheries management organisations such as the

 HYPERLINK "http://www.ccsbt.org/" \o "Link to a non-government site"

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

 and the

 HYPERLINK "http://www.iotc.org/English/index.php" \o "Link to a non-government site"

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

.

Last reviewed: 03 Oct 2007

Domestic fisheries

Worth over $2 billion annually, fishing and aquaculture is the fifth most valuable Australian rural industry after wool, beef, wheat and dairy.  Australia’s fishing zone is the world’s third largest (total of 8,148,250 square kilometres), but our waters lack nutrient-rich currents and, consequently, have lower productivity. Australian waters contain some 3,000 known species of fish and at least an equal number of crustaceans and molluscs, but only about 10 per cent are commercially fished.

About 9,000 commercial fishing boats operate in Australia, of which about 1,000 currently hold Commonwealth fishing concessions and the rest state/territory licenses. As at November 2007, Australia’s fishing industry employed approximately 16,000 people.

Up to date information on the biological and economic status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government can be found in the

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/fisheries-marine/publications"

Bureau of Rural Sciences’ Fishery Status Reports

 and the

 HYPERLINK "http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/fisheries/fisheries_07/fisheries_07.html"

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics’ Fishery Economic Status Reports

.

Last reviewed: 13 Oct 2008

The Australian Fishing Zone and Economic Exclusion Zone

On 1 August 1994, Australia declared an EEZ extending 200 nautical miles from its coastline. Within our EEZ, Australia has sovereign rights to explore and exploit, conserve and manage the living (e.g. fisheries and genetic material) and non-living (e.g. oil, gas, minerals) natural resources. It also has jurisdiction over offshore installations, marine scientific research and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

The AFZ, which was first declared in 1979, is exactly the same area as the EEZ but relates only to the use or protection of fisheries, whereas the EEZ relates to all types of resources in the zone (e.g. fish, oil, gas, minerals, etc.). Also, under the EEZ regime, where the edge of the continental shelf of Australia extends beyond 200 nautical miles, Australia has the right to explore and exploit the non-living resources as well as sedentary fisheries species in this area.

The area of the AFZ is over 8 million square kilometres and the length of Australia's coastline (not counting the offshore island territories) is slightly less than 37,000 kilometres.

International fisheries

DAFF provides policy advice on international fisheries agreements and related issues. These include the:

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA).

DAFF is also active in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization and the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Committee.

Other responsibilities include:

northern illegal fishing

Australia’s bilateral relationships with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea

Torres Strait Fisheries issues

implementation of the Aquaculture Action Agenda, and

coordination of the seafood supply chain, including seafood safety and market and trade strategies. 

Current topics 

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/regional/issues"

Regional fisheries issues affecting Australia

Other information

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/links/acronyms"

Acronyms (fisheries)

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/fisheries-marine/info/glossary"

Glossary of terms (BRS fisheries)

 HYPERLINK "http://www.afma.gov.au/default.htm"

AFMA Annual Report

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/manukavision"

The Manuka Vision

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMOs)/Conventions

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/ccamlr"

Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/iotc"

Indian Ocean Tuna (IOTC)

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/ccsbt"

Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/wcfpc"

Western and Central Pacific (WCPFC)

Multilateral cooperation

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/multilateral/apec"

APEC Fisheries Working Group

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/multilateral/fao"

FAO Committee on Fisheries

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/multilateral/pacific-ocean-fora"

Pacific Ocean Fora

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/multilateral/ustreaty"

US Treaty

Regional cooperation

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/regional/east-timor"

East Timor

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/regional/indonesia"

Indonesia

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/regional/newzealand"

New Zealand

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/international/regional/png"

Papua New Guinea

Last reviewed: 05 Nov 2008

Contact:

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/feedback?query=fisheries"

Email Fisheries

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/about/contactus/fisheries"

About Fisheries and Contact details

.Internet.

 HYPERLINK "http://www.daff.gov.au/about/media-centre"

Media Inquiries

Crossing Borders: Implications of the Memorandum

of Understanding on Bajo fishing activity in northern Australian waters

N. Stacey

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

Report for Environment Australia, 2001

PDF file

 HYPERLINK "http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/publications/pubs/bajo.pdf"

Crossing Borders: Implications of the Memorandum of

Understanding on Bajo fishing activity in northern Australian waters 

(PDF - 148 KB)

About this document

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Australia and Indonesia was a goodwill attempt to recognise the long-standing interests of Indonesian fishermen in the northern Australian region. Bajo originating from the villages of Mola and Mantigola in the Tukang Besi Islands, Southeast Sulawesi, are one group of fishermen who have a historic interest in the region and currently operate in and around the MOU area. This paper examines the effectiveness of the MOU in providing for recognition of indigenous Bajo fishing rights, sustainable marine resource conservation and management, and in curbing illegal Bajo fishing activity in the Australian Fishing Zone. An analysis of the key concept of "traditional" fishing encapsulated in the 1974 MOU shows it to be problematic with direct and far reaching consequences for Bajo fishermen. It is argued that until the problems of the MOU are addressed, by way of new arrangements incorporating a more culturally informed inclusive approach with respect to traditional Indonesian fishermen, other Australian policy responses to address illegal activity and marine resource conservation in the AFZ will be undermined.

http://australia.gov.au/

Chapter 1. Contested Rights of Access

This study considers contested rights of access to fisheries resources between Indonesian fishermen and the Australian government in the Timor and Arafura seas. The imposition of international maritime borders between Australia and Indonesia has created a situation of conflict between various groups of Indonesian fishermen seeking access to traditional fishing grounds and the sovereign integrity of Australia’s border regime. This conflict is exemplified by the many Indonesian fishing vessels apprehended for illegal incursions into Australian waters each year.

