The aftermath of an option

By Marianus Kleden

KUPANG, East Nusa Tenggara (JP): The recent self-determination ballot in which East Timorese, both in East Timor and around the world, took part in has had a disastrous aftermath, with various implications.

The question of whether international credibility must yield to national sovereignty has become a topic of partisan political discussion. The B.J. Habibie government, especially the president himself, is now being attacked from different sides. He has been accused of seeking an international reputation as a democrat at the expense of ignoring his countrymen's sacrifices: blood which has been offered for the sake of the inclusion of East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia.

The critics seem to imply that being a democrat is not always compatible with being a nationalist. Being a democrat means granting the right to self-determination to a people; and if this is done as an expression of love to the people (nation) then the initiator is a nationalist. The problem is that a nation is no longer understood simply as a people but as a state with all its relevant institutions and paraphernalia.

It is quite understandable why someone who describes Indonesia as a country with a bad government is called anti-nationalist, while someone who organizes the sending of Indonesian workers abroad for his own profit is called a nationalist.

With the deepest respect to "our" heroes that have died in the name of the state policy of expansion, we should also realize that hundreds of thousands of East Timorese heroes have also died defending "their" homeland.

Does Habibie's proposal threaten our national sovereignty because it is contradictory to the People Consultative Assembly's (MPR) Resolution No. VI of 1978 which proclaimed the incorporation of Portugal's ex-colony into Indonesia? How many East Timorese were represented in the state's highest institution concerning this important decision? If there was none then this argument is a self-contradictory one.

Probably, the proponents of national sovereignty find their justification in the spirit of nationalism shown by the 200,000 refugees wearing red and white headbands, some of them with guns on their shoulders. They are now flooding out of "a soon-to be- foreign country" into the Western half of the island that belongs to Indonesia.

Defenders of this position are boasting, "Look, there is nothing that can induce our brothers and sisters from East Timor to betray their motherland! Poverty, war, intimidation -- none of these can discourage them to shout out loud -- 'Right or wrong my country!'" What kind of logic is this? If they keep insisting on not being separated from the "mainland" then they should remain in their birthplace as an expression of integration.

Fleeing means nothing but partition. But since to remain is seen to confirm the result of the ballot, then to run away has been chosen as the best way to invalidate the result. It then appears that someone or something must have driven them out.

Who drove them out? The pro-independence faction which is seldom heard of and in most cases is very vulnerable to hostilities? This seems unlikely. Who blocked off all access to the outside world? Wasn't it the pro-integration militias, demanding guarantees from both parties to take care of the land and people they had fought over so dearly?

Obviously, neither parties wanted to flee. It is hard to believe that the exodus of people into Central Nusa Tenggara is an expression of love for a much longed for promised land. It appears rather naive to infer that this exodus is a manifestation of nationalism, either as a show of support for integration or as a rejection of an engineered ballot result by the United Nations Mission in East Timor.

On the other hand, some people lament over the fact that the Habibie government has allowed too much international interference into internal affairs. International relationships are vital but where is the dividing line between a relationship and interference?

Indonesian foreign policy is formulated as both free and active. It is without any ideological affiliation, and takes the initiative to build international relationships rather than waiting to be approached. However, in practice this freedom is very difficult to attain, due to a structural dependence that has evolved into a cultural and psychological subordination. We are short of money and so need international funds. We need education so we go abroad. We want technology and technical know-how and we resort to foreign assistance. Subconsciously, we cry for foreign help every time we are in a difficult situation. However, we should be aware that it is hard to find an interest-free helper.

Being active, in most cases, is actually being reactive. This attitude is rooted in the negative ethics pursued by the past regime and seemingly continued by the present one. This means it is much easier to label an act as against the law, rather than to phrase it precisely as legally procedural.

For example, what is a free and a responsible press? In the New Order era it was never positively formulated, but whenever there was news believed to offend the authorities, the press was muzzled. In the present regime, magazine and tabloids are free to expose corruption cases involving top executives without fear. But when the matter involves a respected international magazine and the Soeharto family, it is no longer just a problem of press freedom but also a legal one.

Consider also the issue of communism in Indonesia. Students have never been taught what it is about and to question it empirically. But when there are mysterious killings and kidnappings, or a hammer and sickle symbol appears on the cover of pop singer Atiek CB's cassette, we are advised to be on the alert for latent communist threats.

This reactionary habit may explain the facade of our foreign policy. Students and youths in red and white headbands staged demonstrations outside the Australian Embassy, demanding that the Australian troops forces do not interfere in internal affairs. The youths are very easily provoked but there has been little inventiveness to be "free and active".

But what have we been doing for our internal empowerment? Adverts urging us to love Indonesian products? The advertisers themselves go shopping in Singapore or Hongkong.

In many cases we have to learn from India, a country often depicted as poverty-stricken but a very self-confident and self- reliant one. Most of the cars used in India are Indian made; instead of using central heating many ashrams use fireplaces; spicy Indian cuisine is popular around the world without it being adapted to Western tastes; and Indian movies, whether you like them or not, have no equal. The teaching of satyagraha (passive resistance) still inspires Indians to remain self-confident and self-reliant. There are many things we can do for internal empowerment, but one thing is urgent: To acknowledge that our people, including the East Timorese, are mature enough to decide their own fate.

With thousands of East Timorese still questioning their future, it is time to stop spreading lies that they are a stupid, powerless people, susceptible to tribal wars. Let them come home and rebuild their devastated land. By paving the way for the birth of a new country, we do not loose anything in national sovereignty, instead we gain much in international credibility.

The writer is a social science lecturer at Widya Mandira Catholic University in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara.