Seeking Peace Solutions of Indonesia – Malaysia Confrontation, 1963-1966

TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, 8(2) April 2017

Published every April and October ISSN 2085-0980

ASPENSI

International Journal for Historical Studies

LINDA SUNARTI Never Ending Brotherhood? Seeking Peace Solutions of Indonesia – Malaysia Confrontation, 1963-1966

ABSTRACT: Confrontation events, that occurred in 1963-1966, between Indonesia against Malaysia, were a unique event. This is because the conflict at that time differs from the prevalence of conflict or war between states in general. The focus of this study is to examine the relationship between Indonesia-Malaysia during the confrontation era, 1963-1966. The main focus is the process of resolving the confrontation. This research is a qualitative study by using historical methods and structurist approaches. The resolved of conflict between the two countries was interesting, because the conflict also involved forces outside, such as Britain and the USA (United States of America), can be resolved in a short time rather than through formal meetings, but can be resolved amicably, preceded by a number of secret meetings of both parties involved directly, without going through the mediator. The results concluded that there are two factors that pushed the end of confrontation, namely: separation of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965 and the 30 September 1965 movement in Indonesia. Both of these events can be said to be intertwined and become the main factor of change in the attitude of the two countries related confrontation. In addition, conflict resolution can occur due to the emergence of actors in both countries with a view to the equation could change things, which have been inhibiting and destabilizing both countries and the region as well. Another important thing is secret meetings established early in the settlement process confrontation by utilizing a network of friends and fraternity. KEY WORDS: Brotherhood; Confrontation; Indonesia and Malaysia; British and USA; Peace Solutions.

INTRODUCTION Confrontation events, that occurred in sovereigngeneral. Based states on (Holsti, the definition 1996:1). of the war, the war was an armed conflict between two Mackie,1963-1966, 1974; between Poulgrain, Indonesia 1998; Mahmud,against 2000;Malaysia, and were Sunarti, a unique 2013). event This (Hindley,is because 1964; While Carl von Clausewitz (1940), a philosopher of war from Germany, defines 1940).war as “anWar act is likeof violence a duel, but intended on a large to compel the conflict at that time differs from the our opponent to fulfill our will” (Clausewitz, prevalence of conflict/war between states in About the Author: Dr. Linda Sunarti is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities UI (University of Indonesia), UI Campus Depok, West Java, Indonesia. For academic interests, the author is able to be contacted via e-mail at: lindsayrani@ yahoo.co.uk. How to cite this article? Sunarti, Linda. (2017). “Never Ending Brotherhood? Seeking Peace Solutions of Indonesia – Malaysia Confrontation, 1963-1966” in TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, Vol.8(2) April, pp.229-242. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, ISSN 2085-0980. Chronicle of the article: Accepted (August 17, 2016); Revised (December 27, 2016); and Published (April 28, 2017).

countries above, then comes a variety of scale. In general, war is a real armed conflict, deliberate, and extensive that occurs between asecret third diplomatic party as before. efforts Initiative of the two to endwarring the two or more political communities hostile sides, negotiating directly without involving (Howard, 2002; and Lindell, 2009). countries, and both are negotiating through canThe be onewar or can more be carried successive out simultaneouslymilitary meansconflict of comes kinship; from this internal is done elements in order into both campaigns.in several different One military fields. campaign In each field, includes there movement, supplies the needs of food and bebridge resolved the differences by themselves. that occur, with likens not only fighting, but also intelligence, troop the conflict as a big family quarrel that must

Cohen,weapons, 1994). propaganda, and others. Conflicts andBoth easy. nations Though can not finally as the resolve only factor the is in a row is called a battle (Keegan, 1993; and conflicts peacefully by the process quick because there are other factors that also play Related to the common definition of the anthe important driving factor role conflictas the occurrence ended peacefully, of several awar, combination this confrontation of diplomatic can be pressure, said not pressto be events domestically and regionally, informal an open war. Indonesia-Malaysia conflict is contributed important expedite the process regioncampaigns, (Ott, and1971; threats and Bhataacharjee, of military power 1976). approach can be seen as one part of which is with limited military infiltration in the border of negotiations to end the conflict. In the confrontation, never open wide- “crushMany Malaysia” observers and wonder, also clash the seriousyears of scale fighting, military conflict occurs only conflict that is hateful with terms such as moreon a limited political scale. aspects, This thenconflict continues statements to the economicpreceded warand demonstrationsmilitary aspects thatin a limitedhave Ministermilitary onAdam the Malikborder of of Indonesia Kalimantan, and finished scale. In the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation in a two-day meeting between Foreign of the more prominent is the political dimension (Berding, 1966; Gordon, 1966; Foreign Minister Tun Abdul Razak of Malaysia clearin Bangkok, (Straits Thailand, Time even without any termination of the agreement signed with the Parmer, 1967; and Chopra, 1974/1975). , 10/6/1966). a seriousAlthough concern open internationally,war never broke because out, It would be different if the conflict the conflict between the two countries is involves two states that do not have the ties of kinship. These countries would ask for tensionof the conflict as a result occurred of the when advent the of political the Cold clear guarantees that the same event will not situation in the world is experiencing governmentbe valid anymore. (1966-1998) In the Indonesian in Indonesia conflict is marked by the emergence of Communist with China, for example, the New Order forcesWar began of China to spread and the to outbreakSoutheast the Asia Vietnam was the country until the Chinese state formally thatnot willing they no to longer open diplomaticsupport the relations Communist with Malaysia feared could increase tensions and bringwar. The political conflict instability between region Indonesia (Brackman, and Muas, 2015). 1966; Cantori & Spiegel, 1970; Agung, 1973; movementsBased on inthe Indonesia above background, (Kroef, 1986; the and Desai, 1981; Saravanamuttu, 1982; and author is interested to examine deeply about the process to ends Indonesia-Malaysia Numerous diplomatic efforts made by Konfrontasi. This study is variousMezerick, parties, 2000). such as the UN (United Nations), the USA (United States of America), conflict known as Japan, and Thailand, but did not produce processfocused ofon the the settlement process of ofconflict the case. resolution, positive results. Moving on from the failure whichThe will author examine chose in the more subject detail of how the the settlement process based on the Konfrontasi of diplomatic efforts were facilitated by the 230 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, 8(2) April 2017 by several things. First, I look at the process of This paper is the study of history, the resolving the confrontation as something that topic of the completion of the confrontation is interesting to study more deeply, because Indonesia-Malaysia. Due to about the

is in the scope of the history of diplomacy. this conflict has dragged many parties, both Therelationship method usedof two in countries, this research the researchis the alsomilitary of diplomacy, involvement, such such as the as theinvolvement UK (United ofKingdom), the United Australia, States of and America, New Zealand; Japan, and and stages: heuristic, critic, interpretation, Thailand, it turns out can be solved very historical method, which consists of four