This book is an ethnographic study of the sailing and fishing voyages undertaken by one group of eastern Indonesian maritime people who operate in waters now claimed by Australia. It concerns Bajo people (also known as ‘Bajau’ or ‘Bajau Laut’ and by the generic terms ‘sea nomads’ or ‘sea gypsies’) who originate from the villages of Mola and Mantigola in the Tukang Besi Islands, Southeast Sulawesi, as well as Bajo from these communities who have recently migrated and settled in the village of Pepela on the island of Roti in East Nusa Tenggara. These Bajo belong to a much larger ethno-linguistic group known as the ‘Sama-Bajau’ who are found in scattered settlements in Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.

For at least three centuries diverse groups of fishing peoples from islands now part of the archipelagic nation state of Indonesia have engaged in seasonal voyages to fish in the plentiful coastal and offshore waters, reefs and islands in the Timor and Arafura seas off northern Australia. This activity is focused on the collection of a range of marine products including trepang, shark fin, turtle shell, trochus shell and reef fish, some of which command high prices on international markets in Southeast Asia.

Since the early decades of this century, but particularly since the 1950s, Australia has successfully carried out a series of maritime territorial expansions culminating in the establishment of a 200 nautical mile Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ), legitimated under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These claims have gradually encroached on the traditional fishing grounds of a number of distinct groups from Indonesia and turned Indonesian sailors of the open seas into trespassers and illegal fishermen. [1]

The Australian government has taken measures to recognise some form of prior fishing rights and to regulate ongoing access for Indonesian fishermen in offshore waters now under Australian control. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with Indonesia in 1974, Australian authorities allow traditional Indonesian fishermen to operate within an area incorporating a number of offshore reefs and islands in the western region of the Timor Sea, located in the outer part of the AFZ. According to the minutes of a bilateral government meeting held in 1989, access to the area is limited to ‘Indonesian traditional fishermen using traditional methods and traditional vessels consistent with the tradition over decades of time, which does not include fishing methods or vessels utilising motors or engines’. However, this arrangement has largely failed to address issues of marine resource management, recognition of fishing rights and prevention of illegal activity outside the permitted areas.

Australia’s response to these illegal incursions has been to adopt a series of policy strategies aimed at deterring Indonesians and protecting fisheries resources. These policies take the form of: apprehension of boats and crew found operating illegally in the AFZ; prosecution; confiscation of boats, catch and equipment; jail terms for repeat offenders; and repatriation of fishermen to Indonesia at Australia’s expense. Complementary to this approach, a series of educational visits by Australian officials to provinces of eastern Indonesia has been undertaken to inform Indonesians of the maritime boundaries existing between the two countries and the areas where Indonesian fishing is permitted inside the AFZ. This response costs Australian taxpayers millions of dollars each year. However, more controversial than the cost is the burning of the confiscated Indonesian fishing boats by Australian authorities (Fox 1998). Despite these strategies, Indonesian fishing continues.

The issues are part of a complex, tangled web of legal, political, economic and historical trajectories. Since the late 1980s, the problem has at times posed a serious impediment to diplomatic relations between Australia and Indonesia (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 6). It will continue to pose a serious challenge for both countries until a suitable and appropriate policy and management response is devised.

For some years a number of Australian commentators have argued that the shortcomings of Australia’s policy and treatment of Indonesian fishermen are due, at least in part, to a lack of culturally sensitive insight and understanding (Campbell and Wilson 1993; Van der Spek 1995; Fox 1998). This argument has been supported in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: ‘if there are deficiencies in some aspects of Australia’s handling of the problem of illegal fishing they were probably caused in part at least by a lack of knowledge about complex social and economic situations in eastern Indonesia’ (JSCFADT 1993: 129).

Commentators have suggested that there is a limited acknowledgment and understanding of the diversity of ethnic groups fishing in Australian waters. Generally, Indonesian fishermen ‘assume an inherent, inalienable Indonesian identity’ in Australia (Pannell 1993: 72). They are categorised as one homogeneous group and all prosecuted in the same fashion without any regard to their historically specific activities in northern Australia (Fox 1998: 134). In fact, Campbell and Wilson (1993) demonstrated that at least five different Indonesian fisheries were operating in the early 1990s. These involve a number of ethnically distinct populations using a range of technologies with differing historical antecedents.

It has further been argued that there are serious problems with the MOU arrangements and the definition of traditional fishing encapsulated within it. This definition restricts access to the allowed areas based on ‘traditional’ technology and ignores the dynamic aspects of culture change (Campbell and Wilson 1993; Fox 1998). Furthermore, Australian authorities continue to develop and enforce their policies without a clear understanding of the complexities of the situation, the social and economic impacts of the policies themselves, and the relationship of these to continued legal and illegal fishing activity (Campbell and Wilson 1993; Fox 1995a, 1998).

The issue of traditional Indonesian fishing has been further complicated since the late 1980s by a series of waves of illegal fishing activity involving a number of opportunistic groups of people from Indonesia who generally do not demonstrate a history of fishing activity in the Timor and Arafura seas. Consequently, the Australian Government’s focus since the mid-1990s has been on the ‘problem’ of illegal fishing, ‘solutions’ to minimise or prevent illegal intrusions (Fox 1992; Reid 1992; JSCFADT 1993; Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 33), and the current impact of Indonesian fishing on Australia’s marine resources (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a, 1995b). While over-exploitation of some resources in the Arafura and Timor seas is a matter of concern, the problems faced by the fishermen have generally been ignored. Attention has focused on surveillance, apprehensions, prosecution and boat forfeiture, rather than on alternative management responses.

Alternative approaches involving both short- and long-term strategies are required (Russell and Vail 1988; Campbell and Wilson 1993; JSCFADT 1993; Fox 1998). These include identification of different groups of Indonesian fishermen in order that individual arrangements and treatment can be devised for each group, since the different fisheries ‘present separate problems for which different measures are needed’ (JSCFADT 1993: 117). Such an approach calls for investigation of the historical, social, cultural and economic organisation of each fishery active in Australian waters (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 193; JSCFADT 1993: 117; Fox 1995a: x). The absence of detailed ethnographic research has continued to mar Australian policy decisions (Van der Spek 1995). This study will begin to fill the gap by examining ‘what is actually happening on the water’ (Cordell 1989: 5) with regard to Bajo fishermen from Southeast Sulawesi.

The aim of this study is to examine the social, cultural, economic and historic conditions which underpin legal and illegal Bajo activity in the AFZ. It presents an analysis of the history and economics of voyaging, identifies elements of continuity and change in the patterns and organisation of voyaging, examines the material culture of fishing, and illustrates Bajo world views and rituals associated with boats and fishing. It also considers issues arising from Australian maritime expansion and Australian government policies regarding the treatment and understanding of Indonesian (especially Bajo) fishing activity.

The first question posed in this study concerns the effect of Australian maritime expansion and the 1974 MOU on Bajo fishing activity. As a result of area restrictions, Bajo fishing activity underwent considerable change from the late 1980s. However, the changes did not happen in isolation. This dynamism is examined through analysis of the interrelationship between Bajo responses to Australian maritime expansion and the wider impacts of the domestic and international trade in marine products. The Bajo are now firmly tied to the wider maritime economic patterns in Southeast Asia. They have adopted new technology and interact with the wider domestic and international economies in a creative and enterprising fashion.

Marcus and Fischer have stated the need for anthropology to embed local cultural worlds in larger impersonal systems of political economy. They argue that ‘“outside forces” are integral to the construction and constitution of the “inside”, the cultural unit itself, and must be so registered’ (Marcus and Fischer 1986: 77). The Bajo are a people attempting to accommodate cultural continuity within broader processes of influence (ibid.: 78). Transformations in material culture provide insights into issues of encapsulation and culture change among peoples previously categorised as ahistoric (Wolf 1982), Oriental (Said 1979), or ‘traditional’. A central theme of this study is the opposition of ‘tradition’ to ‘modernity’ in relation to Bajo fishing activity in the AFZ, because access to the 1974 MOU area for Indonesian fishermen is defined by the use of ‘traditional’ technology.

The second question posed in this study is thus about the immediate and long-term consequences of this concept of ‘traditional’ fishing contained in the 1974 MOU. While Australia and Indonesia continue to enforce policies towards ‘traditional’ fishermen as if they were people frozen in time, the Bajo are in fact demonstrating a form of cultural dynamism in response to a range of local and international forces. Because of changes in Bajo fishing activity, an adherence to entrenched notions of ‘traditional’ fishing activities as static, subsistence-oriented and non-commercial means that the Bajo are no longer considered to be operating ‘traditionally’ but ‘commercially’. Yet Bajo fishing activity in the AFZ has ‘traditionally’ been a commercial activity. Misunderstandings and inconsistencies have thus arisen in Australia’s treatment of Indonesian fishermen. Furthermore, it appears that this has hindered attempts at providing solutions to the issues concerning traditional Indonesian fishing activity in the AFZ.

This leads us to the third question, which is why the Bajo continue to fish both legally and illegally in the AFZ. For as long as illegal fishing continues, the effectiveness of the Australian policy of deterrence is minimised. The apprehension and prosecution of Bajo fishermen, and the confiscation and destruction of their boats, not only fail to deter illegal fishing, but through the creation of indebtedness, result in further illegal fishing activity. There are also other historical, socio-cultural and economic motivations for continued fishing and sailing despite the loss of access to traditional fishing grounds, and despite technological restrictions, boat apprehensions and confiscations. The evidence counters claims that fishing activity is driven only by the prospect of monetary gain and the fact of resource depletion in Indonesian waters (JSCFADT 1993: 128).

A final question concerns future management of Indonesian fishing activity in the AFZ. Previous research by social and natural scientists, working in both academia and government, agrees that the most suitable options for sustainable management of marine resources and equitable arrangements for traditional fishermen in the MOU area rest on a re-negotiation of the MOU itself, a revised definition of traditional fishing, and more appropriate ways of regulating or licensing access for the different groups of traditional fishermen (Russell and Vail 1988: 139–43; Reid 1992: 8; Campbell and Wilson 1993: 186; Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 34, 1995b: 121; Fox 1996: 174, 1998: 130). The first step in this process involves identifying the fishermen ‘who can demonstrate an historic interest in these waters’ to whom ‘priority access rights should be granted’ (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 34). This study therefore asks whether the Bajo have an historic interest in the AFZ.

Permeable border

Indonesian fishermen whose traditional fishing grounds are in Australian waters may have a Mabo-style claim, says CAMPBELL WATSON.

Papela is situated on the island of Roti south-west of Timor, near the maritime border between Indonesia and Australia.

Local tradition says Papela was established during the sixteenth century as a base to fish for shark and trepang around the sandy islands and reefs between north-western Australia and Roti. So Papelans have been fishing there for 500 years.

Most of the 7,000 Papelans are descended from the Islamic seafaring peoples of south and south-east Sulawesi such as the Makassans, Bugis, Butonese and Bajo, and from the islands on the sea route from there such as Flores, Solor and Alor.

Colonial claims

Colonial Great Britain took possession of the Ashmore Islands in 1878 and Cartier Island in 1909. Presumably the claim was based on the same now debunked grounds as claims to the Australian continent itself, namely that they were terra nullius because they had no permanent inhabitants.

In 1931 Britain transferred the Ashmore and Cartier Islands to Australia. Approximately the present land areas were under the control of each state at the time of Indonesian independence soon after World War II.

But claims by Australia and Indonesia to ever more extensive seas continued to move forward. There is not simply one border between the countries but a whole set of them (see map). In 1952 Australia unilaterally claimed the living natural resources of the entire Australian continental shelf, which extends to within 150 km of Roti. It included the trepang and trochus within the Papelans' traditional fisheries.

