Fate of “Pawns” and International Politics
A number of former East Timorese refugees sit at their camp of 18 years in Silawan village, Kakuluk Mesak district, Belu regency, East Nusa Tenggara, on Tuesday (11/4). They took a pro-integration stance onthe referendum in East Timor in 1999 that favored independence. They have refused to return to their villages, which are now part of the sovereign state of Timor Leste.
Editorial Introduction: “Reading Indonesia” is back this week with a closer look at the years that make up the final period of the Old Order to today. This reportage is a continuation of a previous piece on the Majapahit Kingdom, the arrival of Islam in the archipelago, as well as the early arrival and resistance against colonialism, the rise of the nationalist ideology and the early period of independence.
“Our political line cannot be determined by the political direction of another nation that is based on its own interests, even though we both stand on the side of anti-imperialism.” (Mohammad Hatta, Mendayung Antara Dua Karang, 1948)
Atambua, East Nusa Tenggara, and Buru Island, Maluku, are marks of the New Order’s involvement in the competition between two blocks: the United States of America and Soviet Union. The tale of these two nations has slowly faded from Indonesia’s collective memory. However, it can be the most effective reminder that when elites become “pawns” in the battle of other nations, the people are the ones who will suffer.
Atambua in Belu regency is a region that took in an exodus of East Timor people ahead of and after the announcement of a referendum that saw the option of independence win in 1999. Years have passed but many of them chose to stay in Indonesia.
The homes of a majority of these“new residents” – the term used to refer to the people who were once East Timor evacuees – in Atambua look almost identical to each other. In several settlements we visited in early April in Kabuna village and Jenuli village, Kukuluk Mesak district, as well as Silawan village, East Tasifeto district, we noticed three things that were relatively similar.Each settlement had worn-out semi-permanent buildings, modest furniture and occupants who live in the “liminal” phase – removed from the past and finding it difficult to build an imagination of the future.
Imagination of the future is something precious for most new residents. Education is still a problem due to lack of access and supporting costs. Although they have been living in Indonesia for over a decade, many of the new resident who in the past were mostly farmers, still do not own agriculture lands. Some live on land owned by residents or the state, some live in old evacuee barracks, while others communally buy the land from residents.
Those who do buy land only have land of around 300 square meters, which is used both as a home and farming land.
Jorge de Jesus, 57, a new resident in Kabuna village, is one of them. He lives in a 6 by 6-meter house with by his family and his daughter’s family. To farm, he would borrow nearby lands. With limited land to work on, he can only plant corn to feed his family for a month.
“We don’t have any farm land from which we can eat or sell harvested crops,” Jorge said.
Kabuna village chief Ruben EF Goncalves, who is said to be the first new resident to become village chief in Belu regency, said that those who evacuated from East Timor have been living in restricted living conditions in terms of land, settlement, economic empowerment, education and health.
From an economic side, some of the locals living in new resident areas also face poverty. The conditions of homes belonging to local residents are not much different from those of new residents.
“However, the ‘old residents’ have land to form on. New residents don’t have land; these are people who sacrificed a lot for their loyalty to Indonesia. They need to be given attention,” Ruben said.
Pressure
Uni Timor Aswa’ain (Untas), an organization that accommodates these new residents, estimates that there are 100,000 to 150,000 former East Timor residents currently living in Indonesia, mostly in East Nusa Tenggara.
When violence erupted ahead of and after the East Timor independence referendum in 1999, some 300,000 people from East Timor were believed to be evacuated to Indonesia. Kompas newspaper (13/19/1999) reported at the time that due to the huge inflow of evacuees, the East Timorese would not be accommodated by locals. So, they stayed in huts, fields and other places without the protection of a roof, from the entrance of the Motaain border to Atapupu in the north coast of Belu.
The decision of (then) president BJ Habibie to give East Timor the option of broad autonomy or independence was brought about by pressure from the international world. The US and Australia were among those who pressed Indonesia the hardest.
Kristio Wahyono in his book Timor Target (2009) said that Australia’s attitude was influenced by to the consideration of economic benefits linked to the pursuit of Celah Timor oil, which would not be hampered if East Timor separates from Indonesia. Australia, he believed, would still get the same concession if it had to negotiate with the new government.
In 1975, when supporting Indonesia to “enter” East Timor, Australia also had Celah Timor in consideration, Kristio said.
“The Australian ambassador to Indonesia Richard Woolcott told [then] Prime Minister Whitlam that the oil agreement at the Timor Sea between Australia and East Timor will be much easier to negotiate with Indonesia rather than with Portugal or the independent Timor Portugis,” Kristio wrote.