Second, the relationship andIn historiography the process of (Kartodirdjo,data collection 1992; and the changessimply through in the domestic direct negotiations and regional between political Kuntowijoyo, 2005; and Sjamsuddin, 2007). situationthe two countries. in both countries by the end of conducted bibiliographical research. The Third, the emergence of the authorrelevant conducted written sources, research the in author the library has and guards reconciliation or peace feelers in both the conflict. interloper deadlocks in negotiations. thisin the study, archives in general, in the twois a sourcecountries, of textual Malaysia or countries, which play an important role as an and Indonesia. The sources were examined in and secondary sources (Dessouki, Hillal & The main problem that will be the theme written, either in the form of primary sources completionof the study Indonesia-Malaysiais why confrontation confrontation must A secondary source is generally obtained be ended, and how the process of their fromKorany, books, 1991; unpublished and Sjamsuddin, sources 2007). such as

(1)take What place? are To the answer factors the that main drive question the end of While the primary source obtained either confrontation?;above, I propose (2) four What research are the questions: forms and fromdissertations primary andsources theses, that and have magazines. been mechanisms to resolve the confrontation?; (3) published and unpublished. Primary sources include Malaysia’s Foreign Affairs that many contain data on Malaysia’s foreign policy, Why the process goes quickly?; and (4) Who especially concerning the foreign policy of OBJECTIVES,are the actors METHODS,and how their AND linkage? SOURCES This study has several objectives to be 1964-1966. Then, Parliamentary Debates: achieved: (1) Reveal the factors that pushed Malaysia towards Indonesia in the period the end of the confrontation; (2) Explain a lot of data about the sessions of debate the forms and mechanisms to resolve the inPeople’s Parliament Council (People’s (1958-1970), council) which comes contains to

Primary sources that have not been roleconfrontation; of the actors (3) involved Explain andwhy their the settlement linkage. confrontation with Indonesia. couldThe take results place of quickly; this study and are (4) expected Revealed to the published, which also is the foundation the history of historiography on Indonesian Archivesfor this study, of Malaysia, was obtained especially from the the series files diplomacybe useful as and follows. foreign Academically, policy of Southeast enrich of the Public Record Office London in Asia, especially foreign policy Indonesia and correspondence general of the FO; then series Malaysia. In practice, contribute to gain a FO (Foreign Office) 371, which contains more comprehensive understanding of the correspondence Southeast Asia Department, CO (Colonial Office) in 1030, which contains easilyrelationship often ignited between by the some two things countries, that Foreignas well as Relations, the series author PREM uses (Prime of the Minister)’s United areIndonesia not understood and Malaysia, by the which majority lately of the StatesOffice 13,Vol.XXIII, 1964-1970. 1961-1963; Sources and of Vol.XXVI,American people of both nations, because of a lack of 1964-1968. Related archives of the Foreign understanding of the history of relations Ministry of Indonesia is in the ANRI (Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia or National between the two countries. © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia 231 ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh LINDA SUNARTI, Never Ending Brotherhood?

Archives of the Republic of Indonesia), the author cannot access it. understand the culture of the countries In addition, there are several primary Here, historians are required to sources that have been published or that understand the perception of one nation contain the primary elements include studied and compared with each other to st August 1957 – 15th September 1963 (Position towards another nation. The problem of Malaysia/Indonesia Relations, 31 tension between the two countries and the on the issue of Malaysia from 1963 to 1964 Fourprocess approaches of completion described with allby itsAkira dynamics Iriye (DirectorateDescription: ofKuala Asia Lumpur); Northeast, set Department Materials of requires a more comprehensive approach. Foreign Affairs); Diplomatica Confrontation cannot just use one of them, but the four can Documents 1965 (Department of Foreign be(1988) used and to complement Saho Matusumoto each other. (1999), we Affairs); and Malaysia Year Book 1966-1967 Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation (The Malay Mail). Furthermore, other primary sources In the process of settlement of international categorized as as an international conflict. Indonesia is: Antara, Antara Daily News Bulletinare newspapers, the Asian of Recorder, the two countries, and Kompas; from resolvedconflicts, throughthere is someviolence kind or of by settlement peaceful efforts. An international conflict can be the reference material is: Malay Mail, Straits & Fayeye, 2013). One effort is the political Timesand Malaysian, and Berita newspaper Harian. The that author has become face resolutionmeans (Wallensteen, of disputes 2002; through and a Wani, mediation Suwirta process. Mediation in international disputes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. difficulties in finding sourcesAntara, of documents the process involving a third party in its efforts to author has found in the National Library bringis better the known parties as to the the dispute dispute resolution so that they inTherefore, Jakarta, Indonesia,the newspaper into primaryof sources can negotiate (Jensen, 1982; and Ury, 2000). is very important for the author to see the process of resolving the confrontation from mediation process through a third-party Indonesian perspective. mediatorIn the Indonesia-Malaysiahas been done several conflict times, but did not produce positive results, and the APPROACHES AND CONCEPTS the impasse appears the initiative of the diplomacy. History of diplomacy is the study Indonesianconflict continues. military, In especially the current the situation, Army to This research is categorized as history of

Roy,of the 1991). history According of the relationship to Akira Iriye between (1988) try to find a solution to resolve to end the andtwo Sahoor more Matusumoto countries (1999),(Nicolson, methods 1969; andand emergenceconflict (Crouch, of the 1978; occupiers and Jok,of both 2015). countries, approach can be divided into four categories. theIn author an attempt uses structurist to explain approachand analyze the First, the traditional approach of relying on introduced by the British economic historian, Christopher Lloyd (1993).1 The approach countries. Second, the domestic-oriented approach,the research that towards takes into archives account two the or effectmore 1 especially the concepts of “emergency” and “agency”. This of pressure or social development, economy, This approach utilizes specific sociological theories, in the natural sciences, but adapted to the science of history, policy of a country. Third, a more systemic approach refers to the way of working (structure of reasoning) (historical sources). Said to resemble the natural sciences and politics in the country towards foreign where data can only be obtained from the relics of the past only the so-called “causal factor” invisible (unobservable) as approach is to analyze diplomacy of a country because, first of all, reality sought not the whole of reality, but Fourth, the cultural approach or intellectual human senses (observable), but the causes of the phenomenon in terms of changes in the world as a whole. well as in natural science, the phenomenon can be seen by the as an intellectual relationship (Iriye, 1988; (phenomenon, observable), but the causal mechanismnya, i.e. invisibleis not visible gravity (unobservable). (unobservable); For soundexample, can objects be heard, falling or the down andapproach, Matusumoto, which sees 1999). international relations

