Discrepancy of views regarding cross-border submarine cables are still a long and unresolved discussion. Take for example the Australia-Asia Powerlink (AAPowerLink) project initiated by SunCable, which was once in the spotlight because of its great ambition to build a large-scale solar power plant in Northern Australia and send the electricity generated to Singapore via submarine cables. This project promises a significant supply of clean energy for both countries and the Southeast Asian region.
One of the most interesting aspects of this project is the planned submarine cable route. This cable will cross the Timor Sea and pass through Indonesian waters. This requires Indonesia to make further considerations, especially regarding the opportunities and strategic implications of this project.
It is still being discussed whether SunCable’s submarine cable needs to land in Indonesia or not. There are many pros and cons related to this and there are various aspects that need to be considered, including the potential benefits and disadvantages of allowing the cable to land in Indonesia. There are 2 important things that need to be considered, between prioritizing geopolitical strategy or the potential risk of energy dependency.
Most Ambitious Renewable Energy Initiative Project
The project is being described as one of the world’s most ambitious renewable energy and transmission initiatives under development as the developer has claimed that it will deliver more than AU$20 billion in economic value to the Northern Territory over the course of construction and the first 35 years of operation.
The project aims to deliver up to 4GW of green electricity to green industry customers in Darwin over two phases of development. 900MW will be delivered in the first phase and around 3GW in the second phase. Not only that, 1.75GW will also be supplied to customers in Singapore (Irena, 2024).
Between Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Dependence
Indonesia faces a strategic dilemma over whether to allow the installation of the AAPowerLink submarine cable or not, which will transmit solar energy from Australia to Singapore. This is a serious dilemma, especially since the landing of submarine cables depends on two conflicting considerations. On the one hand, it can be used as a geopolitical strategy for Indonesia, on the other hand, there is the potential for energy dependence that haunts.
Cable Landing as a Geopolitical Strategy
From a geopolitical perspective, the cable landing in Indonesia will significantly increase its regional influence. Indonesia can escalate its control over regional energy infrastructure, strengthening its position in the global energy supply chain. With control over the cable landing, Indonesia can strengthen its sovereignty and secure its strategic position in Southeast Asia, while attracting foreign investment to support domestic economic growth.
Potential Energy Dependency
However, on the flip side it involves potential energy dependency. By participating in international projects such as AAPowerLink, Indonesia risks becoming overly dependent on foreign energy ventures, which may prioritize the needs of other countries. If geopolitical tensions arise or cables are damaged, Indonesia could face energy disruptions or diplomatic pressure, threatening its national energy security.
Is it worth the risks?
Despite these risks, the benefits of improving Indonesia’s geopolitical position outweigh the potential drawbacks. To avoid the risk of over-dependence, Indonesia can implement energy source diversification and strengthen the framework of bilateral agreements with related countries. By focusing on long-term geopolitical benefits, such as strengthening strategic positions and increasing influence, Indonesia can ensure security and a greater role in the region. Thus, the decision to allow the cable landing is in line with Indonesia’s broader strategic objectives.
On the geopolitical front, having the submarine cable landing in Indonesia will escalate its regional influence. By positioning itself as an energy transmission hub, Indonesia gains strategic advantages in Southeast Asia. Control of this critical infrastructure can also increase Indonesia’s influence in international negotiations with countries such as Australia and Singapore.
Furthermore, managing such a project strengthens Indonesia’s sovereignty over its maritime territory, enhancing national security by maintaining control over the cable’s operations. Moreover, the project will attract foreign investment, particularly in technology transfer and infrastructure development, which can drive economic growth and strengthen Indonesia’s role in the global energy supply chain.
However, there are concerns about energy dependency. The risk is that Indonesia could become overly dependent on international energy projects that largely benefit other countries, such as Singapore, which will receive the bulk of the energy supplied through the AAPowerLink cable.
This dependency could leave Indonesia vulnerable to a range of potential risks, such as disruptions to energy supplies in the event of geopolitical tensions. Additionally, external control over such a critical project could put Indonesia in a weaker negotiating position over time.
While these concerns are valid, Indonesia can mitigate the risks of energy dependency by diversifying its energy sources and establishing robust bilateral agreements that protect its national interests. The broader geopolitical benefits—strengthening Indonesia’s position as a regional energy hub and increasing its diplomatic influence—ultimately outweigh these concerns.
International rules regarding cable landing
To understand this case, it is also important to understand the international rules governing the landing of submarine cables in a country. UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea) has provided a legal framework that regulates the rights and responsibilities of states regarding submarine cables.
Under Article 87 of UNCLOS, states have the right to lay submarine cables on the high seas, a freedom that is considered essential for global communications and, increasingly, for the transmission of energy. However, when cables pass through territorial waters or EEZs, the situation becomes more complicated.
Under Article 79, coastal states have the right to regulate the installation of these cables in their territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles) and their EEZ (up to 200 nautical miles). Therefore, Indonesia has sovereign rights over any infrastructure that passes through its EEZ.
Although UNCLOS enshrines the principle of freedom of the high seas, coastal states have the right to enforce regulations and safeguard their security and economic interests. This freedom does not eliminate the right of coastal states to regulate activities within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and territorial waters.
Indonesia’s Geopolitical Strategy
It is important to reiterate that in this case, Indonesia’s geopolitical strategy in the Indo-Pacific is centered on making Indonesia a hub for energy transmission and digital connectivity. By allowing submarine cables like AAPowerLink to land in its territory, Indonesia can increase its regional influence and strengthen its sovereignty over maritime areas. This strategic position allows Indonesia to assert greater control over its resources and strengthen its national security.
However, this strategy does come with significant risks associated with energy dependency. Such dependency can make Indonesia vulnerable, especially during times of geopolitical tensions, leading to energy disruptions or diplomatic pressure. To mitigate these risks, Indonesia must develop a robust regulatory framework that addresses the complexities of inter-agency coordination and environmental protection.
Broader Strategic Considerations: Indonesia’s Opportunities, Challenges and Ambitions
The dilemma over the planned landing of the AAPowerLink submarine cable in Indonesia raises broader strategic considerations. In terms of benefits, Indonesia has the potential to strengthen its influence in the geopolitical arena of the Indo-Pacific region. Control over cross-border energy infrastructure, such as AAPowerLink, not only provides leverage in energy negotiations, but also supports Indonesia’s ambition to become a key player in the regional energy security architecture.
This project is in line with Indonesia’s efforts to strengthen its strategic position in international forums, especially in the context of energy politics, which is increasingly relevant in the global transition to renewable energy. Moreover, by controlling the landing of this cable, Indonesia has the opportunity to be more involved in the regulation of energy distribution lines that cross its waters. This is a significant step forward in increasing national sovereignty over critical infrastructure and improving Indonesia’s bargaining position amidst geopolitical competition in the Southeast Asian region and beyond.
However, there are challenges that should not be ignored. Indonesia’s dependence on international projects such as AAPowerLink could increase political energy risk. For example, if geopolitical tensions arise in the region, Indonesia could be caught in regional dynamics that affect the energy supply from this project. Subsea infrastructure that is vulnerable to disruption, both due to natural factors and human actions, is also a source of risk that needs to be managed carefully.
On the other hand, while the project offers economic benefits, there is a risk that most of the direct benefits will be perceived by the destination country, such as Singapore. This could reduce its long-term strategic value for Indonesia, unless the country succeeds in maximizing its domestic gains through policies that support energy independence and broader infrastructure development.
Indonesia’s geopolitical ambition to become a renewable energy hub in the region must be balanced with an effective risk mitigation strategy. This includes expanding energy sources and strengthening Indonesia’s position in international energy agreement negotiations. This is where “political energy” plays an important role, because energy policy is often used as an instrument of diplomacy for the sake of broader national interests.
Thus, are these strategic advantages enough to cover the risk of energy dependency? Indonesia’s decision should be based on long-term interests, both from a geopolitical perspective and national energy security, while prioritizing sovereignty and interests in international negotiations.