In 1968 both nations extended their territorial seas, a zone of exclusive control, from three to twelve miles. In 1973 they reached agreement on a seabed jurisdiction line. In 1979 Australia, along with 60 other countries, extended its exclusive fishing zone to 200 miles. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III, coming into effect in 1994) legitimated these extensions to sovereignty.

In 1981 Australia and Indonesia agreed on a provisional fisheries surveillance and enforcement boundary approximately equidistant from each country's coast. The 1993 Timor Gap Treaty for the exploration and exploitation of non-living resources of a large part of the seabed stops just short of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands, which have been identified as highly prospective region for oil and gas.

Restricted fishing

The effect of these extensions of sovereignty has been that gradually the traditional fishing grounds of the Papelans have come to lie entirely within Australian territory. It was only in the 1970s that the Australian government attempted to restrict fishing in those waters by Indonesian craft. Negotiations with the Indonesian government resulted in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of 1974 by which a kind of reservation was set up for Indonesian fishermen. The MOU zone now includes all the waters in a boxed area around the initial group of reefs and cays right up to the Indonesian border.

The MOU provides for Indonesian fishermen using traditional sailing craft and methods of catch to fish within this zone. Fishermen may only use sail and compass and may not operate a radio. Fishing and collecting may only be carried out by traditional means. It is forbidden to take turtles or their eggs or any land based products.

Taking of trochus, trepang, abalone, green snails, sponges and molluscs was initially allowed everywhere. But in 1988 the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve was created. This drastically reduced the area in which products could be collected to just the sea bed next to Browse islet and Scott and Seringapatem reefs. Fishermen are only allowed to step onto land within the MOU zone at two of the Ashmore islands and then only to collect fresh water.

Several fishermen claimed it would take a month to catch in Indonesian waters what it would take a week to catch in Australian waters. This is partly due to overfishing and lack of marine management in Indonesia compared to Australia.

Not exclusive

The Papelans themselves regard the seas as open and free and are not inclined to claim exclusive ownership of their traditional fishing grounds.

Many vessels from Sulawesi and other Indonesian ports also fish the waters throughout the border zone. These craft are bigger and motorised. Much of this fishing in Australian waters is 'illegal', although in some cases also based on purported historical rights. The MOU simply specifies 'Indonesian fishermen' as a whole.

Many boats from nations such as Taiwan and Japan also fish on both sides of the border. They employ state of the art technology with devastating effect. Unlike Indonesian vessels most have sufficient capital to purchase licenses although there are also many instances of illegal fishing.

Relations with Australian fishermen are said to be amicable. In certain areas of Indonesia however conflicts are escalating between fishermen from different regions or using different methods of catch. As pressure on marine resources within Indonesia mounts ports adjacent to the border zone, including Papela, are becoming a magnet for their accessibility to unexploited resources. The border remains permeable to marine resources, and inevitably to the fishermen that derive their livelihoods from them.

Dirt poor

Since 1997 the Australian government has begun exercising an increasingly intolerant approach towards boats breaching the strict terms of the MOU. Boats are seized by the Australian navy under directions from the Depar tment of Fisheries and the crews taken into custody. The boats are then towed to either Broome or Darwin. When convicted the crews may be fined heavily or imprisoned, and their boats may be burnt.

Meanwhile the livelihood of the community as a whole is eroding. Forty seven boats were captured and destroyed in 1996 alone, out of a fleet of around 200, leaving over 250 fishermen without a livelihood. Multiply this by each fisherman's unsupported dependents, as well as businesses dependent on their income. Community members claim an increase in violence, disenchantment and alcoholism as a direct effect.

Papela is dirt poor. Malnutrition, infant mortality and birthrates are high. Houses are small and crowded and few have even running water. Most Papelans are educated only to primary level. The average fisherman is lucky to earn Rp 4,000 Rp (a dollar or two) a day.

The small number of boat owners or 'bosses' live in moderate opulence. Most fishermen work for a boss in return for a share of the catch. The majority are already in debt either to a boss or a moneylender before departing to the border fishing grounds. When they lose their livelihood they become further indebted to the boss, who is nevertheless seen as a benefactor.

The fishermen are all male and aged from their mid teens to their thirties. But the economic crisis resulting from the Australian Government's actions affects the entire community. I often encountered anger towards Australia, including at times towards myself as an Australian, because the government denied them a livelihood.

Fishermen explain that primitive navigational methods (as required by the MOU) leave them unable to take reliable bearings or prevent drifting into Australian waters. They are often confused about the terms of the MOU and the area it covers. The border is not marked.

When, occasionally, they admit breaking the terms of the MOU intentionally, they justify it by asserting traditional rights not written into the MOU. One fisherman said: 'What right does a latecomer colonial government have to deny me the right to fish the same grounds as my ancestors?'. Another quoted a more mundane reason: 'It's not the same as Australia here. If we don't go out looking for a living the government doesn't give us money, we starve!'.

Mabo

Only as recently as 1992, in the Mabo decision, has the highest court in Australia recognised that the customary laws of peoples who were in Australia before white sovereignty can give rise to rights within the common law of present-day Australia. These peoples include fishermen from present-day Indonesia, as we have seen.

The Australian government responded with the Native Title Act of 1993, which tried to extinguish the rights of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders that had been recognised at common law and to replace them with a legislative scheme of land and sea rights. Negotiations prior to the legislation, and the legislation itself, did not include any foreign nationals such as the Papelans who may also possess such rights. As a result the Native Title Act may not have extinguished those rights, and the present actions of the Australian government may conceivably be contrary to the common law of Australia.

But doesn't the MOU do effectively the same thing as the Native Title Act? Not exactly. During the negotiations for the MOU the Papelans themselves were only consulted indirectly. The MOU did not embody their negotiating position and as such should not be effective as a voluntary extinguishment of their rights. The MOU can perhaps best be seen as an agreement controlling and regulating the enjoyment of historical and traditional rights that remain intact.

These rights can be renegotiated in line with developments in Australia's common law and its international obligations. Negotiations must involve their genuine representatives in a fair process in which all parties are fully informed of their likely rights.