TV image can be seen, but the magnetic field that causes it can 232 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, 8(2) April 2017

“causal factor” uncaught senses. Phenomena, suchaims asto showrebellion, the realityrevolution, in the social form change, of a needs to be explored further. The power to and so on, can be captured through the Whilechange ontologically, the social structure the social was structure located on senses, because it is contained in historical haswhat also is calledto determine the “agency” the forces and “mentalite”.that curb sources that can be read and studied. But the causality does not appear empirically trying to change the structure that has the in historical sources, because hidden in (constraining) and “agent of change”, who are the unobservable social structures (Llyod, structure (enabling). Interaction and tension 1993:38). capability and willingness, to change the social Theoretically, there is an interaction structuristbetween the methodology “agency” that (Llyod, is enabling 1993:93-100). the social structureAfter emerging which is the social principal structure constraining around the Sobetween to display people the (individuals“causal factor”, or groups)that is and social structures, in which they originated. comes the initiatives and actions of data source from historical sources should be them, which turned out very restrictive, unobservable, was a historian who gets the andindividuals the action or groups,arises from where an theagency social concreteused to analyze or observable the social and structure social structures in order structure was to make a change. Initiative thatto show are notthe visibleinteraction or unobservable between humans (Llyod, Agency itself is derived from the social 1993:39). structurethat has the itself power (internal). to change Later, (enabling). the agency In structurist methodology, events and that is the major driving force in making structures are not dichotomous and dualistic, changes. The emergence of this agency but a tangle of dialectic methodological

does not come suddenly, but requires a symbiotic, between the two complement Accordingprocess in toaccordance Christopher with Llyod the length(1993), of the changeeach other the associal a unified structure, methodology. social structure In the the constraining social structures work. sense that the event contains a power to structure, but it also represents the ability for actions that change. Furthermore, there ofagency a person is autonomous to act on behalf power of ofothers the social in arewhile stages containing in this barriersmethodology or encouragement involves 1993:100). determination of causality mechanism accordance with certain powers (Llyod. causinganalysis theof social changes structure (Llyod, as 1993:40). well as the see in depth related to the initiative and The social structure is in the form of theBased breakthrough on this, the made author by the would actors like of to norms, roles, and interactions arising from individuals and groups in the process of the actions and thoughts of men. Human breaking the deadlock of negotiations that beings are born in a given social structure and occurred previously. What kind of situation has the ability to change the social structure to make changes. Through this structurist that could encourage them/those actors rolein which as a determinantit originated factor(Llyod, in 1993:40). transforming This factor of the completion of the Indonesia- andis where reproducing structurist social confirm structure the individual’s changes. approach, the author wish to express causal Individual (or group of individuals) is, then, and easily. referred to as the “agent of change” (cf Llyod, Malaysia confrontation could be said quickly 1993; and Hodgson, 2004). also an important factor contributing to Because such an important element of expeditingIn addition, the processthe author of negotiatingsaw there was an end an individual or group as an active factor in the methodology of structurist, then this to confrontation that is the kinship between the two nations. In sociological terms, the information, Christopher Llyod (1993). cultural similarities and also descendants not be captured by five senses (unobservable). See for further fraternal relationship characterized by

impact on the formation of character and Sometimes people often think this a different perception to national security often called kinship (Liow, 2004). concerns of each country (Guat, 1976; and arephenomenon actually several is unique, countries because are it related is rare byin the international community. However, there countriesComber, 1983). gained This independence is reflected inin differentthe form of a different foreign policy, since the two countriesblood and are culture, still maintaining such as North their Korea individual and Malaysia through a process of peaceful identity,South Korea, even China bond andemotional Taiwan, in but these these ways: through Indonesian revolution and countries has almost disappeared because of 1980; Rolf, 2000). transitionBecause (Kahin, of the strategic1972; Leifer, geographical 1974; Singer, in shaping identity, nationalism, ideology, and the strong socialization as sovereign nations Southeast Asia as an arena of struggle for position of this reason, which then also turn asother a major sentiments part of (Leuzinger,a strategic culture2014). Inthat other bloc and the Eastern bloc during the Cold developedwords, these them. countries do not see the kinship War,ideological since 1945 influence to 1990 between (Lau ed., the 2012).Western As a reality, there is no doubt, there is a In the Cold War, Indonesia and Malaysia, a background of the different national interests, and Malaysia. Both countries have a blood relationkinship between(brotherhood), the two culture, countries: religion, Indonesia and differences in the perception of the national family relationships; and, therefore, often are in two opposing camps. As a result of the referred to as allied countries (Wallensteen, (Sukarno’sinterest at theanti-Western time, plus andtheir Tunku figures Abdul to the contrary between Indonesia and Malaya felt2002; in almostand Liow, all 2004).areas of Malay “Melayu” cultural (Malay) in Malaysiasimilarities and between in Indonesia, the two such countries as Sumatera, in the Rahman’s pro-Western), relations between Malaysiathe two countries confrontation are in events the point of 1963-1965 of nadir and The people of Indonesian descent, many (Means,almost led 1963; to open Adams, warfare 1965; that Bunnel, is Indonesia- 1966; Kalimantan, and partly most Sulawesi (Bugis). Legge, 1972; Ott, 1972; Ahmad, 1987; Wahid, become citizens and an important person in (Raymond,Malaysia, one 2010). of which is the Tun Abdul Razak 2001; and Liow, 2005). is a descendant of the Bugis in South Sulawesi internationalConfrontation and betweenregional situationIndonesia at that time,and Malaysia the Cold has War. close The linkssupport with of the China and Based on this, the author also wanted to the Soviet Union to the confrontation politics terminationsee whether ofthe confrontation. kinship, that exists between the two peoples, has had a role in the States of America). On the international stage, FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Indonesia-Malaysiaof Indonesia were alarming confrontation the USA has (United created Geographical and geopolitical position of USA and Britain on the one hand, and the changes in the cultural, social, and political a complex Cold War tensions between the Southeast Asia has a huge impact towards and Ricklefs, Lockhart & La, 2010). Indonesia 1995;Soviet andUnion Lau and ed., China 2012). along with respective region of Southeast Asia as a whole (Tate, 1977; supporters in other hand (Kahin & Kahin, most strategic geographical location and is USA in a complicated set of issues. On the one borderedand Malaysia, directly as the by twosea andcountries land, getwith a lotthe of Indonesia – Malaysia’s conflict exposes the supported the British, but on the other hand, hand, the Cold War strategy requires that USA 1964;outside Gullick, influences 1967; which Vlekke, then 1967; forms Ongkili, a lot in 1985;common Madjid in terms ed., 1995; of history and andRolf, culture 2000). (Kahin, if the support was carried out hastily, it will But, the experience of colonialism different Malaysia,steer Indonesia seen the away difference from the in West attitude (Jones, 2002). That is why, in the conflict Indonesia

234 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, 8(2) April 2017 political confrontation of Indonesia. between the British and the USA in the face of thatand gatherthe Indonesian demonstrations side sought of militants negotiating who Indonesia and encourage settlement of the revile Britain and the USA would not believe USA prefer a persuasive approach towards initiative (Jones, 1971; and Farram, 2014). British prefer an aggressive approach, the withWhy the Indonesian enemy, even government as the party not that choose has toughconflict stance through Indonesia negotiations, must be while countered the something that is also interesting. It can be assessedto negotiate that directly the British with formed Malaysia? Malaysia, That is with military force, the British is willing to (Gregorian,negotiate if Indonesia1991). must first leave the confrontationalIndonesia and attitude Malaysia towards confrontation Malaysia and when it was believed that the source can be said to be an arena of rivalry or great of this conflict with Malaysia is the United WithKingdom, the British so the meetBritain in couldsecret, solve their the expected Britain, and its allies; and the Soviet Union completionconflict (Easter, in secret 2004; that and can French, save Indonesia.2011). andpower China of attraction on the other that side time, that the competes USA, in In the midst of the negotiations deadlock the context of the Cold War (Derkach, 1965; Indonesian military, particularly the army, 1995). Policy of confrontation of Indonesia and escalating a conflict that elements of the hasSaravanamuttu, brought Indonesia 1990; andon foreign Kahin &policy Kahin, and negative impact on the social, economic, and politicalbegan to matters.worry about Confrontation the confrontation is considered has a militant anti-Western robust marked with (Partai Komunis Indonesia or Indonesian Indonesia on the organization of the United more advantageous position of the PKI BeijingNations, – andHanoi form – Pyong its own Yang). block with China, thousands of volunteers in the struggle for NorthThere Vietnam, are some and diplomatic North Korea efforts (Jakarta made – WestCommunist Irian (Hanrahan, Party) with 1971; actions and to Bijl, mobilize 2007). by the international community to end the the majority party in Indonesia started to so that the confrontation continues (Wani, In confrontation politics with Malaysia, conflict did not produce positive results, exactly is contested. Besides facing is a nationfeel the that war historically was futile, ithas is nothistorical clear what and Suwirta & Fayeye, 2013). Associated with cultural ties that closely. The emergence of one of the stages of conflict resolution, efforts to find solutions have led the tomediators originate to from bridge the the USA, differences Japan and between doubts about the true meaning of war or the warring factions. Mediators who appear (Crouch,conflict has 1978; prompted and Soeharto, the initiative 1991). among A secret meetingArmy officers, of Indonesian like Ahmad military Yani andmission Suharto Thailand, which are actively involved in cannot be separated from the support groups facilitatingThe interesting meetings thing between to observe Indonesia is an and Indonesian political refugees in Malaysia effortMalaysia of the (Llewelyn, Indonesian 2005). side to be able to (James & Small, 1971). Starting from the groundbreaking group Malaysia (Dennis & Grey, 1996; Easter, 2004; andnegotiate French, directly 2011), with one thething British, that until not with Indonesian political refugees in Malaysia, of army officers, and with the help of the the public in Indonesia today. When seen thenow spirit may notof his be era widely at the known time, bySukarno most of hasthere lasted was afor variety more ofthan direct 33 months,negotiations can succeeded in burning the heroism of between the two parties. The dispute that thousands of young volunteers from all over Indonesia to be deployed on the border of be resolved through negotiations between Ganyang Thailand,the two days: on 29 Adam May Malik – 1 June of Indonesia 1966 (Utusan and Malaysia Malaysia,Tun Abdul Razak of MalaysiaKompas, in Bangkok, Kalimantan, conducted a campaign (Kroef, 1963; and Cribb, 1992); 2/6/1966; 3/6/1966; © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia 235 ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh LINDA SUNARTI, Never Ending Brotherhood?

in Indonesia had an incredible impact for Furthermore, the results of the negotiations confrontation (Crouch, 1978; Hart, 2009; Malik, 1978; and Katsumata, 2003). and Ming, 2011). Although there have been August 1966 (Malik, 1978; Wanandi, 2001; direct negotiations secretly conducted since in Bangkok ratified by the Jakarta Accord, in late September 1964, but both instances There is one most important thing that and Katsumata, 2003). ending the confrontation, essentially events of Indonesia and Malaysia in the settlement ofwere 30 ththe September most powerful 1965 uprisingdriving force in Indonesia for can be taken as a lesson for the two nations process of confrontation, the two nations brotherhood,(Sutter, 1966; theand peace Kroef, feelers 1970). from the theallied, Malay could or resolveAsia (Wallensteen, the conflict, 2002;which and lasted By leveraging a network of friends and for approximately three years by way of Adam Malik, shortly after the signing of the Indonesian army have managed to find Suwirta, 2010). Quoting the statement of parties, who appear to have the same Malaysia in Jakarta, on 11 August 1966, he thoughts with them. Through the help of Des Recovery Relations between Indonesia and Alwi, fugitive Indonesian living in Malaysia, Indonesiawhich was successfully, once a school met friend and ofthen Tun dialogue Abdul said as follows: Razak in the Britain, the peace feelers from

[...] from this moment, we open a new page with Tun Abdul Razak and his group who onand the clean Malay in the race, history clumps of ofthe a twogreat nations, nation in 2008). Putting aside the usual diplomatic neither side wins or loses, the victory will be proceduresalso have the for desire use, bothwith groupsthem (Nordin, then conduct Malaysia, including in it (cited in Suara Malaysia, secret meetings to discuss the possibility of Southeast Asia, where nations of Indonesia and

