The aftermath of an option

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.