For example, Papelans could press to be allowed the use of motors, diving equipment and improved methods of catch. As many as 20 fishermen a year from Papela alone perish in Australian waters as a result of primitive craft and navigational instruments, and lack of cyclone warning equipment, as dictated by the terms of the MOU.

Perhaps specific licenses could be granted to those communities with traditional entitlements but who have been most disadvantaged by the extensions to Australia's waters.

The establishment of traditional rights may also act as a bargaining chip to allow Papelans to negotiate on any future oil or gas production in the area. Compensation could be in the form of aid packages, royalties or access to other resources.

Indonesian law

Papelans have little formal education and do not understand how international or Australian law may benefit them. As citizens of Indonesia they have naturally turned to the mechanisms of their own country. However, I found that these bodies have been of little help.

Ever since independence Indonesia has been a unitary state. Empowering local communities has often been construed as being in conflict with this goal.

Of course traditional rights should not have sole claim to determining resource distribution. However in a society in which the state vigorously defends the rights of a small capital owning elite, community rights are a necessary counterbalance. They are part of ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth. Without them, central governments tend to serve their own interests rather than those of their remote constituents.

Indonesia inherited the civil law tradition from the colonial Dutch. Unlike British and Australian common law, this system attempts to set down the entire contents of the law. While reserving supreme law making power the Dutch did allow for 'natives to be governed by their own customary (adat) laws'.

Ironically, since independence the civil law tradition has continued to expand in the form of increasingly comprehensive laws and regulations. These are usually divorced from traditional rights, and customary law has withered. The latter is now relegated to the role of a cultural anachronism. The official line is that customary law will eventually die out.

The passing of the new Fisheries Act of 1995 supercedes previous legislation and no longer protects traditional fishing rights. Yet Indonesia remains a signatory to UNCLOS III, which requires that such protection be given. In Australia, by contrast, the law is moving in the other direction, in line with broad international trends.

It is ironic that indigenous customary laws are receiving greater recognition within a predominantly settler society such as Australia than in a predominantly 'indigenous' nation such as Indonesia.

If the customary law of a community whose citizens are Indonesian were recognised under Australian common law, it could act as an important bridge with the customary law tradition of Indonesia. It could even lead to a re-invigoration of customary law in Indonesia.

Unfortunately the current legal and political structures in Papela have not been a suitable vehicle to assert Papelans rights. The fishermen do not even know how to conceptualise those rights. Their official letters tend to speak about the Indonesian nation rather than about traditional rights.

Aboriginal communities

In 1993 the Australian Ambassador, Alan Taylor, came to Papela (Rote Island) primarily it seems to make Australia's position clear to the fishermen. He made no concessions to a direct request from a fisherman for fishing licenses to be granted to Papelan boats.

The Ambassador was accompanied on his visit by representatives of several Aboriginal communities. Most Papelans did not understand why they were there. But as it becomes more widely known that Aboriginals have traditional sea rights in Australia, the possibility arises of direct negotiations between Indonesian fishing communities and Aboriginal communities on each community's traditional rights.

Papela is now on a trail well worn by Australian anthropologists, lawyers, fisheries staff, film makers, journalists and tourists. Awareness is growing in both Australia and Indonesia that the present agreement is inadequate. The time is certainly ripe for some informed and equitable negotiations.

If Australia recognises the traditional rights of a group of Indonesian citizens within its territory, based on their own customary laws, it would blur the border between the two countries.

If the Indonesian government supports the community of Papela to assert these traditional rights, it could by osmosis lead to a more pluralist legal and political system within Indonesia itself.

Sovereignty would be dispersed to the subject communities of both countries. It would be part of an evolving international standards of rights that more easily crosses borders.

 HYPERLINK "mailto:Campbell.Watson@UnivLeiden.nl"

Campbell Watson

 is an Australian lawyer who has worked with Aboriginal organisations. He lived in Papela for two months in late 1996 under a program of Gajah Mada and Muhammadiyah Universities. He now researches international law at Leiden University. A more detailed report is available from him at: Herengracht 33E, 2312 LA Leiden, Netherlands.

Inside Indonesia 54: Apr-Jun 1998.Internet.

Fishing in Australian Waters

In the past decade, 140 Indonesian fishermen drowned in Australian waters, a further 400 were imprisoned. JILL ELLIOTT reports that policies dealing with the issue are costly, ineffective and have tragic consequences. She suggests better alternatives.

For at least three centuries fishermen from what is now Indonesia have sailed to Australia's northern shores in search of trepang, shark fin, green snail, trochus shell and other marine products. Evidence of early contact is found in Aboriginal art, language, song, and oral history. Today their descendants still make the hazardous journey, but they are no longer welcome. They now run the added risk of apprehension, confiscation of vessels and equipment, and for some, imprisonment.

Since 1906

The process of denying Indonesian fishermen access to their traditional fishing grounds began in 1906 when they were prohibited from taking trepang in Australian waters. It continued with the gradual expansion of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ), and culminated in 1981 (after negotiations between the Australian and Indonesian governments) with the establishment of an Australian 200 mile (320 km) Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Line.

This bilateral agreement effectively granted Australia sovereignty over as much as 80 percent of the sea area between our northern shores and Indonesia's southernmost islands. The Indonesian government received generous aid promises in return. The losers were the Indonesian fishing communities living near the AFZ, who were denied unconditional access to their traditional fishing grounds without compensation. Only limited concessions were made in a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), allowing them to fish 'traditionally' in certain 'allowed' areas within the AFZ. Gradually even their access to these areas is being eroded as much is converted to marine national parks.

Colonial

Australian policies towards Indonesian fishermen are authoritarian and rely totally on deterrent measures. They are reminiscent of a colonial past. They are costly but ineffective, and have a serious impact on the lives of the fishermen and their families. A closer look at the facts will suggest cheaper and more humane ways of dealing with the problem.

There are two quite separate situations. The first concerns the villagers of Papela and the island of Rote, the second the fishermen who travel here from three small island communities in the southeast of Sulawesi. Both groups share traditional fishing links with the reefs and seabed in Australia's north. But the Papela people live only about 80 kilometres beyond the AFZ, and thus have the stronger relationship.

Papela

The village of Papela lies on the island of Rote, a small island off the southwest tip of Timor, less than 500 km from Australia. Since 1988, an estimated 140 fishermen from Papela have drowned in our northern waters during cyclones or strong winds. All were fishing legally, their deaths a consequence of MOU regulations that prohibit the use of motors and modern communication and navigation equipment. Almost more alarming than the tragedies themselves has been the lack of concern shown by either government. There are no search and rescue operations for these men. Usually their families learn their fate only because they fail to return.

The definition of 'traditional' applied to Indonesian fishermen is both inflexible and anachronistic. Inflexible because it makes no allowances for safety, and anachronistic because it expects sail power and traditional navigation methods to provide enough precision to locate the boundaries of modern fishing zones. This point was highlighted recently when five sail powered vessels from Papela were apprehended by an Australian navy patrol boat near Browse Island. The fishermen claimed they had drifted into Australian waters after the wind dropped. They had no intention of violating Australian regulations, but could not tell their exact position.

Proposals

The loss of life and confiscation of vessels greatly affects the people of Papela. Most try to obey Australian regulations. But they regard the current arrangement as unfair - particularly because the loss of their fishing grounds was negotiated without consulting them. While fully aware they are powerless to lobby, they have asked the Australian government to consider two proposals. First, that they be allowed to carry small motors for emergency use to prevent further loss of life. Second, that Australia place beacons or buoys to identify areas off limits within the MOU.

The fact that fishermen from Papela have been careful to obey Australia's fishing regulations is reflected in the small number convicted in recent years. Among them were several who adamantly denied the charges, but were unable to negotiate an alien legal process hostile towards them. In the recent case where they claimed to have drifted into Australian waters, they initially pleaded not guilty. But when told they would be remanded in detention for three months, they despaired and changed their plea to guilty. They were quickly convicted and placed on good behaviour bonds. Their vessels, equipment and catch were confiscated. Coincidentally, one captain had witnessed his entire crew drowned during a cyclone off the northwest coast of Australia four years earlier. He had been fishing legally at the time. But having only recently recovered from this trauma he had no intention of putting himself or his crew at risk this time.

Anomalies

Australian society provides for the families of those detained awaiting court, but not so in Indonesia. These fishermen were forced to trade their right to justice for the sake of a quick return home to provide for their families. This is just one of many anomalies in the legal process dealing with Indonesian fishermen. Another, also relevant to this case, is the decision by the Immigration Department to repatriate the crews before the case was heard. If this did not preempt the outcome, how did they imagine the captains would sail their vessels home without a crew should they have been found guilty?

The community of Papela believes it is in its interest to obey Australia's fishing regulations. When fishermen are unambiguously convicted in Australia, a 12 month fishing ban is enforced on them by the local government when they return. This does not happen elsewhere in Indonesia, and shows a willingness to comply with Australia's laws and protect the few rights the Papela people still have. If the Australian government was to consider offering restricted licences to these fishermen, there is no doubt they would work to comply with any conditions. It would also be in their interest to discourage illegal operators, and thus they would help police our northern waters.

The Papela fishermen have been more disadvantaged by the expansion of the AFZ than any other group. Australia has an obligation to acknowledge the prior rights of these fishermen, and consider a more equitable way of compensating them. Their economic livelihood has been traded off with scant regard for their welfare. Australia's strict enforcement of MOU regulations only exacerbates their poverty. The confiscation of vessels denies them an income, leaving them unable to pay off debts over the loss of their vessels. The unnecessary loss of life has an impact on the whole village. It leaves wives and children dependent on the limited charity of other poor villagers.

Sulawesi

Muna-speaking fishermen from the Southeast Sulawesi islands of Maginti, Masaloka and Kadatua make up the second group. These three tiny communities share one culture. But the strong maritime tradition that draws them together is becoming unsustainable. The smallest island, Maginti, is only a kilometre long and 400 metres wide. Such a size denies them a viable land-based economy. These fishermen are so economically deprived and bereft of choices that they are forced to take the enormous risk of contravening Australia's fishing regulations to feed their families.

Since 1988, more than 400 fishermen from these islands have been imprisoned in Broome. Since this excludes juveniles, adults of diminished responsibility and first offenders, the total detained at Broome could exceed 2,000. With each island supporting a population of approximately 2,000 people, this represents a large proportion of the male population.

It is therefore surprising that since 1988 no government representative has discussed the problem with these men, either here or in Indonesia. Some years ago a delegation of Aboriginal people led by Western Australian MLA Mr. Ernie Bridge visited Papela. Apart from that, Australian officials have preferred to meet Indonesian officials in Jakarta, rather than travel to these remote communities. Suggestions are sometimes heard of senior Indonesian officials with business interests linked indirectly to illegal fishing in Australia. Indonesia's apparent inability to stem the flow somewhat supports the suggestion. The fishermen say their officials tend to 'turn a blind eye' because these are considered 'economic' transgressions.

Depleted

Fishermen who voyage to our northwest waters come from one very small region of Indonesia. Per capita income in this province is among the lowest in Indonesia. Large foreign fishing ventures, over-population, and rising expectations as people move from a subsistence to a monetary economy all conspire to deplete their own marine resources. Transmigrants coming from more populated islands add pressure on resources at the expense of the locals.

Australia's policies have a devastating effect on these fishermen and their families. They are often imprisoned for long periods. Their families are left unsupported and forced to borrow from moneylenders for their daily needs - beyond debts incurred by the loss of the vessels and in financing their unsuccessful voyage. The longer they remain in prison, the greater their debt and the greater the pressure on them to repay when they return home. When released, their prison wages are garnished against the cost of their repatriation. They are flown to Bali and left penniless to begin the greater part of their journey home.

When imprisoned fishermen receive news of the death or serious illness of a family member it adds another cruel dimension to their punishment. Whether Australia should take responsibility for at least some of these tragedies is not certain. But imprisonment certainly distresses the families of fishermen and greatly increases their deprivation.

Assistance

Thus there are two critical aspects to the illegal fishing problem in Western Australia. First, the illegal fishermen come from one very small region of Indonesia, motivated by a unique set of circumstances. Second, harsher penalties actually increase the chance of them returning to Australia, to recoup their losses.

Present procedures for apprehending and detaining Indonesian fishermen are costly both to the Australian taxpayer and to the fishermen themselves. Why has the Australian government not contemplated a strategy of assistance rather than punishment? A small part of the same money could be used to initiate projects that help them develop a more sustainable economic base. Australian expertise in aquaculture could ideally help the fishermen restock and manage their own reefs.

There has been an initiative to help the people in one of these island communities, but not by any government body. 

On Kadatua a man from the Pilbara region of Western Australia has devoted much of his time and money in setting up and maintaining small community projects. These help the people manage their resources in a more sustainable way. Since beginning this project several years ago, not one fisherman from Kadatua has been apprehended in Australian waters. This example puts the scale of the problem in its true perspective, and highlights the inability of the government to fully address the issue.

Fishermen from the island of Masaloka have also stopped making these risky voyages. It is now more than two years since a vessel from this island has been apprehended. This was achieved through a local initiative. Some wealthier people in the community helped finance small cooperative trading ventures.

Broome

The fishermen from Maginti, smallest of the islands, continue to occupy cells in Broome Prison. However, during their incarceration this time, a group of them have formulated a strategy to take back to their community that they hope will end illegal fishing. This also involves a village cooperative and small trading enterprises. Unfortunately, there are no wealthy villagers in Maginti, and assistance will come from a small group of interested people in Broome.

These solutions sound remarkably simple. But the fishermen have trouble contemplating an enterprise that does not use their seafaring skills. Instinctively, they look to the sea for their resources. When these become depleted, they merely travel further afield. When they voyage into Australian waters they are aware they are contravening Australia's laws. But they do so only because their traditional values deny any ownership of the oceans or its contents. They do not consider their actions criminal. Australia calls them criminals and imprisons them for up to two years. But ironically crime is nonexistent in their own communities, and communal and religious values remain strong despite the deprivation.

Makassan trepang fishermen

In the middle of 1994, some Makassan trepang fishing vessels were apprehended at Hibernia Reef, about 300 km northwest of the Australian coastline and just inside the AFZ boundary. The fishermen had purchased maps from Indonesian officials in the West Timorese town of Kupang, which showed Hibernia Reef in Indonesian territorial waters. Because of this, and because they had not intended to fish in Australian waters, all pleaded not guilty. Nevertheless, all were found guilty, and their catch and equipment were confiscated. Those able to produce the faulty maps were allowed to return to Indonesia with their vessels, but those without, whatever their stated good intentions, lost their vessels.

Some saw this influx of trepang fishermen from the Sulawesi mainland as a new wave in Australia's illegal fishing problem. The West Australian newspaper went further, running a headline story that suggested a large number of Makassan vessels were waiting in the West Timor town of Kupang, ready to descend on Australian waters early in 1995. The informant used by the newspapers claimed to have spent time in Broome Prison. But he is unknown to Australian authorities or other Indonesian fishermen incarcerated at Broome. Not only had the newspaper not verified its story, it failed to report that there has been no such raid into Australian waters to date.

Budgets

Stories such as these give the Australian public the feeling that the illegal fishing problem is much more threatening than it actually is. Furthermore, were it not for these stories, and for the determination of our naval, customs and fisheries officers to bring before our courts a regular supply of destitute Indonesian fishermen, it is unlikely the budgets for surveillance and protection of our northern waters would have increased at the rate they have in the past decade.

Indonesian fishermen might well provide the justification for increased budgets, but there is also a danger that those policing our northern shores will lose sight of the real threats. This may have been the case in the Northern Territory in 1994, when a shipment of illegal drugs almost entered Darwin's port undetected because authorities were preoccupied with monitoring movements of a vessel carrying Asian refugees.

Australians should question the motives behind the hysteria which is drummed up over issues such as Indonesian fishermen and Asian refugees. There are far more humane solutions to these problems. But they will only be found by putting the issues into their proper perspective, and by taking a less imperialistic stance when relating to our Asian neighbours.ii

Jill Elliott lives in Broome and is a member of the Kimberley Indonesian Friendship Association.

At the invitation of the people of Maginti, the Association is raising funds to send a member to Maginti to assist in setting up a village cooperative (KUD) and associated projects. Anyone wishing to support this project can send a donation to the Association: c/- PO Box 1186, Broome WA 6725. (Inside Indonesia 46: Mar 1996).

Australian Navy rescues 16 from sinking boat off northwest coast

 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET

The Associated Press

Published: November 21, 2007

 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET

 HYPERLINK "http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/21/asia/AS-GEN-Australia-Boat-Rescue.php" \l "#" \o "Click to view map"

CANBERRA, Australia

:

The Australian navy rescued 16 people, 10 of them children, from a boat sinking in rough water off the country's northwest coast, the defense department said Wednesday.

The group from the Indonesian island of Rote was trying to reach Australia to escape economic hardship at home, said Ferdi Tanoni, director of the West Timor Care Foundation, an advocacy group for fishermen.

Tanoni said they came from three families who had fished disputed waters between Indonesia and Australia for generations.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer confirmed that the three men, three women and 10 children had set off in wooden boat from Rote. He could not confirm that they were seeking asylum in Australia.

Two navy patrol boats were diverted to assist the 10-meter-long (33-foot-long) vessel after workers on an offshore mining rig saw it taking on water Tuesday, a defense department statement said. Naval officers rushed to the scene and pulled all 16 passengers from the overcrowded boat as it sank in rough seas.

Today in Asia & Pacific

 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET

 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said in a statement that the navy was taking the group to Christmas Island, a remote Australian territory in the Indian Ocean where the government runs an immigration detention camp.

He said they would undergo health and identity checks at the camp.

Many asylum seekers set off from Indonesia in rickety boats bound for Australia.

In February, the Australian navy intercepted a boatload of 83 Sri Lankans, the largest group of asylum seekers to try and reach Australia since 2001, when the Norwegian vessel Tampa rescued 433 mostly Afghan asylum seekers from a sinking Indonesian ferry and attempted to take them to Australia.

Prime Minister John Howard refused to allow the ship to dock on Australian soil, and eventually adopted a hardline policy of refusing to allow asylum-seekers to reach the Australian mainland by boat. Internet.

Australia's Treatment To Indonesian Fisherman "Unacceptable"

"YPTB Condemn Australia's Treatment To Indonesian Fishermen" Referring to the news about the treatment of Australia's Federal Government Agents to the Indonesian fishermen held (inhumanly) in Port of Darwin-Australia's Northern Territory "unacceptable", accusing them

illegally have entered and fishing in Australian waters, ended with loss of life of an Indonesian fisherman. Herewith, West Timor Care Foundation known as "YPTB" as a single non Government institute in Indonesia voicing concerning the various rights and interests of Indonesian community being neglected Nationally and Internationally in Timor Sea, require to give its urgent comments as following ;

With very deeply regret, YPTB condemn the treatment of Australia's Federal Government Agents which have acted beyond the bounds of human equity to held 7 Indonesian fishermen for several weeks on board of a small cramped fishing vessel without reasonable facilities equiped such as toilets. The only sleeping quarters and protection against Darwin's tropical storm for the seven men was a small box, that strong possibilities have caused the death of Mansur La Ibu,one of the Indonesian fishermen.

With very deeply regret, YPTB condemn the treatment of Australia's Federal Government Agents to the Indonesian fishermen as a virtual prisoner without charges being preferred against them, without trial and without access to judicial review. " Furthermore... it is inhuman to keep (detained) seven men on a 13,5 metre fishing vessel for some weeks where  their only shelter is a small box as their protection against Darwin's tropical storms ".

With very deeply regret, YPTB urge The Indonesian Department Of Foreign Affairs to immediately form an Independent Team by involving National Commission Of Human Rights and various related independent parties from Indonesia and Australia to conduct an objective investigation to the case.

With very deeply regret, YPTB urge The Indonesian Department Of Foreign Affairs to immediately conduct a review concerning Memorandum Of Understanding between Indonesia and Australia known as " MOU Box" in Timor Sea, using the principles of UNCLOS 82' and 200 nautical miles Economic Exclusive Zone respectively especially on the area around Ashmore Reef  (Gugusan Pulau Pasir) which known to Indonesian fishermen as an inheritance region of their ancestors (Rotenese,West Timorese etc) for the past centuries,but now, have been claimed as part of Australia.

With very deeply regret, YPTB urge The Indonesian Department Of Oceanic and Fisheries, for the time being todiscontinue the entire cooperation plan with their Australia counterpart such as an MOU,Agreement and or Meetings, until the death case of Mansur La Ibu, Indonesian fisherman is expressed transparently and justified by Australia's Federal Government Agents.

With fully humility and high respect, YPTB extend many thanks and high appreciation to Mr. Greg Cavanagh,an Australia's Northern Territory Coroner in Darwin which gave his expression honestly to the death case of Mansur La Ibu, and the treatment to him with his other 6 friends, and also have strongly criticized the action of the Australia's Federal Government Agents of their treatment to the Indonesian fishermen.

Besides also has recommended detained crew members of Indonesian Fishermen who are not charged by the Government be sent home "as soon as reasonably practicable" and that The Australian Fisheries Management Autority conduct a review in to the detention of illegal fishermen. Also urged Australia's Department of Immigration to work out an arrangement with The Consul of the Republic of Indonesia in Darwin over the burial of any Indonesian fisherman who dies while in detention in Australia. "The Humanist Action of Mr. Greg Cavanagh at least have shown his love to fellow being which really inestimable".

Based on the spirit of Indonesia-Australia brotherhood relationship, emphatically YPTB refuse and will not even permit a little space to Indonesian fishermen knew to bring Illegal immigrants infiltrate (entering) to Australia, and give its fully support of the imposed law to them humanly  by Australian Authorities.

"But, on the contrary YPTB give its fully support also to all Indonesian traditional fishermen to fish in all the region of Timor Sea including in Ashmore Reef (Gugusan Pulau Pasir) and the area around it. Because truely we all must admit that hundreds of year since as far as can be remembered year 1609 Indonesian fishermen have searched fish  etc. as part of their daily life in the area far before a British Captain Ashmore arrived in the area around 1871. So, Australia should not arrest,detaine and or send the Indonesian fishermen to the Court found entering the area. If the dispute between the Indonesian fishermen and

Australia in Ashmore Reef and the area around it were using the principles of UNCLOS 82 ', that region belong (become a property) of Indonesia, not Australia. And if that area identify as an overlap area, according to International Maritime Law also, that area should become a joint cooperation area between Indonesia and Australia. Kupang, Wednesday, March 31, 2004. West Timor Care Foundation (YPTB) Ferdi Tanoni Chairman Mobile : +62 812 376 4928 or +62 3784219 YAYASAN PEDULI TIMOR BARAT (West Timor Care Foundation) Jalan Perintis Kemerdekaan I / 16 Kupang - 85228 - Timor Barat / NTT. Phone/Fax :+ 62 380833734, E-mail; ferdi@... SIARAN PERS  (Versi Indonesia Untuk Segera Dipublikasi)Internet.

Penulis : Drs.Simon Arnold Julian Jacob