18/8/1966). &conflict Fayeye, resolution 2013). that is acceptable to both evidence that the completion of the Malaysia partiesSuccessful (Weinstein, negotiation 1969; andof the Wani, termination Suwirta – IndonesiaQuoted by confrontation, Adam Malik, reinforcingIndonesia role of civilian leaders of Indonesia, such as conventional methods or generally used in of the conflict cannot be separated from the can be done quickly rather than by usingcf Malik, Adam Malik and Des Alwi. It could be said an international conflict settlement ( andthat AdamDes Alwi Malik acted is a as reliable a liaison negotiator between in the by1978; Adam Wanandi, Malik (1978) 2001; Katsumata,that to achieve 2003; the and two groups, who want to have a meeting; approvalWani, Suwirta process, & Fayeye, Indonesia 2013). and As Malaysia expressed and Nordin, 2008). Thanks to the agility in have ruled all disciplines of diplomatic usually negotiating,the final round clever of negotiations icebreaker, Indonesia-(Malik, 1978; in force, they are directly related to each other and talk from the heart of prudence, and this agreement is a deliberation a sincere Thailand.Malaysia conflict complicated issue, only throughSo, in twothe processdays of talksof termination in Bangkok, of the together (Malik, 1978). According to Adam Malik,between this two is clearbrothers evidence to solve that a “Asianproblem together and this has to be one of the key problem should be resolved by the Asian conflict, military and civilian groups work cf Malik, peacefully (Crouch, 1978; and Arto, 1989). It cansuccesses be said of that the reconciliationtermination of initiative the conflict came nationThe itself,successful this is completion an Asian way” of peaceful ( from the army, the civil groups to help liaison, confrontation1978; and Katsumata, cannot be 2003). separated from some and negotiator in the informal and formal of the driving factors that are related to one negotiations are conducted by the civilian and another. Event separation of Singapore from military support. the Federation State of Malaysia and the In addition to internal factors as described th events of the 30 September 1965 uprising above, acceleration of the termination of the

236 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, 8(2) April 2017 actual confrontation also cannot be separated from external factors that occurred at that Communist and non-Communist elements, time. In this case, from the Malaysian side, that the confrontation is conflict between the external factor is the change in British policy. which implicitly about to give justification and Singapore from Malaysia discharge that the confrontation was not a conflict eventsThe fiscal make crisis England in the thinkUK (United of the costsKingdom) of the Leifer,between 1983; the twoand alliedNordin, countries 2008). (Hatta, deployment of military forces in Southeast 1965;Behind MoFA this Malaysia, process, 1971; of course, Shafie, the 1982; Asia, especially in the confrontation (Easter, makes uninterruptible communication British actively encouraged Malaysia to hold background of kinship was one factor that 2004; and French, 2011). This is why the Hidayat Mukmin (1991) said that the inbetween the negotiation the two countries. in Bangkok, The Thailand main – such talks with Indonesia to end the confrontation. character who became the important actors ofsecret the Britishnegotiations (Mukmin, between 1991). Indonesia But, based and on as Adam Malik and Des Alwi of Indonesia and sourcesMalaysia that took I canplace mainly without sources, the knowledge the Britain (Nordin,Tun Abdul 2008; Razak and and Chong, M. Ghazali 2012). Shafie of Malaysia – were distant cousins and soulmate

