Is RI set to become a 'junk nation'?

Is RI set to become a 'junk nation'?

By Mochtar Buchori

VANCOUVER (JP): "Junk nations," according to Christopher
Dickey (Newsweek Nov. 27, 1995), are "bits and pieces (which) are
falling away from old states without quite managing to form new
ones."

Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia -- the remnants of Yugoslavia --
are among examples he cited in the article along with Kurdistan
in Northern Iraq which, according to Massoud Barzuni, a Kurdish
leader, is "part of Iraq on one side, but separate from Iraq on
the other".

There is just no known legal status for this kind of
situation. Think of the new republics within the former Soviet
Union -- Ukraine, Cechnya, Georgia and Kazakshtan, among others
-- which declared independence after the Soviet Union officially
dissolved on Dec. 26 1991. In Dickey's view, these republics are
also "junk-nations".

Is Indonesia undergoing a "Balkanization process"? This was a
question posed to me at a recent lecture here, hence the
disturbing image in my mind of Indonesia disintegrating into a
number of "junk nations".

Clearly referring to violent cases in East Timor, Aceh, Irian
Jaya and also Ambon, the audience wondered whether these cases
are symptoms of a disintegration process.

My response outlined that the cases they were referring to do
not signify the breakdown of Indonesia as a state and as a
nation. The East Timor problem can indeed be looked upon as a
case of national separatism, but all the other examples are of a
different nature altogether.

Whereas not every person in East Timor has the feeling that he
or she is part of the Indonesian nation, people in Aceh, Ambon,
and Irian Jaya have always had positive feelings about Indonesian
nationhood.

The protests in Aceh and Irian Jaya are triggered primarily by
practices of bad governance perpetrated by the military and
civilian bureaucrats within the central government in Jakarta.

The riots in Ambon are counterreform acts aimed at aborting
the reform movement. If and when the coming general election
succeeds in generating a legitimate government, I think that the
termination of practices of bad governance will restore a feeling
of nationhood among the majority of the Indonesian people.

Jean-Marie Guehenno (The End of Nation-State, 1995), argued
that "nation" and "state" are not the same thing and that "a
nation's only definition is historic. It is a place of common
history, of common happiness and common sadness".

Dickey wrote that "A nation, in a sense, is about romance;
something you carry in your heart. A state, on the other hand, is
about the passport you carry in your pocket. It is defined by
borders and the government within them, with a flag and stamps.
taxes, international recognition and an army".

I added that the sense of nationhood among Indonesians was
initiated in 1928, that is when representatives of miscellaneous
youth organizations pledged that they belonged to one nation, the
Indonesian nation; that they belong to one country, Indonesia;
and that they spoke one language, the Indonesian language. Our
nationhood has been cultivated for more than five generations; it
has faced and overcome innumerable critical events in its history
and cannot possibly be washed away by government mismanagement
perpetrated by one generation.

But what if the next general election fails to produce a
capable and legitimate government?

Then, the danger of disintegration will become real, I think.
The danger that the current unitarian state called the Republic
of Indonesia will become splintered into a number of "junk-
nations" is not unimaginable. This possibility is partly a
consequence of the fact that Indonesia is a pluralistic society,
in terms of ethnicity, religion and language.

In this kind of situation, the most effective way to prevent
the breakup of the Indonesian state and nation is, according to
Senator Moynihan (Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International
Politics, 1993), to draw a clear line between matters of
ethnicity and matters of nationality.

As long as we are willing to perceive the current chaos and
lawlessness as expressions of ethnic and religious discord caused
by intolerance and not as manifestations of national conflict, we
will be able to overcome all disturbances in a wise manner.

We will be able to end all violations of humanity without
resorting to violence. But if we see our current problems as a
conflict of forces within our nation, then we will be forever
entangled in a vicious circle of violence and counterviolence. We
will never find a peaceful solution to our present crisis.

"Junk nations" have no future. Their viability is very low.
According to Prof. Gidon Gotlieb of the University of Chicago,
"junk states" are basically "the conclusions of despair". In
modern diplomatic lingo they are "entities" created to satisfy a
given set of needs for a short duration and rest on a very shaky
support system. "Junk states" or "entities" are created because
they are the only proposition left to save the lives of hundreds
of thousands and perhaps millions of human beings.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves at this juncture whether we
are indeed a nation in despair and whether breaking up our
nation-state is indeed the only way left to save the lives of
hundreds of thousands of our people. I think it is high time our
political elite pondered this question.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs based
in Jakarta.