How to become maritime nation<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): President Abdurrahman Wahid has urged that the
\ncountry become a seafaring nation in view of its geography and
\nhistory. Historian Merle Ricklefs, a professor at the University
\nof Melbourne and director of Asian Studies at its Melbourne
\nInstitute of Asian Languages and Societies, recently agreed to an
\ne-mail interview with The Jakarta Post on the subject, on which
\nhe has conducted extensive research.<\/p>\n
Question: What is your understanding of President
\nAbdurrahman's concept of Indonesia as a maritime or seafaring
\nnation?<\/p>\n
Answer: The Indonesian archipelago is the largest archipelago
\nin the world. Over its recorded history the seas have been the
\n\"highways\" which have connected one part of the archipelago with
\nanother. In Western geopolitical thought, seas are things which
\ndivide states, peoples and cultures. But in the circumstances of
\nthe Indonesian archipelago, it is the seas which have brought
\npeoples and cultures together, making possible the modern state
\nof the Republic of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
What are the consequences of the concept when turned into
\nreality?<\/p>\n
The principal consequence is that great attention must be
\ngiven to sea-lanes, maritime commerce and communications as being
\namong the main sinews which hold the nation together. The Dutch
\nunderstood this, for the KPM shipping line was a major element in
\nthe way they held Indonesia together when it was the Netherlands
\nEast Indies. But it is probably true that the governments of
\nindependent Indonesia have tended to give priority to the major
\npopulations centers -- that is, to land areas -- and particularly
\nto Java, rather than to the waterways which connect those
\npopulation centers with each other.<\/p>\n
Some experts have blamed the Dutch colonial government for
\ncornering a number of strong maritime kingdoms in the mountains,
\nthereby losing their control of the sea and with them their
\nculture -- seen as being open-minded, dynamic, having an
\ninternationalist outlook, entrepreneurship, etc. Do you agree
\nwith this view?<\/p>\n
There is some evidence to support this, but also evidence to
\nthe contrary. Two major cases of entrepreneurial maritime trading
\nstates being destroyed come immediately to mind. One took place
\non the Java coast in the early 17th century. Those trading states
\nwere destroyed, not by the Dutch, but by Sultan Agung (1613-
\n1646). The second was Makassar\/Ujungpandang, which was indeed
\nseriously damaged by the VOC in the late 17th century.<\/p>\n
The VOC was, among other things, a trading company. While it
\nwas sometimes in competition with indigenous trading centers and
\ndid do damage to local traders, at other times it worked in
\nalliance with maritime traders to their mutual advantage. In the
\nearly 18th century, the Javanese coastal states preferred to be
\nunder Dutch control rather than under that of the Javanese state,
\nand their shared interest in trade was probably the
\nreason.<\/p>\n
In the 19th century, the development of trade in such items as
\nrubber and tobacco in fact offered many opportunities which were
\ntaken up enthusiastically by Indonesian smallholders. So the
\nhistorical record is in fact quite a complicated one.<\/p>\n
Past Indonesian leaders Sukarno and Soeharto tried without
\nsuccess to turn Indonesia into a maritime nation. What was done
\nin the past and why did the efforts fail?<\/p>\n
This is a complex question, requiring serious research of a
\nkind not yet done. My own belief is that inadequate attention was
\ngiven to the appropriate technology for Indonesia's shipping
\nfleet. For example, there is no reason why some bulk items can't
\ncontinue to be shipped by sailing boats, lowering the cost and
\nsaving on fuel and pollution and to the port facilities, etc.
\nwhich that fleet requires. In fact, this was just a part of a
\ngeneral pattern at most times of neglect of the needs and
\npriorities of the islands outside of Java.<\/p>\n
One of the more obvious obstacles is the mental switch from an
\nagrarian society into a maritime society. What does it take to
\nmake such a transformation a success?<\/p>\n
In this as in all things, a combined approach is needed.
\nEducation, legal frameworks, infrastructure projects and the
\ngeneral distribution of resources between the center and regions
\nall need to be addressed. And the ideas and experience of
\nIndonesia's sailors need to be utilized. The present
\npolitical circumstances of Indonesia may encourage fresh thinking about
\nwhat holds the nation together and about the role of the islands outside of
\nJava in the nation.<\/p>\n
Given the vast sectors involved in the concept of a noted
\nmaritime nation which dictates a standard of excellence in, among
\nother areas, shipping, fishery, mining, telecommunication, nature
\npreservation, tourism -- how should the government approach this
\ntransformation? Do you have a rough time frame on when all this
\ncould be achieved?<\/p>\n
The time frame can only be defined in terms of the resources
\navailable to carry out the strategies. Again, a combined
\nstrategy is needed. A multisectoral task force will probably be
\nneeded to mobilize resources. I would suggest, modestly, that
\nsuch a task force might do well to engage the advice of one or
\nmore of Indonesia's historians who have worked on the maritime
\nhistory of the archipelago and who understand the
\nlonger term dynamics.<\/p>\n
It seems strange now that the present government is uneasy
\nwith the concept of regional autonomy while former coastal
\nsultanates like Tuban, Pasuruan and Gresik practiced autonomy
\nwith considerable success. How do you see this issue?<\/p>\n
The precolonial Javanese state was one which recognized much
\nregional autonomy -- largely because it had to. Given scattered
\npopulation groups divided by uninhabited and dangerous country,
\npoor communications, limited infrastructure, a poorly developed
\nbureaucratic structure and a generally low level of
\ninstitutionalization, these states had to acknowledge regional
\nautonomy, so long as those regions in turn recognized the
\noverlordship of the central state, paid some taxes and provided
\nmen to fight when required.<\/p>\n
It may be that states -- especially those which lack well-
\nestablished democratic traditions -- will normally seek to
\ncentralize power if they can, and that the New Order state of
\nSoeharto was able to do so because it had the means to do so:
\nbetter communications, higher levels of institutionalization, a
\nbetter bureaucracy, the military, etc. But circumstances in
\nIndonesia now are quite different, at least for the time
\nbeing, so the possibility of reconsidering this issue certainly
\nexists. (hbk)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/how-to-become-maritime-nation-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}