Indonesia.showed that It Malaysiais clear that always Britain report approved what kinship’sHow to diplomacy, Indonesia laterand Malaysiabecame the resolve basis the they would do in relation to negotiations with forissue ASEAN when (Association it was, which of uses South the East concept Asian of and Malaysia, but the British is not directly Nations) countries to develop mechanisms of involved,the secret so negotiations its role as an between adviser Indonesia (Chee, 1974; Easter, 2004; and French, 2011). On the other hand, the Indonesian side continuousdialogue in resolvingnegotiation their could problems. lead to mutualHow to indirectly there is an external factor that is resolve the conflict by relying on dialogue and (Ott, 1967; Irvine, 1982; and Vatikiotis, 1996). trustAt betweenleast a lot the of leaderscultural ofelements those countries such as leadertheir indirect in Indonesia. pressure USA from declared the USA that towards it consensus, brotherhood, deliberation, and Lieutenant General Suharto as new real informal meetings are popular in Malaysian would resume its economic and military aid resolve differences (Wallensteen, 2002; and towards Indonesia, if Indonesia is willing to and Indonesian society and to be a way to end the confrontation with Malaysia (Said, need1984; of Kahin economic & Kahin, assistance 1995; and from Simpson, outside thisLiow, being 2004). a strategic In this way, culture then, that often developed known 2008). At that time, Indonesia was in dire also as the “ASEAN way”; so, in other words, (Weinstein, 1976; and Nordin, 2008). Vatikiotis, 1996). to overcome the severe economic downturn ASEANIn the (Shafie, context 1971; of the Tilman, region, 1987; the relevance and of the concept of kinship, thus, as a tool Answering the main question of this study, and mechanism to encourage dialogue why it can be quick and easy? There is one important thing that can answer, that is the important role of the kinship between the resolvedwith useful, either so expect by lifting the backs conflicts the thatspirit of atwo good countries. and peaceful, Termination because of, of not the apart element from occur between the two nations can be the dialogue and it is possible to end up with CONCLUSIONbrotherhood (Liow, 2004; and Chong, 2012). of kinship (Liow, 2004; and Chong, 2012). In the end, the study noticed that the Related conflict ended quickly, Malaysian kinship is a concept that remains important inForeign solving Minister, the problem” Tun Abdul (MoFA Razak, Malaysia, just said and useful in the Indonesia-Malaysia 1971;that “this and is Nordin, the way 2008). of us, Eventhe Asian he and way, his colleagues in Malaysia and Indonesia stated relations. However, kinship needs to be seen in proportion and context, and will © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia 237 ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh LINDA SUNARTI, Never Ending Brotherhood? not necessarily be seen as an emotional and Chong, Jinn Winn. (2012). “Mine, Yours or Ours? The nostalgic. In a proportional and contextual Indonesia-Malaysia Disputes over Hared Cultural Heritage” in Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol.27, No.1 [April]. in the context of state sovereignty, a concept s Strategy for understanding, kinship has no significance Survival” in Pacific Affairs, Vol.47, No.4 [Winter], nation-states. Chopra,pp.437-458. Pran. (1974/1975). “Malaysia’ that is very important two independent On War Dutton and Co., Ltd., Translation. can be developed from the concept of Cohen,Clausewitz, Eliot Carl A. (1994). von. (1940). “A History of Warfare”. New York: in ForeignE.P. kinship,However, primarily there asis thea tool potential or mechanism that in Affairs, 73(2). Comber, Leon. (1983). 13 May 1969: A Historical Survey of Sino-Malay Relation. international diplomacy. Kinship can help Heinemann Asia. Cribb, Robert. (1992). Historical Dictionary Kuala Lumpur: of Indonesia. foundationthe process toof begindialogue a constructive to defuse conflicts dialogue. 2 and promote cooperation. Kinship is the Crouch, Harold. (1978). The Army and Politics in Indonesia.Metuchen andIthaca: London: Cornell The University Scarecow Press. Press, Inc. Dennis, Peter & Jeffrey Grey. (1996). Emergency and References Confrontation: Australian Military Operations in Malaya and Borneo, 1950-1966. St. Leonards: Allen Adams, Cindy. (1965). Soekarno: An Autobiography as Told to Cindy Adams. Indonesiaand Unwin. in the West, Irian, and the Malaysian Agung, Ide Anak Agung Gde. (1973). Twenty Years Derkach,Disputes” Nadia. in (1965).Asian Survey, “The SovietVol.5, No.11Policy [November]. towards Indonesian Foreign Policy, New York:1945-1965 Bobbs. Paris: Merril, Mouton. Inc. Desai, Sar D.R. (1981). Southeast Asia: Past and Present. Ahmad, Abdullah. (1987). Tengku Abdul Rahman dan Dasar Luar Malaysia, 1963-1970. Berita Harian Publishing Sdn Bhd. New Delhi: Vikas Publication House. Arto, Soegih. (1989). Sanul Daca: PengalamanKuala Lumpur: Pribadi Dessouki,in The A.,Foreign Ali E. PoliciesHillal & ofBaghat Arab States.Korany. Bouleder: (1991). “A Letjen TNI (Purn) Soegih Arto. Jakarta: PT Merdeka Literature Survey and a Framework for Analysis” Sarana. Easter, David. (2004). Britain and the Confrontation with Berding, A.H. (1966). The Making of Foreign Policy. Indonesia,Westview Press.1960-1966 . London: I.B. Tauris. Washington D.C., United States of America: Farram, Steven. (2014). “Ganyang! Indonesia Popular Free Press. Songs from the Confrontation Era, 1963-1966” Bhataacharjee, G.P. (1976). Southeast Asian Politics: in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde, Malaysia & Indonesia. Calcuta: Minerva. Vol.170, No.1. Bijl, Nick van der. (2007). Confrontation: The War French, David. (2011). The British Way in Counter- with Indonesia, 1962-1966 Insurgency, 1945-1967 Military Press. University Press. Brackman, A. (1966). Southeast. Barnsley: Asia’s Second Pen &Front: Sword The . Oxford The Dimensions and New York:of Conflict Oxford Power Struggle in the Malay Archipelago. in Southeast Asia. Frederick A. Praeger. Gordon, Bernard K. (1966). New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bunnel, Frederick P. (1966). “Guided Democracy Foreign Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Policy, 1960-1965: President Soekarno Moves from Confrontation, 1964-1966”. Available online at: Non-Alignment to Confrontation” in Indonesia. Gregorian, Raffi. (1991). “CLARET Operations and York: Modern Indonesian Project, Cornell University, [accessed in Depok, October. New Indonesia:https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/ February 10, 2017]. Cantori, Louis J. & Steven L. Spiegel. (1970). “The viewFile/14933/16002Malaysian Policies in International Relations of Regions” in Polity, Vol.2, Southeast Asia, 1957-1970. Singapore: National No.4 [Summer]. Guat,Printing. Hoon Khaw. (1976). Chee, Stephen. (1974). “Malaysia’s Changing Foreign Gullick, J.M. (1967). Malaysia and its Neighbours. Policy” in Yong Cheong Mun [ed]. Trends in Malaya. Singapore: ISEAS [Institute of South East Asian Hanrahan, G.H. (1971). The Communist Struggle in Studies]. MalayaLondon: Routledge and UniversityKegan Paul. of Malaya Press. Hart, Natasha Hamilton. (2009). “Indonesia and Singapore:. Kuala Structure, Lumpur: Politics, and Interest” 2Statement: I, hereby, declare that this article is my in Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.31, No.2. Singapore: ISEAS [Institute of South East Asian Studies]. clearlyoriginal and academic available work, in the it is References. not product This of plagiarism, article is also due not to all sources used and cited in the analysis are showed Malaysia Issue” in Asian Survey, Vol.5, No.3 [March]. journals. Hatta, Mohammad. (1965). “One Indonesian View of the submitted, reviewed, and published yet in other scholarly