Meanwhile, according to Geoffrey Robinson in If You Leave Us Here, We Will Die (2010), the US pressured Indonesia because in the 1990s, human rights issues became an increasingly important issue for western countries.
The 1991 Santa Cruz incident that killed many civilians and attracted international attention after it was captured by British journalists, also gave rise to anti-human rights violation solidaritygroups within Indonesia.
However, Robinson noted that the US also played a role in Indonesia’s entry to East Timor in 1975 as it supported and gave the “green light” to (then) president Soeharto.
The Seroja operation, or the entry of Indonesian troops into East Timor, started on Dec. 7, 1975, a day after Soeharto received a state visit from US president Gerald Ford and US foreign affairs minister Henry Kissinger in Jakarta. At the time, the concern of the spread of communism prompted Soeharto to integrate with East Timor, with the support of some political elements in East Timor. The US and other western countries did not oppose the move because their interest during the Cold War was to suppress the influence of communism.
“We understand and will not press you regarding the matter. We understand your problem and your objective,” Ford said in his meeting with Soeharto, as recorded in the US Embassy’s secret telegram in Jakarta to the US Foreign Affairs Minister No. 1579, Dec. 6, 1975.
The secret document was declassified in 2001.
“It is very important that whatever you do, achieve success quickly,” said Kissinger as recorded in the document.
Agustinus Fahik, a researcher at the Kupang Sophia Institute, East Nusa Tenggara, said the eclectic stance taken up by Western countries showed that in the East Timor case, Indonesia and the people of East Timor were mere “pawns” in the chess game of international politics.
“Indonesia at the time was also ‘victim’ of an international game. Indonesia and the people of East Timor were in the position of pawns that were played around with. Indonesia was lucky, but the people of East Timor really became victims,” he said.
Opening forests
As the case with East Timor, Buru Island also marked the “stumble” of Indonesia’s elites in the pull of international politics. IG Krisnadi, in his book, Tahanan Politik Pulau Buru (Buru Island Political Prisoners), said that around 10,000 people who were accused of being involved with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) have been exiled to Buru since 1969.
In Buru Island, prisoners were forced to work by turning forests, shrubs, fields of grass and swamps into paddy fields, complete with irrigation channels.
“Being tortured is normal for us,” recalled Muhyan Edi Mulyana, 74, a former political prisoner in Buru Island.
Writer Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who was also exiled to Buru, writes in a diary that has since been published as a book titled Nyanyi Sunyi Seorang Bisu (The Silent Song of the Mute), said that 320 prisoners died during their exile. Other than diseases and suicide, some of these deaths were caused by torture.
These political prisoners were released in 1977-1979. Most of them returned to their villages. However, 298 chose to stay in Buru. Some are still alive today and continue to ask questions about the injustice that befell them.
Pattimura University’s Social Science and Political Science professor Tonny Pariela said the exile of tens of thousands of people to Buru was part of a political disaster that occurred after the incident of Sept. 30, 1965. The political disaster was caused by a political and ideological battle that turned people into victims
John Roosa in Dalih Pembunuhan Massal: Gerakan 30 September dan Kudeta Suharto (Pretext of Mass Murder: September 30 Movement and Suharto’s Coup d’etat), described the political and ideological battle between communists and anti-communists behind that incident. In fact, such movements were also part of an international political battle between communism led by the Soviet Union and China against the anticommunism block led by the US.
The position of (then) president Soeharto, which many view to be more inclined to Moscow and Beijing, annoyed Washington, especially given that in 1965 the US’ relationship with the Soekarno government had been deteriorating.
Washington saw Indonesia’s siding with the communist authority as a disaster. Other than the fact that Indonesia has demographic strength, geographical breadth and abundant natural resources, Indonesia’s fall will create a domino effect to other Southeast Asian countries. This is what prompted the US to prevent Indonesia from falling into the hands of the communists.
Tonny said the incident of Sept. 30, 1965, not only marked a dark history for Indonesia but also continued to become a roadblock in the journey of the nation.
“The PKI has become an issue that is easily used up to this moment,” he said.
In this era, the stories in Atambua and Buru Island must serve as a valuable lesson for the elites of this nation. A mistake in making a move and positioning the country as the pawn of other countries will result in the common people becoming victims.
(RINI KUSTIASIH/A PONCO ANGGORO/MADINA NUSRAT/ANTONY LEE)
