By Benny YP Siahaan
Recently, I once again watched the film Independence Day (1996). In this film, it was described that the world (all states) united together to fight against alien invasion from outer space. And they eventually succeeded in defeating the invaders. After seeing this film, I was intrigued enough to compare it to our current global situation.
Indeed, while we do not have alien creatures threatening to attack us, we do however now live in a world which is almost in the similar situation as that in the film, insofar as we are also living under a threat which could gravely impact on our survival as human beings. Take a look at this: according to one of UN statistics, by 2025 - which not so far from now - 5.5 billion people (two-thirds of the world’s population) will face water shortages (http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/factsheet.html).There is also another estimate that speculates that if global temperatures should rise above 4 degrees F, it is believed that all the people on the planet will become extinct. (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/4155.html).
This would therefore suggest that we have a common enemy which means that all States need to unite and work together to fight these threats to human life. They are more lethal and catastrophic than the recent flu pandemic. However, it is ironic that not everyone is thinking along the same lines about the perils of these global threats.
On 10-14 August 2009, I attended a meeting in Geneva of the UN Expert Mechanism on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Apart from States, the forum also invited hundreds of indigenous peoples organizations which in this session included, the Papuan Customary Council (Dewan Adat Papua) and an NGO of Bangsa Adat Alifuru Maluku (Alifuru customary nation of Moluccas) which is based in Netherlands. These NGOs are commonly affiliated with the separatist organizations of the Free Papua Movement (OPM) and the Republic of Southern Moluccas (RMS) respectively.
In this kind of meeting, it is common that “self-determination”, particularly geared towards establishing a State, is very much staunchly defended by such groups. The most common characteristics which they expound on are basically cultural such as language and ethnicity. Many of these groups would also call themselves "nation" as their most common form of self-identity. Many of them also have a strong conviction that by being a nation they have the right to be granted self-determination or statehood.
However, if we consider language as the only defining criterion of nations, we would observe that there are currently approximately 6,000 linguistically defined groups. Many of these languages have very few native speakers and as a result, are now close to extinction. If we turn to other cultural traits, such as religion and ethnicity, the number of these “cultural groups” may be more than the number of the linguistically defined groups.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a State is “a community of persons living within certain limits of territory, under a permanent organization which aims to secure the prevalence of justice by self-imposed law.” Currently, there are more than 190 political units recognized as States in the international system. Thus, the claim by indigenous people that cultural nations must become political units (States) has serious and negative implications for the future.
Indeed, after the end of decolonization and in a time when State-creation was based on special considerations such as inheritance of colonial boundaries (Uti possidetis principle), we have continued to witness a rise in the number of recognized States and, even more so, in the number of struggling independence movements.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to observe to one research that has shown that granting independence to new States particularly if they are not economically viable may be counter-productive as they will only become a burden to the international community since these countries will end up depending on foreign aid. Thus, I can only imagine the confusion and the chaos if we are live in an international system which is constituted of several hundreds, possibly even thousands, of States which most of them are extremely dependent to the international charity.
Thus the lessons that can be drawn is that this self-determination concept is interconnected to another issue such as territorial integrity and international system stability. Therefore, the “Pandora’s box” of self-determination must be closed.
Based on the above considerations, perhaps the most pertinent question is do indigenous people truly believe that creating an independent State it is still important in the face of the global threat of climate change and water shortages? As we aware, one of the most vulnerable groups facing the brunt of the climate change and water shortages threats are the indigenous people since most of them live their lives dependent on nature and have few resources to invest in preventing or mitigating the effects of environmental change.
Furthermore, history has also proven that a “nation” can exist and live peacefully without becoming a State. Thus this also begs the question, which is more important for them: “nation survival” or a “nation-state”? Or perhaps the idea of creating a nation-state is only the personal political agenda of certain activists/representatives of the indigenous peoples which are not so indigenous anymore since they now reside in big cities and live like other city-people and attend indigenous people’s meetings around the globe.
In addition, one lesson that can be drawn from the abovementioned film is that if we are united we will survive. Usually, it is far easier to become united if we have a common enemy. This is what we did when we were united in our fight against Dutch colonialism, our common enemy at that time. Thus, unity is the key to our survival and existence then and now.
Nonetheless, we generally tend to easily affected by the mentality of “us vs. them” which may also prompt the nation-state or nationalism sentiment. Indeed, according to Henry Tajfel and John Turner who developed the theory of social identity, they assert that people will naturally divide themselves into an “in-group” and “out-group”.
Thus, artificial mental barriers are made on the basis of language, ethnicity, religions etc. to serve that nationalism sentiment. On that account, during the intervening years following our independence we have also been facing problems of maintaining that unity, particularly on the problem of secessionist groups since, apart from regional grievances, we do not seem to have a common enemy anymore after the Dutch left.
Nonetheless, as stated earlier, this unity problem can be solved if we all realize that we have a common enemy. And this can be applied both at the national and global levels. At the national level, apart from the environmental threats such as climate change and water shortage, we should be able to identify the most pressing issue that threatens the Indonesia’s existence.
At the global level, as we are aware, the threats posed by climate change and water shortages are real and present. Hence, keeping busy with the efforts to create more nation-states – which furthermore, it is not clear as to whether or not it adds value - will not help our efforts to survive in the face of these global threats to our natural habitat.