238 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, 8(2) April 2017

States of America]: Random House. Kompas Hillal,The Ali Foreign E. & Baghat Policies Korany. of Arab (1991). States. “A Bouleder:Literature , Malaya, and Survey and a Framework for Analysis” in the Borneo[newspaper]. Crisis” Djakarta:in Asian Survey, 3 Djuni April. 1966. Hindley, Donald. (1964). “Indonesia’s Confrontation Kroef, Justus M. Van der. (1963). “Indonesia Westview Press.: A Search for Motives” in Asian Survey, Communism Since the 1965 Coup” in Pacific Affairs, Vol.4, No.6 [Jun]. Kroef,43(1), Justus pp.34-60. M. Van der. (1970). “Indonesian Hodgson,with Malaysia Geoffrey M. (2004). The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, structure, and Darwinism in American Institutionalism. London Kroef,in AsianJustus Survey M. Van, Vol.26, der. (1986). No.28 “Normalizing [August]. Relations with China: Indonesian’sMetodologi Policies Sejarah and. Perceptions”Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana. of-Institutional-Economics-Agency-Structureand New York: Routledge. Available online also at: Lau,Kuntowijoyo. Albert [ed]. (2005). (2012). Southeast Asia and Cold War. [accessedfile:///C:/Users/acer/Downloads/The-Evolution- in Depok, Indonesia: February 10, 2017]. The State, War, and the State of War. Legge, J.D. (1972). Soekarno: A Political Biography. York:New York Preager and Publisher.London: Routledge. Holsti, K.J. (1996). (2002). Clausewitz: A Very Short Leifer, Michael. (1974). The Foreign Relations of NewNew IntroductionUnited Kingdom:. Oxford: Cambridge Oxford University Press. States. Howard, M. Leifer, Michael. (1983). Indonesian Foreign Policy. History”. Available online at: London:Victoria: The Royal George Institute Allen of & International Unwin Ltd. Affairs. Iriye, Akira. (1988). “The Internationalization of https://www. Chinese: What’s the Difference?”. Available online akira-iriyehistorians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha- [accessed in Depok, Indonesia: February Leuzinger,at: Kelsey. (2014). “Japanese, Korean, and 10,history-and-archives/presidential-addresses/ 2017]. [accessed in Depok, Indonesia: February Irvine, R. (1982). “The Formative Years of ASEAN, 1967- 10,https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japanese-korean- 2017]. 1975” in Alison Broinovosky [ed]. Understanding chinese/ ASEAN. London: The Macmillan Press, Ltd. Politics” in E-International Relations Students. James, Harold & Denis Sheil Small. (1971). The Lindell,Available Jordan. online (2009). also “Clausewitz: at: War, Peace, and Undeclared War: The Story of the Indonesian Confrontation, 1962-1966 [accessed in Depok,http://www.e-ir. Indonesia: February 10,info/2009/11/26/clausewitz-war-peace-and- 2017]. Jensen, Lyod. (1982). Explaining. Totowa: Foreign Rowman Policy and politics/ The Politics of Indonesia Malaysia Jersey:Littlefield. Prentice Hall, Inc. Relations: One Kin Two Nations. Jok, Jok Madut. (2015). “Negotiating an End to .the New Liow, J.C. (2004). Current Civil War in South Sudan: What Lessons ). “Tunku Abdul Rahman New and York: Malaya’s Can Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement Routledge Curzon. Journal of Offer?. Available online at: Liow,Southeast J.C. (2005 Asian Studies, Vol.36. [accessed in Depok, Relations with Indonesia, 1957-1960” in Indonesia: February 10, 2017].http://ips-project.org/ Response to Indonesia’s Policy of Confronting wp-content/uploads/20151971). Indonesia: The Possible Dream. Llewelyn, James. (2005). “Japan’s DiplomaticKobe University Law Review, 39, pp.39-68. Available Jones, Howard P. ( Conflict and Confrontation in onlineMalaysia also (Konfrontasi), at: 1963-1966” in SoutheastNew York: Asia, Random 1961-1965: House. Britain, the United States, [accessed in Depok, Jones,Indonesia, Matthew. and (2002). the Creation of Malaysia. Cambridge, Indonesia: Januaryhttp://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/ 17, 2017]. Llyod,repository/00422148.pdf Christopher. (1993). Structure of History. Oxford and Indonesia” in PacificUK [United Affairs, Kingdom]: Vol.37, No.3 Cambridge [Autumn]. University Press. Mackie, J.A.C. (1974). Konfrontasi: The Indonesia – Kahin, George McT. (1964). “MalaysiaNationalism and Malaysiaand Cambridge: Dispute Blackwell., 1963-1966. Oxford Revolution in Indonesia University Press. Kahin,University George Press.McT. (1972). MasyarakatKuala Lumpur: Melayu. Pulau . Ithaca, New York: Cornell Pinang: USM [Universiti Sains Malaysia] Press. Subversion as Foreign Policy: The secret Mahmud,Madjid, Zurina Nik Anuar [ed]. (1995).Nik. (2000). Konfrontasi Malaysia Kahin,Eisenhower Goerge McT. an Dulles & Audrey debacle R. Kahin. in Indonesia (1995). – Indonesia.

Pendekatan Ilmu-ilmu. New Malik, Adam. (1978). Bangi: Mengabdi Penerbit Republik,UKM [Universiti Jilid 2. Jakarta: SosialYork: Thedalam New Metodologi Press. Sejarah. Jakarta: PT PenerbitKebangsaan Gunung Malaysia]. Agung. Kartodirdjo,Gramedia Sartono. Pustaka (1992). Utama. Matusumoto, Saho. (1999).

Norms in Southeast Asia: The Case for Strict The Encyclopedia of Historians“Diplomatic and Historical History/ Katsumata, H. (2003). “ReconstructionContemporary of Diplomatic Writing,International Volume Relations” 1. in Kelly Boyd [ed]. Southeast Asia. pp.314-316 Adherence to the ‘ASEANA History way’” of Warfare in . USA [United Means, P. Gordon. (1963). Chicago: “Malaysia: Fitzroy Dearborn,

Keegan, John. (1993). A New Federation © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia 239 ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh LINDA SUNARTI, Never Ending Brotherhood?

in Southeast Asia” in Pacific Affairs, Vol.36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -Indonesia Saravanamuttu, J. (1990). “The Super International Review Service, Vol.11, No.6. Southeast Asia” in R. Allison & R. Williams [eds]. Ming,Mezerick, Jean A.G. Tan. (2000). (2011). “Malaysia “Singapore’s Role in Conflict” Indonesia’s in Superpowers Competition and CrisisPowers Prevention and in the Confrontation of Malaysia and the Impact of Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Confrontation on Singapore-Indonesia Relations”. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Singapore: NUS [National South East Asia” in Pacific Community. Vol.III, No.1 University of Singapore]. Shafie,[October]. M. Ghazali. (1971). “The Neutralization of MoFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] Malaysia. (1971). Foreign Affairs Manisfestation of the Indonesian Problems” in Malaysia. Shafie,Malaysia M. Ghazali. International (1982). “Confrontation:Relations: Selected A Speech of Foreign“Neutralization Affairs, October.of Southeast Asia” in M. Ghazali Shafie. Creative Enterprise Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Sdn Bhd. Losing Face: An Episode in the History of China – Simpson, Bradley. (2008). Kuala Economic Lumpur: with Guns: Muas,Indonesia Tuty Enoch. Relationship” (2015). “Restoring in TAWARIKH: Trusts International without Authoritarian Development and USA – Indonesia Journal for Historical Studies, Vol.6(2) April, pp.223- Relations, 1960-1968. 236. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press and Singer, Marshall R. (1980). “The Foreign Policies of UNHAS Makassar, ISSN 2085-0980. Small Developing States” New in York: James The N. Rosenau,Free Press. Mukmin, Hidayat. (1991). TNI dalam Politik Luar Negeri Thomson & Gavin Boyd [eds]. Worlds RI: Studi Kasus Penyelesaian Konfrontasi Indonesia – Politics: An Introduction. Malaysia. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan. Sjamsuddin,Kenneth W.Helius. (2007). Metodologi Sejarah. Nicolson, Harold. (1969). Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak. New York: The Free Press. University Press. Soeharto. (1991). Pikiran, Ucapan, dan Tindakan Saya sebagaimana Dikemukakan kepada G. Dwipayana in Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of dan Ramadhan K.H. Jakarta: Citra Lamtorogung. Nordin,Communication Mazlan. (2008)., Vol.21. “The Available End of Confrontation” online also at: Straits Time June 1966. [accessed in Depok, Indonesia: January 17, 2017]. Suara Malaysia[newspaper]. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 10 Ongkili,http://journalarticle.ukm.my/4686/1/V22_1.pdf J.P. (1985). Nation Building in Malaysia, 1946- August 1966. 1974 : Oxford University Press. [newspaper]. Kuala Lumpur: 18 Ott, Marvin. (1967). “Malaysia: The Search for Solidarity Warisan Budaya antara Indonesia dengan Malaysia” and Security”. Kuala Lumpur in Asian Survey, Vol.8, No.2. Sunarti,in SOSIOHUMANIKA: Linda. (2013). “Menelusuri Jurnal Pendidikan Akar Konflik Sains Sosial Ott, Marvin. (1971). The Sources and Content of dan Kemanusiaan, Vol.6, No.1 [Mei], pp.77-88. Malaysian Foreign Policy towards Indonesia and the Philippines, 1957-1965. Ann Arbor, Michigan: ASPENSI, ISSN 1979-0112. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda MasagiKonfrontasi Press owned: Crush by Ott, Marvin. (1972). “Foreign Policy Formulation in Malaysia and the Gestapu” in Asian Survey, Vol.6, Malaysia”University in Microfilms Asian Survey, International. Vol.12, No.3 [March], Sutter,No.10 John [October]. O. (1966). “Two Faces of pp.225-241. Parmer, J. Norman. (1967). “Malaysia: Changing a Little Asian Survey, Vol.7, No.2 [February]. Suwirta,(1963-1966) Andi. (2010). sebagaimana “Dua Negara-Bangsa Dikisahkan dalam Melihat Poulgrain, G. (1998). The Genesis of Confrontation: Buku-bukuMasa Lalunya: Teks Konfrontasi Sejarahnya Indonesia di Sekolah” – Malaysia Malaysia,to Keep Pace” Brunei, in Indonesia, 1945-1965. London: C. in SOSIOHUMANIKA: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Sosial Hurst & Co. dan Kemanusiaan, Vol.3, No.2 [November], pp.243- Raymond, Boon. (2010). “Bugis in Early Malaysia”. 258. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press, Available online at: [accessed ISSN 1979-0112. in Depok, Indonesia:http://georgetownstreet.blogspot. February 10, 2017]. Tate,UNIPA D.J.M. Surabaya, (1977). The and Making UMS Kota of Modern Kinabalu, Southeast Malaysia, Ricklefs,co.id/2010/02/bugis-in-early-malaysia.html M.C., Bruce Lockhart & Albert La. (2010). Asia. Oxford University Press. Sejarah Asia Tenggara: Dari Masa Prasejarah Tilman, R.O. (1987). Southeast Asia and the Enemy sampai Kontemporer Beyond:Kuala ASEAN Lumpur: Perceptions of External Treats. USA Translation. Rolf, William R. (2000). Nasionalisme. Jakarta: Komunitas Melayu. Bambu, Ury, William. (2000). The Third Side: Why We Fight and Lumpur: Penerbit UM [Universiti Malaya], How[United We StatesCan Stop of America]: West View Press, Inc. Translation. Kuala Utusan Malaysia . Roy, S.L. (1991). Diplomasi Vatikiotis, Michael R.J.. New (1996 York:). Political Penguin Change Putnam. in Said, Tribuana. (1984). Indonesia dalam Politik Global Southeast Asia:[newspaper]. Trimming Kualathe Banyan Lumpur: Tree. 2 June London: 1966 Amerika: Tinjauan atas. KebijakanJakarta: Rajawali dan Strategi Press. Routledge. Pembendungan Amerika Serikat dari Truman hingga Vlekke, B.H.M. (1967). Nusantara: Sejarah Indonesia. Nixon. Medan: Penerbit Waspada. Saravanamuttu, J. (1982). The Dilemma of Independence: Translation. Two Decades of Malaysian Foreign Policy, 1957-1977. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa danSejarah Pustaka, Dasar Luar

Wahid, Zaenal Abidin Abdul. (2001). 240 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press and UIN SGD Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 2085-0980 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/tawarikh TAWARIKH: International Journal for Historical Studies, 8(2) April 2017

Malaysia Wallensteen, Peter. (2002). Understanding Conflict Resolution:. Kuala War, Lumpur Peace, :and Kementrian the Global Belia System. dan Sukan. WestBandung, Java, Indonesia: ISSN 2088-1290. Minda Masagi Press owned by London: Routledge. Weinstein,ASPENSI Franklin in Bandung B. (1969). and FKIP Indonesia UNSUR Abandon in Cianjur, Wanandi, Jusuf. (2001). Reinventing ASEAN. Singapore: Confrontation: An Inquiry into the Functions of ISEAS [Institute of South East Asian Studies]. Indonesian Foreign Policy. Southeast Asian Program, Cornell University Press. Weinstein, Franklin B. (1976) .Ithaca, Indonesian New ForeignYork: Cornell Policy Wani, Hilal Ahmad, Andi Suwirta & JosephATIKAN: Fayeye. and the Dillema of Dependence from Soekarno to Jurnal(2013). Kajian “Conflict Pendidikan Resolution, Vol.3(1) and Conflict Juni, pp.35-44. Soeharto. Transformation: Some Reflections” in Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Indonesia and Malaysia: One Kin Two Nation-States (Source:

http://poskotanews.com, 15/1/2017) a blood relation (brotherhood), culture, and family relationships; and, therefore, often referred to as allied countries. As a reality, there is no doubt there is a kinship between the two countries: Indonesia and Malaysia. Both countries have

Malay cultural similarities between the two countries in the felt in almost all areas of “Melayu” (Malay) in Malaysia and in Indonesia, such as Sumatera, Kalimantan, and partly most Sulawesi.