By the end of the 19th century, the island of New Guinea (the origins of that name can be read at a previous post here) was colonized by three European powers. The Dutch colonized the western portion, the Germans claimed the northeast coast, and the British held the southeast coast adjacent to the colony of Australia. However, the jungles of the island were so thick, and the mountains and valleys in the interior so treacherous, that the colonial interests kept to the coastal fringes. There was little exploration deep into the jungle, and the official border between the territories between the European powers did not need to be properly defined.

After World War I, the British claimed the German territory and the island was then evenly split between the Dutch in the west and the English in the east. Western New Guinea became part of Indonesia when the Dutch possessions gained independence, just as possession of eastern New Guinea (Papua New Guinea, or PNG) passed from England to Australia. Because exploration of the deep interior was limited, the border was only loosely defined as an neat slice down the island.

It was not until 1973 when the land border was finally demarcated. The Indonesian and Australian governments entered into a treaty but which the border would follow the 141st east meridian, cutting neatly down the middle of the island. Looking at the border from a distant view, such as on the left side of the picture above, the border looks perfectly straight—with one small exception. What appears to be a minor deviation on the map is in fact a complicated squiggle when viewed closely, such as on the right side of the picture above.

That is the Fly River, a river that flows mostly through the eastern part of New Guinea but which protrudes slightly to the west of the 141st east meridian longitude line. The impracticality of leaving a minor sliver of land with Indonesia was recognized as the interior was more closely explored, and this territory was ultimately granted to Papua New Guinea. To compensate for this slight gain in territory for PNG, the border south of the Fly River is slightly east of the 141°E longitude line. And another part of this deal was that Indonesia would have the right to use the Fly River to its mouth for navigation to the Ocean.

Such is the logic behind New Guinea’s “squiggly border,” and how a neat compromise can solve potential messy border problems.

Indonesia’s Minister of Defense has called for maritime security assistance from Japan, China and Korea. This is big news for two audiences: the World and Japan.

First, the Malacca Strait is an extremely important sea line of communication (SLOC, some semi-related background here) handling 40 percent of the world’s maritime trade. It is also one of the EIA’s world oil transit chokepoints. Unfortunately, it has a big piracy problem. Until recently, of the three main countries involved in the Strait’s security (Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia) only Singapore wanted international support for defense. Malaysia flipped last March and now with Indonesia jumping on the bandwagon we could see some movement to a more international presence in the Strait, and hopefully less risk to the world economy at large.

Secondly, Japan imports 99% of its petroleum and 70% of its food by sea, mostly through the Strait of Malacca. 86% of Japan’s oil comes from the Middle East, and the rest basically from Indonesia. Obviously SLOC security is a big pillar of Japan’s overall security agenda. Tokyo has proposed sending some ships and planes down south to patrol, but memories of the last time Japanese naval vessels were in the area have kept most southeast Asian countries from accepting the offer. Singapore was the only country to present a welcoming hand. Japan has been able to contribute some Coast Guard support, but now with Indonesia’s minister of defense calling for help on the Asia Big Three, Japan could find itself having a direct say in protecting an economic lifeline from afar.

An extra punch, and this one is for Tom, this type of activity could bring the goal of an “Asian NATO” one step closer.

The great debate over Islamic dress is not only happening in France and the UK, but also in Islamic countries. The war against cultural imperialism seems to start with outward appearances. I mean one of the great symbols of globalization is American bluejeans, and the imams know this. Heck, jeans were worn by rebellious youth in the Soviet Bloc during the late 80’s, and look what happened to those countries, right? It’s that old equation: marijuana leads to heroin, bluejeans lead to “Liberté, Egalité, Franternité”, iPods lead to iMacs, etc etc unto eternity. So how do Islamic governments fight the war against cultural imperialism?

Many countries have laws against certain types of clothing, but most regular folk can usually find ways of “interpreting” the law just the right way so they can wear clothes they like. There is no 7th century Koranic term for “bluejeans” right?

Media campaigns are another way. ComingAnarchy reader Grendel sent in this picture of a billboard in Aceh “encouraging” passers-by to mind the Islamic dress code. I found the image on Wikipedia where a translation is given for the words at the bottom:

Following the leading Islam principles according to article 13, paragraph 1, every Muslim has to wear Islamic clothing. Whosoever does not follow these accepted Islamic customs will be punished with Tazir crime.

Apparently the text on the left side says “wrong clothing” and the right says “correct clothing.” A Tazir crime usually warrants corporal punishment, which brings us to the third way: force. This usually entails having “moral police” roam the streets measuring hemlines and beard-lengths. Recently in Iran barbers have been warned about giving men Western hairstyles. But Iran has been having difficulties enforcing the hijab. Rather than trying to use blunt force, the police have been trying to “educate” women as to why they should wear Islamic dress by holding their own fashion exhibition.

Are these countries fighting a losing battle? Mark Twain once said “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” I would only add that people forced to be covered up also lose their voice, but only until they decide to regain it. Then expect a big impact on society.