---------
Geneva, August 2009
Recently, I once again watched the film Independence Day (1996). In this film, it was described that the world (all states) united together to fight against alien invasion from outer space. And they eventually succeeded in defeating the invaders. After seeing this film, I was intrigued enough to compare it to our current global situation.
Indeed, while we do not have alien creatures threatening to attack us, we do however now live in a world which is almost in the similar situation as that in the film, insofar as we are also living under a threat which could gravely impact on our survival as human beings. Take a look at this: according to one of UN statistics, by 2025 - which not so far from now - 5.5 billion people (two-thirds of the world’s population) will face water shortages (http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/factsheet.html).There is also another estimate that speculates that if global temperatures should rise above 4 degrees F, it is believed that all the people on the planet will become extinct. (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/4155.html).
This would therefore suggest that we have a common enemy which means that all States need to unite and work together to fight these threats to human life. They are more lethal and catastrophic than the recent flu pandemic. However, it is ironic that not everyone is thinking along the same lines about the perils of these global threats.
On 10-14 August 2009, I attended a meeting in Geneva of the UN Expert Mechanism on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Apart from States, the forum also invited hundreds of indigenous peoples organizations which in this session included, the Papuan Customary Council (Dewan Adat Papua) and an NGO of Bangsa Adat Alifuru Maluku (Alifuru customary nation of Moluccas) which is based in Netherlands. These NGOs are commonly affiliated with the separatist organizations of the Free Papua Movement (OPM) and the Republic of Southern Moluccas (RMS) respectively.
In this kind of meeting, it is common that “self-determination”, particularly geared towards establishing a State, is very much staunchly defended by such groups. The most common characteristics which they expound on are basically cultural such as language and ethnicity. Many of these groups would also call themselves "nation" as their most common form of self-identity. Many of them also have a strong conviction that by being a nation they have the right to be granted self-determination or statehood.
However, if we consider language as the only defining criterion of nations, we would observe that there are currently approximately 6,000 linguistically defined groups. Many of these languages have very few native speakers and as a result, are now close to extinction. If we turn to other cultural traits, such as religion and ethnicity, the number of these “cultural groups” may be more than the number of the linguistically defined groups.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a State is “a community of persons living within certain limits of territory, under a permanent organization which aims to secure the prevalence of justice by self-imposed law.” Currently, there are more than 190 political units recognized as States in the international system. Thus, the claim by indigenous people that cultural nations must become political units (States) has serious and negative implications for the future.
Indeed, after the end of decolonization and in a time when State-creation was based on special considerations such as inheritance of colonial boundaries (Uti possidetis principle), we have continued to witness a rise in the number of recognized States and, even more so, in the number of struggling independence movements.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to observe to one research that has shown that granting independence to new States particularly if they are not economically viable may be counter-productive as they will only become a burden to the international community since these countries will end up depending on foreign aid. Thus, I can only imagine the confusion and the chaos if we are live in an international system which is constituted of several hundreds, possibly even thousands, of States which most of them are extremely dependent to the international charity.
Thus the lessons that can be drawn is that this self-determination concept is interconnected to another issue such as territorial integrity and international system stability. Therefore, the “Pandora’s box” of self-determination must be closed.
Based on the above considerations, perhaps the most pertinent question is do indigenous people truly believe that creating an independent State it is still important in the face of the global threat of climate change and water shortages? As we aware, one of the most vulnerable groups facing the brunt of the climate change and water shortages threats are the indigenous people since most of them live their lives dependent on nature and have few resources to invest in preventing or mitigating the effects of environmental change.
Furthermore, history has also proven that a “nation” can exist and live peacefully without becoming a State. Thus this also begs the question, which is more important for them: “nation survival” or a “nation-state”? Or perhaps the idea of creating a nation-state is only the personal political agenda of certain activists/representatives of the indigenous peoples which are not so indigenous anymore since they now reside in big cities and live like other city-people and attend indigenous people’s meetings around the globe.
In addition, one lesson that can be drawn from the abovementioned film is that if we are united we will survive. Usually, it is far easier to become united if we have a common enemy. This is what we did when we were united in our fight against Dutch colonialism, our common enemy at that time. Thus, unity is the key to our survival and existence then and now.
Nonetheless, we generally tend to easily affected by the mentality of “us vs. them” which may also prompt the nation-state or nationalism sentiment. Indeed, according to Henry Tajfel and John Turner who developed the theory of social identity, they assert that people will naturally divide themselves into an “in-group” and “out-group”.
Thus, artificial mental barriers are made on the basis of language, ethnicity, religions etc. to serve that nationalism sentiment. On that account, during the intervening years following our independence we have also been facing problems of maintaining that unity, particularly on the problem of secessionist groups since, apart from regional grievances, we do not seem to have a common enemy anymore after the Dutch left.
Nonetheless, as stated earlier, this unity problem can be solved if we all realize that we have a common enemy. And this can be applied both at the national and global levels. At the national level, apart from the environmental threats such as climate change and water shortage, we should be able to identify the most pressing issue that threatens the Indonesia’s existence.
At the global level, as we are aware, the threats posed by climate change and water shortages are real and present. Hence, keeping busy with the efforts to create more nation-states – which furthermore, it is not clear as to whether or not it adds value - will not help our efforts to survive in the face of these global threats to our natural habitat.
---------
Geneva, August 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment