Chapter 6: Proxy War Strategies in the Nusantara

"When major powers cannot attack directly, they will incite war through other hands."

Nusantara: A Fertile Ground for Proxy Wars

Southeast Asia, particularly the Nusantara region encompassing Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the Philippines, is entering one of its most perilous phases in modern history. This is not due to open warfare but because it is being prepared as a battleground for proxy wars.

A proxy war is not a direct conflict between two nations. It is a covert war driven by external powers through local representatives in the form of armed uprisings, political riots, religious crises, or territorial separations. It begins with internal weaknesses, followed by external manipulation, and then escalates into conflicts that appear legitimate and rights-based.

In this region, when major powers like the United States, China, or colonial forces cannot intervene directly, they will create justifications. It can start with ethnic issues, economic injustice, religious discrimination, or historical legacies. As seen in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, or South Sudan, all began with sympathetic narratives and ended with the loss of sovereignty.

What is more concerning is that the raw materials for these conflicts already exist, smoldering beneath the surface of society.

In Malaysia, recent issues involving the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple on Jalan Masjid India, Kuala Lumpur, serve as an example of how religious and racial sensitivities can be exploited. This temple, reportedly over 130 years old, was built on land now owned by the private company Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd, following a purchase from DBKL in 2014. Although the temple committee was not informed about the sale, negotiations have been conducted between Jakel, DBKL, and the temple committee to find the best solution. However, the announcement of a groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of Masjid Madani on the same site has raised concerns and protests from various parties, including lawyers and human rights activists, who view the action as hasty and potentially detrimental to interethnic harmony.

Similarly, the issue of the eviction of Musang King durian farmers in Pahang, which on the surface pertains to land ownership, has been turned into a battleground for conflicts between Malays and non-Malays. Narratives of injustice, economic discrimination, and human rights issues are shaped in the virtual space and then projected into the real world, creating subtle cracks in the trust between the people and institutions.

In Indonesia, tensions between majority and minority communities remain an unhealed wound. The history of the 1998 riots still haunts relations between indigenous ethnic groups and the Chinese community, who dominate the economic sector. Although the country is now politically stable, issues such as clashes in Papua, discrimination in some remote areas against Christian communities, and religious tensions inflamed during local elections indicate that the potential for instability remains very high.

What is happening today is a process of scriptwriting. Local issues are brought to the international screen, perceptions are shaped, and sympathy is built. And when a weak point erupts—be it a natural disaster, economic recession, or political crisis—the path has been paved for a new form of colonization that does not require bullets, only narratives.

Legacy of Division: Fragmentation of Nations and Territories

The Nusantara region is one of the most complex in terms of ethnic identity, religion, language, and colonial history in the world. It is not only home to over 600 million people but also a field of cultural and ideological clashes that have existed for centuries. During colonial times, powers like the Dutch, British, and Spanish exploited these differences to continue their "divide and rule" agenda. After independence, this legacy persisted in the form of structural and policy divisions that were inherited.

In Malaysia, the societal structure is built on racial foundations: Malays as the political dominant group, Chinese dominating urban economies, Indians focusing on professional and estate sectors, and Bumiputera Sabah–Sarawak with their own distinct identities. Socioeconomic imbalances that have persisted since colonial times make narratives of injustice and discrimination very easy to raise. When the country is in crisis, these identity conflicts resurface. Issues such as wealth inequality, religious freedom, indigenous rights, and political power distribution often become fuel waiting to be ignited.

More concerning, various incidents such as the May 13, 1969 racial riots, the eviction of Musang King durian farmers in Pahang intertwined with racial narratives, and recent tensions surrounding the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Hindu temple in Kuala Lumpur, show that these gaps have not been truly healed. Social media accelerates the spread of hatred and biased perceptions, while foreign media easily use these internal issues as evidence of integration failure.

In Indonesia, with over 300 ethnic groups and hundreds of local languages, the country is among the most diverse in the world. However, it is also one of the most vulnerable to internal fragmentation. Regions like Aceh have repeatedly risen with separatist demands, culminating in nearly 30 years of armed conflict before peace was signed in 2005. In Papua, sentiments for independence remain strong to this day, accompanied by reports of human rights violations and recurring military operations. Maluku, once a bloody battleground between Muslims and Christians, still harbors historical trauma that has not fully healed.

In all these cases, religion and ethnicity become the main narratives, even though the real causes often stem from economic injustice, exploitation of natural resources, or political marginalization. During economic crises or approaching elections, radical groups re-emerge, carrying banners of identity and struggles often used as masks by external powers to incite chaos.

In the Philippines, the division between the dominant Christian groups in the north and the Muslim groups in southern Mindanao has been rooted since Spanish times. Armed rebellions by groups like the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), and later Abu Sayyaf, have made the region a continuous conflict zone for over 50 years. Peace negotiations witnessed by the world are often marred by subsequent violence and retaliatory attacks because the social and economic structures remain unchanged, and because external powers are still interested in 'maintaining' this area.

In all these countries, state structures forcibly built after colonization, without the formation of a truly strong and united national identity, make modern nations very susceptible to internal conflicts. Issues such as regional autonomy, citizenship, recognition of ethnic identity, and distribution of resource revenues often trigger tensions and provide golden opportunities for external powers to intervene and manipulate.

This diversity is indeed a cultural wealth, but in a fragile system and weak administration, it is an explosive material that is very easy to ignite. A provocative statement, a manipulative video, or an administrative action considered oppressive, is enough to spark bloody riots. And to make matters worse, the outside world is no longer watching to help — it is watching to determine the right moment to intervene and "manage" the conflict for its own benefit.

This is why the Nusantara has become a primary target of global proxy wars. Its wealth of resources, social diversity, and long history of colonial fragmentation have shaped the region into one of the easiest to destabilize — and the hardest to defend — if its own people fail to realise that division is not a right, but a bait for a new form of colonisation.

Major Power Strategy: A New Version of Divide and Rule

In today’s geopolitical era, colonisation no longer arrives with fleets and banners. It comes in the form of hidden strategies, through proxies, narrative manipulation, and crisis exploitation. Superpowers like the United States, China, and Russia no longer need to invade directly. Instead, they build influence through political, economic, social, and media channels, planting seeds of instability until the target nation collapses from within.

Among the most effective and frequently used tactics are:

1. Use of Separatist Movements and Ethnic Minorities

Any region with a background of historical conflict, economic discrimination, or political marginalisation becomes a prime target for proxy warfare. Groups that harbour dissatisfaction are identified and gradually enticed through sponsorships, training, and various forms of encouragement supposedly to defend their rights and pursue autonomy.

Internationally, this is what happened in Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine, where separatist movements were supported with weapons and media coverage by foreign powers under the pretext of "defending the rights of Russian-speaking communities." In Aleppo and Idlib, numerous militant groups appeared to operate independently, but in truth, they served as tools in the proxy conflict between the West and Russia. Benghazi became the downfall of Libya not because the people rose up, but because one group was used as an instrument to topple the existing regime.

In Sabah and Mindanao, this scenario has long existed. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Abu Sayyaf, and the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate have played significant roles in shaping the geopolitics of the region. They used narratives of “ancestral land,” “ancestral sovereignty,” and “ethnic oppression” to legitimise their cause. However, in many cases, their strength did not come from within but from international networks supporting them with arms, funding, and media influence.

2. Planting Media Agencies and Narrative Warfare

Modern warfare no longer begins with explosions. It starts with a war of perceptions through news, documentaries, viral videos, or NGO reports. The minds of the public must be shaped first before any action can be legitimised by the world.

When a government is to be overthrown, the strategy is to create the impression that it oppresses its people, violates human rights, or marginalises certain groups. The dissenters are portrayed as freedom fighters and reformists. That is how narratives are crafted.

In Libya, networks such as Al-Jazeera played an important role in shaping the narrative that Gaddafi was a cruel dictator. Behind these reports, however, foreign agencies had long been planning regime change. In Ukraine, the Western narrative was delivered through BBC, CNN, and other outlets to build support for one side and justify NATO intervention. In Afghanistan, foreign media painted the Taliban as the sole threat but failed to expose the geopolitical game behind America's two-decade presence.

If this tactic reaches the Nusantara region, the global community will no longer see conflicts as internal crises. They will view them as government failures to protect the people. And as seen in other cases, foreign intervention will come in the name of “rescue” or “protection.”

3. Economic Crisis, Disasters, and the Manipulation of Aid

One of the most cunning methods to weaken a nation is to capitalise on its most vulnerable moments — when the people are starving, disasters strike, and the system is unstable. At such times, superpowers emerge as “saviours,” offering aid, investments, or economic recovery plans.

But none of these are acts of charity without strings attached. They come with terms and agendas.

In many countries, foreign aid has opened the door to the presence of external agencies. Supposedly arriving for humanitarian purposes, they eventually establish “logistical corridors” no longer fully controlled by the host government. Foreign investments result in domination over strategic sectors such as water, energy, or telecommunications to the extent that public policies must first gain foreign approval.

Disasters often serve as entry points. When earthquakes, major floods, or pandemics occur, countries become more open to aid. However, in some cases, the assistance becomes a Trojan horse — bringing in not just supplies and expertise but also ideological influence, political pressure, and surveillance infrastructure.

In this context, if Sabah or any region in the Nusantara experiences a major disaster as simulated in previous chapters, foreign aid may arrive not merely to help, but to take control. And all of this would be done with legal documents, complete signatures, and a “noble” narrative.

These three strategies have already been successfully employed in various proxy war zones around the world. What differs are only the names of the groups, the types of weapons, and the faces of the figures involved. But the narrative remains the same — it begins under the guise of defending rights, and ends with the loss of sovereignty.

If the Nusantara region is not prepared, history will repeat itself. Not because of military weakness, but because we failed to recognise the new face of colonisation.

Malaysia and Sabah: A Potential Proxy War Battleground

Sabah is not merely a state on the eastern edge of Malaysia. It now stands on the brink of becoming a battleground for major power confrontation, not through open warfare, but via proxies, unofficial networks, and narrative manipulation. What makes Sabah highly vulnerable is not the desire of its people to rebel, but rather the combination of geographical, political, and social factors that make it the easiest and most logical target in great power strategy.

The main factors that create space for Sabah to become a proxy battleground include:

1. Geographic Location Adjacent to Conflict Zones

Sabah shares maritime borders and historical routes with the Sulu Sea, which has been a turbulent area for decades. Just to its north lies southern Philippines, a region that has never truly known peace from armed conflict. Separatist groups such as Abu Sayyaf, MNLF, and MILF still exist in various forms, even after peace agreements have been signed.

This region has long served as a transit corridor for arms smuggling, human trafficking, and militant activity. Sabah, as the Malaysian territory closest to this zone, becomes the most suitable entry point for proxy operations should the South China Sea conflict or US–China rivalry escalate. Any form of unofficial base or operation launch point can be easily concealed in an area already familiar with informal military activity.

2. Unresolved Territorial Claims

The Sulu Sultanate’s claim over Sabah is still used as a narrative by certain parties, including unofficial statements from the Philippine government, making Sabah legally fragile in the eyes of international law. Although Malaysia has governed and developed the state for decades, the notion that Sabah is still “disputed” can be used as a legal pretext for any foreign power to interfere in Malaysia’s internal affairs under the guise of mediation or peacekeeping.

Even more concerning is the international arbitration tribunal case filed against Malaysia in 2022–2023, which shows that legal channels are also being weaponised not for resolution, but for influence.

3. Diverse and Vulnerable Demographics

Sabah has a highly plural demographic composition comprising Malays, Bajaus, Suluks, Chinese, Kadazan-Dusun, and various other ethnic groups. Furthermore, the balance between Muslim and non-Muslim communities makes Sabah highly susceptible to manipulation through religious, linguistic, or identity-based issues.

If certain sentiments are provoked — for example, through religious matters, native land rights, or economic disparities — they can quickly ignite divisions. In a proxy war, this is exactly what foreign powers look for: internal divisions that can be funded and remotely controlled.

4. Uncontrolled Influx of Migrants

The issue of undocumented immigrants (PATI) in Sabah is not new. For decades, both official and unofficial reports confirm that thousands of foreigners, especially from southern Philippines and Indonesia, have settled, with some even obtaining citizenship through various channels.

This situation creates two major risks:

• The infiltration of militants and foreign agents who go undetected.

• Uncontrolled demographic shifts that can be used as justification for intervention, whether in the name of refugees, human rights, or “ethnic recognition.”

When the number of migrants exceeds the administrative capacity to manage them, political stability and national security begin to erode, creating openings for foreign powers to offer “aid” and “crisis management.”

5. Weak Control Over Narratives and Cyberspace

In the digital age, wars no longer begin on the battlefield but in the mind. Sabah faces a major challenge in controlling narratives, particularly within social media and alternative media platforms. There is inadequate monitoring of fake news, foreign propaganda, or ideological infiltration through the internet.

With widespread internet access and exposure to foreign media, sentiments can be inflamed from the outside without any local intermediary. Various narratives can be circulated suggesting that Sabah is oppressed, that native rights are being seized, and that foreign intervention is needed to “restore peace.”

In such a scenario, perception warfare can be conducted entirely without firing a single shot — yet the damage can be far more devastating.

6. Silent Efforts to Construct a “Sabah Nation” Narrative

Quietly, social media has become the primary stage for shaping a dangerously misleading perception: the idea that Sabah no longer legally belongs to Malaysia and should either become an independent entity or be returned to external control. This narrative does not emerge organically — it is systematically engineered by certain accounts, often without clear identities, yet consistently pushing the idea that Sabah can stand alone or must break away from the Malaysian Federation.

The tactics used include:

• Spreading half-truths about the 1878 agreement, the Sulu tribunal, and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

• Highlighting Sabahans’ dissatisfaction with Putrajaya over economic, infrastructural, and autonomy-related issues.

• Inserting visuals of a fabricated “Sabah Nation” flag, new border maps, and fictional national emblems.

• Promoting repeated slogans such as “Sabah for Sabahans,” “Restore our sovereignty,” and “Sabah was never Malaysia.”

More alarmingly, this narrative is not just targeted at Sabahans but also aimed at international audiences, particularly through platforms like Twitter (X), Facebook, and YouTube. The goal is to shape global perception that Sabah is a disputed territory worthy of being “liberated.”

This is no coincidence. It is part of a broader information warfare strategy designed to psychologically condition the public to believe that a territory is “ready for independence” even before any physical conflict occurs. And once this narrative is accepted, foreign intervention under the guise of “restoring rights” or “protecting minorities” becomes much easier to justify.

The same pattern occurred in Timor-Leste, Kosovo, and Crimea — all started with media manipulation, followed by diplomatic pressure, and ended with the loss of territory.

If the South China Sea conflict erupts, or if a global crisis requires a new disruption point, Sabah is a region that is strategic enough, fragile enough, and sufficiently overlooked by the public eye to become an ideal platform for proxy warfare.

And as witnessed in many other countries, this war will not begin with uniformed soldiers. It will be initiated by flagless militias, masked special forces, or civilian groups who suddenly take up arms. All of it may appear as internal rebellion — but it will, in fact, be orchestrated from outside.

What Happens Next?

If a proxy conflict truly erupts in Sabah or any other region in Malaysia, it will not immediately be recognised as a war between nations. The world will see it as a domestic issue — an ethnic conflict or local political unrest that Malaysia itself must resolve. Yet behind it all, unseen foreign hands will be pulling the strings.

The federal government will find itself in a dilemma. If it acts firmly, it will be accused of being a repressive regime. If it acts too slowly, it will be criticised for failing to maintain public security. Every action will be recorded, interpreted, and judged in the international arena — one dominated by Western narratives.

Foreign media will quickly enter the scene not to report objectively, but to shape global perception. They will select sympathetic images, broadcast one-sided testimonies, and create pressure on the Malaysian government to compromise — all under the banner of human rights and civil liberties. Thus, the pressure will not come from the battlefield, but from television screens and UN forums.

And once the doors of diplomacy are thrown wide open, foreign aid will arrive — but with strings attached. Humanitarian assistance will come alongside political advisors. Recovery investments will be accompanied by new agreements. NGOs will begin to take over governmental functions, from education to social administration. Gradually, sovereignty will be replaced by dependency.

In the end, Sabah will not fall because of war. It will slip away without an explosion, without an invader, and without a declaration. It will slip because the path to its downfall was opened from within, welcomed in silence, and legalised in the name of humanity.

"Colonisation today does not require an army. It only needs a narrative, sympathy, and a door opened by our own hands."

Conclusion of Chapter 6: War Does Not Always Begin With Soldiers

The Nusantara region is now being observed — not for protection, but for subjugation. When a crisis is left unaddressed, it becomes a crack. When the crack is not repaired, it becomes a hole waiting to be exploited. And when the enemy finally enters, they will not arrive in warships. They will come instead as philanthropists, lawyers, investors, and saviours.

"The enemy does not need to enter with an army, if we ourselves open the door through ignorance and division."