By Ts Dr. Hj Ramli Amir, former President of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) Malaysia and Vice-President of CILT International for Southeast Asia
KOTA KINABALU: The territorial dispute over Sabah has been a historical point of contention between Malaysia and the Philippines, tracing back to colonial times. Recent developments, including the Philippines’ maritime boundary claims extending into Sabah’s continental shelf and renewed claims from the descendants of the Sultanate of Sulu, have escalated tensions. These incidents not only highlight the enduring complexities surrounding Sabah but have also strained diplomatic ties, impacting broader regional stability and cooperation.
Historical Context of the Sabah Dispute
The origins of the Sabah dispute lie in an 1878 agreement between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company. The terms of the agreement remain ambiguous, as interpretations differ regarding whether it constituted a lease or a cession of territory. Following Malaysia’s formation in 1963, the Philippines inherited the claim over Sabah through the Sultanate of Sulu, maintaining that Sabah was historically and culturally part of the Philippines. On the other hand, Malaysia asserts that Sabah’s residents chose to join Malaysia, thereby rendering any historical claim null. Although both nations maintain diplomatic relations, this unresolved dispute has often affected the otherwise cooperative spirit between Malaysia and the Philippines.
The Philippines’ New Maritime Boundary Claims
In June 2024, the Philippines submitted a claim to extend its continental shelf, projecting from the western Palawan region and extending into the maritime territories off Sabah. Malaysia reacted swiftly, filing a diplomatic note with the United Nations to contest the claim, reiterating its “indisputable sovereignty” over Sabah. This move by the Philippines has been viewed as a direct challenge to Malaysia’s maritime boundaries and is seen as disregarding Malaysia’s sovereignty over Sabah, a region that Malaysia has governed and integrated for decades.
The Philippines’ claim, couched as part of its broader maritime policy, raises significant concerns over the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Malaysia argues that the Philippines’ unilateral action violates the spirit of UNCLOS, which is intended to provide a framework for the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes. In this context, the Philippines’ move has highlighted the limitations of international maritime law when geopolitical interests overshadow legal interpretations.
The Sulu Heirs’ Claim Over Sabah
Compounding the maritime dispute is the longstanding claim by heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu, who assert their rights to Sabah based on the 1878 agreement. The heirs-initiated arbitration proceedings in Spain in 2019, seeking compensation from Malaysia for what they claim is unlawful occupation of Sabah. In February 2022, an arbitrator in Spain ruled in favour of the heirs, awarding them $14.92 billion. Malaysia has vigorously contested this arbitration, asserting that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over a sovereign matter.
Malaysia’s legal challenges against the award have met success in several jurisdictions, including the Paris Court of Appeal and the Netherlands Supreme Court, which dismissed the claim. However, the case and the publicity surrounding it have fuelled nationalist sentiments and have further strained Malaysia-Philippines relations. The revival of the Sulu claim points to unresolved issues over Sabah and adds a legal dimension that complicates diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions.
Diplomatic Ramifications
The Philippines’ actions regarding Sabah’s continental shelf, coupled with the Sulu heirs’ claim, have placed Malaysia-Philippines relations at one of their lowest points in recent history. While both nations are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and share commitments to regional stability, these disputes have created a divergence in their diplomatic priorities. The Philippines, motivated by resource and sovereignty considerations, risks alienating Malaysia, an important partner in ASEAN’s efforts to manage territorial disputes with external powers, particularly in the South China Sea.
Furthermore, the renewed tensions disrupt potential cooperation on critical issues such as security, trade, and environmental protection in the region. For instance, joint efforts in counterterrorism, maritime security, and environmental conservation in the Sulu-Sulawesi Sea are hampered by the strained atmosphere. The disputes over Sabah thus impact not only bilateral ties but also the collective stability and development of Southeast Asia.
Regional and International Implications
The South China Sea, including the waters off Sabah, is a critical trade route and resource-rich area, drawing the strategic interests of major global powers, especially the United States and China. The Philippines’ recent maritime assertions could inadvertently strengthen the position of non-ASEAN countries, thereby complicating ASEAN’s collective stance on maritime sovereignty. Additionally, Malaysia’s challenge to the arbitration award in international courts signifies a resistance to attempts by other states to influence its sovereignty through legal means, emphasizing the limits of arbitration in resolving complex territorial disputes.
The overlapping claims and the Philippines’ disregard for established maritime boundaries under UNCLOS could set a precedent for other countries with vested interests in the region. For ASEAN as an institution, these issues underscore the challenges of maintaining unity and establishing clear regional policies to address territorial disputes among member states.
A Path Forward for Malaysia and the Philippines
Given the sensitive nature of the Sabah issue, both Malaysia and the Philippines face the challenge of finding diplomatic pathways to ease tensions. Dialogues focused on cooperation, historical reconciliation, and mutual economic interests could provide an avenue to reduce conflict. Revisiting confidence-building measures, such as joint resource-sharing agreements and regional forums for dispute resolution, might also pave the way for improved relations.
Additionally, fostering an understanding of the socio-economic interests of Sabah’s populace could help address the issues with a human-centred perspective, focusing on the welfare of the local population rather than historical grievances.
ASEAN, with its principles of non-interference and collective decision-making, can also play a constructive role. Establishing a framework for bilateral dialogues and engaging in confidence-building initiatives could reduce the impact of the Sabah dispute on ASEAN’s overall goals.
The View of Kishore Mahbubani
Kishore Mahbubani, a prominent Singaporean diplomat and scholar, emphasizes several principles for resolving regional issues, especially in the context of complex territorial and sovereignty disputes within Southeast Asia. His views on maintaining stability and promoting cooperation in the region, while navigating global geopolitical tensions, offer valuable insights:
ASEAN Centrality and Unity
Mahbubani advocates for ASEAN unity as the bedrock of peace and stability in Southeast Asia. He believes that when ASEAN presents a united front, its collective weight provides leverage in dealing with major global powers, including the U.S. and China. ASEAN unity can discourage external interference, as it sends a clear message that the region prefers self-governance and internal resolutions over foreign influence.
Pragmatism Over Ideology
Mahbubani argues for a pragmatic approach to conflict resolution, prioritizing long-term stability and prosperity over ideological positions. He stresses the importance of “Asian pragmatism,” a practical, solution-oriented mindset, and encourages ASEAN countries to seek mutually beneficial compromises that allow for peaceful coexistence. For example, joint development agreements or resource-sharing arrangements could serve as pragmatic solutions for overlapping claims.
Engagement Through Dialogue
Mahbubani underscores the power of continuous dialogue, urging countries to maintain open lines of communication to foster trust. He believes that regular and transparent engagement can prevent misunderstandings and escalation. Mahbubani highlights ASEAN’s tradition of dialogue, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, as platforms where difficult issues can be addressed in a controlled and diplomatic environment.
Avoiding Zero-Sum Mentalities
He cautions against adopting zero-sum approaches, where one country’s gain is perceived as another’s loss. In Mahbubani’s view, this mindset undermines cooperation and leads to endless cycles of tension. He proposes that countries seek win-win solutions, particularly in disputes involving economic zones, where cooperative development could benefit all parties involved.
Strengthening Multilateralism
Mahbubani believes that multilateral frameworks like UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, are vital for maintaining peace in contested waters. He advocates for ASEAN members to uphold these multilateral agreements, which provide a rules-based structure that can reduce conflict. By reinforcing commitment to multilateralism, countries can avoid unilateral actions that could destabilize the region.
Learning from ASEAN’s Success in Regional Diplomacy
He frequently cites ASEAN’s success in fostering a cooperative regional order despite vast cultural, political, and economic diversity. Mahbubani suggests that ASEAN should strengthen its role as a regional mediator, expanding its existing frameworks to address both internal conflicts and external pressures. He sees ASEAN as a model for peaceful diplomacy that other regions can learn from.
Balancing External Powers through Strategic Neutrality
Given the U.S.-China rivalry, Mahbubani recommends that ASEAN maintain a balanced approach, refraining from aligning too closely with any single power. He advocates for “strategic neutrality,” which allows ASEAN to focus on regional priorities while engaging with both superpowers as equal partners. By maintaining an equidistant stance, ASEAN can avoid being drawn into proxy conflicts that do not serve its interests.
In summary, Mahbubani suggests that resolving issues like the Sabah dispute requires ASEAN unity, pragmatic diplomacy, and adherence to international laws, all while maintaining balanced relations with global powers. His approach promotes ASEAN as a stabilizing force in the region, capable of navigating both internal challenges and the complexities of global geopolitics.
Conclusion
The recent maritime assertions by the Philippines and the revived Sulu claim have exacerbated historical tensions between Malaysia and the Philippines, revealing the limitations of international law in resolving deeply rooted territorial issues. While both nations have legitimate concerns and strategic interests, an escalation of hostilities would undermine the regional stability necessary for growth and cooperation in Southeast Asia. As both countries navigate this complex issue, a focus on diplomacy, regional cooperation, and adherence to international frameworks will be crucial to managing the Sabah dispute in a manner that upholds peace and stability in the region.
