The aftermath of an option<\/p>\n
By Marianus Kleden<\/p>\n
KUPANG, East Nusa Tenggara (JP): The recent self-determination
\nballot in which East Timorese, both in East Timor and around the
\nworld, took part in has had a disastrous aftermath, with various
\nimplications.<\/p>\n
The question of whether international credibility must yield
\nto national sovereignty has become a topic of partisan political
\ndiscussion. The B.J. Habibie government, especially the president
\nhimself, is now being attacked from different sides. He has been
\naccused of seeking an international reputation as a democrat at
\nthe expense of ignoring his countrymen's sacrifices: blood which
\nhas been offered for the sake of the inclusion of East Timor into
\nthe Republic of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The critics seem to imply that being a democrat is not always
\ncompatible with being a nationalist. Being a democrat means
\ngranting the right to self-determination to a people; and if this
\nis done as an expression of love to the people (nation) then the
\ninitiator is a nationalist. The problem is that a nation is no
\nlonger understood simply as a people but as a state with all its
\nrelevant institutions and paraphernalia.<\/p>\n
It is quite understandable why someone who describes Indonesia
\nas a country with a bad government is called anti-nationalist,
\nwhile someone who organizes the sending of Indonesian workers
\nabroad for his own profit is called a nationalist.<\/p>\n
With the deepest respect to \"our\" heroes that have died in the
\nname of the state policy of expansion, we should also realize
\nthat hundreds of thousands of East Timorese heroes have also died
\ndefending \"their\" homeland.<\/p>\n
Does Habibie's proposal threaten our national sovereignty
\nbecause it is contradictory to the People Consultative Assembly's
\n(MPR) Resolution No. VI of 1978 which proclaimed the
\nincorporation of Portugal's ex-colony into Indonesia? How many
\nEast Timorese were represented in the state's highest institution
\nconcerning this important decision? If there was none then this
\nargument is a self-contradictory one.<\/p>\n
Probably, the proponents of national sovereignty find their
\njustification in the spirit of nationalism shown by the 200,000
\nrefugees wearing red and white headbands, some of them with guns
\non their shoulders. They are now flooding out of \"a soon-to be-
\nforeign country\" into the Western half of the island that belongs
\nto Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Defenders of this position are boasting, \"Look, there is
\nnothing that can induce our brothers and sisters from East Timor
\nto betray their motherland! Poverty, war, intimidation -- none
\nof these can discourage them to shout out loud -- 'Right or wrong
\nmy country!'\" What kind of logic is this? If they keep insisting
\non not being separated from the \"mainland\" then they should
\nremain in their birthplace as an expression of integration.<\/p>\n
Fleeing means nothing but partition. But since to remain is
\nseen to confirm the result of the ballot, then to run away has
\nbeen chosen as the best way to invalidate the result. It then
\nappears that someone or something must have driven them out.<\/p>\n
Who drove them out? The pro-independence faction which is
\nseldom heard of and in most cases is very vulnerable to
\nhostilities? This seems unlikely. Who blocked off all access to
\nthe outside world? Wasn't it the pro-integration militias,
\ndemanding guarantees from both parties to take care of the land
\nand people they had fought over so dearly?<\/p>\n
Obviously, neither parties wanted to flee. It is hard to
\nbelieve that the exodus of people into Central Nusa Tenggara is
\nan expression of love for a much longed for promised land. It
\nappears rather naive to infer that this exodus is a manifestation
\nof nationalism, either as a show of support for integration or as
\na rejection of an engineered ballot result by the United Nations
\nMission in East Timor.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, some people lament over the fact that the
\nHabibie government has allowed too much international
\ninterference into internal affairs. International relationships
\nare vital but where is the dividing line between a relationship
\nand interference?<\/p>\n
Indonesian foreign policy is formulated as both free and
\nactive. It is without any ideological affiliation, and takes the
\ninitiative to build international relationships rather than
\nwaiting to be approached. However, in practice this freedom is
\nvery difficult to attain, due to a structural dependence that has
\nevolved into a cultural and psychological subordination. We are
\nshort of money and so need international funds. We need education
\nso we go abroad. We want technology and technical know-how and we
\nresort to foreign assistance. Subconsciously, we cry for foreign
\nhelp every time we are in a difficult situation. However, we
\nshould be aware that it is hard to find an interest-free helper.<\/p>\n
Being active, in most cases, is actually being reactive. This
\nattitude is rooted in the negative ethics pursued by the past
\nregime and seemingly continued by the present one. This means it
\nis much easier to label an act as against the law, rather than to
\nphrase it precisely as legally procedural.<\/p>\n
For example, what is a free and a responsible press? In the
\nNew Order era it was never positively formulated, but whenever
\nthere was news believed to offend the authorities, the press was
\nmuzzled. In the present regime, magazine and tabloids are free to
\nexpose corruption cases involving top executives without fear.
\nBut when the matter involves a respected international magazine
\nand the Soeharto family, it is no longer just a problem of press
\nfreedom but also a legal one.<\/p>\n
Consider also the issue of communism in Indonesia. Students
\nhave never been taught what it is about and to question it
\nempirically. But when there are mysterious killings and
\nkidnappings, or a hammer and sickle symbol appears on the cover
\nof pop singer Atiek CB's cassette, we are advised to be on the
\nalert for latent communist threats.<\/p>\n
This reactionary habit may explain the facade of our foreign
\npolicy. Students and youths in red and white headbands staged
\ndemonstrations outside the Australian Embassy, demanding that the
\nAustralian troops forces do not interfere in internal affairs.
\nThe youths are very easily provoked but there has been little
\ninventiveness to be \"free and active\".<\/p>\n
But what have we been doing for our internal empowerment?
\nAdverts urging us to love Indonesian products? The advertisers
\nthemselves go shopping in Singapore or Hongkong.<\/p>\n
In many cases we have to learn from India, a country often
\ndepicted as poverty-stricken but a very self-confident and self-
\nreliant one. Most of the cars used in India are Indian made;
\ninstead of using central heating many ashrams use fireplaces;
\nspicy Indian cuisine is popular around the world without it being
\nadapted to Western tastes; and Indian movies, whether you like
\nthem or not, have no equal. The teaching of satyagraha (passive
\nresistance) still inspires Indians to remain self-confident and
\nself-reliant. There are many things we can do for internal
\nempowerment, but one thing is urgent: To acknowledge that our
\npeople, including the East Timorese, are mature enough to decide
\ntheir own fate.<\/p>\n
With thousands of East Timorese still questioning their
\nfuture, it is time to stop spreading lies that they are a stupid,
\npowerless people, susceptible to tribal wars. Let them come home
\nand rebuild their devastated land. By paving the way for the
\nbirth of a new country, we do not loose anything in national
\nsovereignty, instead we gain much in international credibility.<\/p>\n
The writer is a social science lecturer at Widya Mandira
\nCatholic University in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-aftermath-of-an-option-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}