How to Feed the World in ‘Indonesia Inc., a Company in the Form of a State’

How to feed the world in ‘Indonesia Inc., a company in the form of a state’

Elske Hageraats

How to feed the world in Indonesia Inc., a company in the form of a state’

by Elske Hageraats

Student name: Elske Hageraats Student registration number: 88 04 09 29 80 80 Study Program: Msc. Development and Rural Innovation Credits: 30 ECTS Course Number: SDC-80430 Course Name: Msc Thesis Sociology of Development and Change Supervised by: Dr. ir. Pieter de Vries, SDC group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Examination: Dr. ir. Pieter de Vries, SDC group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Dr. Stephen Sherwood, KTI group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Date: February, 2015 Picture at front from the documentary film ‘the Act of Killing’ by Joshua Oppenheimer, 2013

Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you only see its manifestations (Tao Te Ching)

This thesis is dedicated to the millions of people tortured and killed during the ‘Shock Doctrine’ in Indonesia.

iii

Abstract

As a biologist and sociologist, I wanted to dive into the current debate how to feed the world, from a historical and political philosophical perspective. First, this study describes how the exact same question was posed in 1946 by the U.S.A., where it turned out to be the first step of a control method, instead of an actual question. It paved the way for the shock doctrine in Indonesia in 1965 where 2 million people were tortured and killed, followed by a control over Indonesia’s 1) government, 2) economy and 3) people by controlling food production - the latter being achieved by the push through of the Green Revolution. Second, the impact of the Green Revolution on the life of farmers is examined, with special emphasis on food security. Farmers, activists and university teachers in Bali, Indonesia, were interviewed. Third, I pose the question how to move on, after knowing this history and the impact on Bali. A literature study is presented on self-enhancing, self-reproducing, dynamic assemblages in the network, Human Nature, Becoming Prince and governing the process of transition via transformation of a structure, a new assemblage in the network that corresponds more to our ‘human nature’ and that will grow organically via happiness and creativity. A case study was conducted at the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood in Bali, which could be a potential step forward.

Keywords: Bali, Indonesia, Shock Therapy, coup d’état 1965, Green Revolution, Food Sovereignty, Food as a Weapon, Eco-Village, Permaculture, Human Nature, Assemblages.

Preface The world is beautiful. And not only that, I believe that this ‘beauty will save the world’i. As Hardt and Negri describe in their book Commonwealth, we are living in ‘a world that, for better or worse, we all share, a world that has no ‘outside’ii. Stepping outside our life-world is possible, but very selfish and certainly no solution. Continuing to live inside our current life world however, is often inevitably causing the destruction of life on this earth and moreover a sad, empty loneliness for ourselves – at least, that is how I think about it. But all is not hopeless. In fact, we are capable of great things. Like climbing a mountain for example. They can be quite high, the road steep and slippery. You can continue your way only when you stop fearing the path and instead focus on every step – which then transforms into a harmony between your self and the mightiness of nature. It is only in this unique rhythm that you can make it to heights you would imagine impossible. Knowing your goal and actually walking towards it is all that has to be done right now. It is as simple as that.

Simple in theory, a challenge in practice, but certainly not impossible within our capabilities. The first part – knowing you goal – can be reached by sharing information about how the world works, raising awareness, reading philosophy, making documentaries and writing books. The second part however – actually walking towards it - is a whole other thing. During a mail-conversation about the current world and the struggles it cries for, one of my sociology teachers, Alberto Arce, wrote the following:

‘My experience is that some consumers are quite happy to continue doing what they are doing and they do not want to change. My issue is then how we reach these people to generate a process of change and not just again to explain (again and again) their social actions in a very intellectual form (probably we need to discuss this further)’iii

I think this is a very important question that we all need to ask ourselves. Whether we like it or not, we must fight for this process of change and that is the reason why I turn this question into the main aim of the thesis: How to reach people to generate a process of change and not just again (and again and again) explain their social actions in a very intellectual form? History has taught us it is not as simple as walking up to a farmer and tell him to stop using pesticides, fertilizers and GMOs that will destroy the soil life and make the farmer himself more dependent on the free market economy. Nor can we visit a random consumer and tell him or her to stop buying this very same rice, stop buying clothes made in sweatshops, or gormandizing a ‘plofkip’ (which can freely be translated from Dutch into ‘explosion chicken’).

Should we then jump towards reckless rebellion against the destructive free market consumer society? Maybe, but I think this is not a very effective way. The society, ruled by corporations and governments, has its own ways of dealing with rebellion.iv The system might replace its actors, but is still functioning in the same way, and by the created ‘state of shock’ you might even have enforced the system itself – which is the very source of the problem.v Trying to change the rules, laws or regulations often has the same effect. There is no freedom, no creativity and no joy in an overregulated life. More regulations only restrict the people, not the corporations or governments who either find ways to deal with itvi or simply find ways to evade the law. Trying to change a powerful system by using its own rules is not the way to go. For sure, you might be able to change something, after long fights at the court, but the corporations will grow much faster, destruction of our livelihoods and Quality of Life will go much faster, rates of deforestation, pollution, loss of local knowledge and practices will be

so much higher. To sum it up: ‘You can never solve a problem on the level on which is was created’(Einstein).

‘But we don’t even know how to begin to fight the mess we’re in now. Whom are we fighting? What kind of war is it?’viiInstead of focussing on the results of society, we might want to first ask ourselves exactly how the world can evolve into something where we – humans – are not only destroying the planet, but also our own Quality of Life. Why this greed, which in the end does not make us happy at all? Why all these laws and regulations that only seem to restrain us from our freedom? Why – with all our technological innovations – does it look like we are only getting more and more stuck inside some kind of system? I think it is very important to understand the way our society works, how it evolves. It seems that people – actors – are part of a dynamic network, interconnecting with actors, actants and relations between these. If we would like to work towards change, we can not ignore this dynamic network. As said before, working towards change can only be done when the dynamic network is taken into account. Fighting against it is certainly possible, but very challenging and – as said before – the gains will be going so much slower than all the losses. In this thesis I therefore want to try to grasp this network, try to understand how it works and use this knowledge to work towards change.

This however, does not mean that we should have endless debates and discussions, creating more concepts, scientific jargon, and fights over who’s right. Life in all its forms can never be captured in a theory, a schedule, or framework. Everything is interconnected with everything; it is a dynamic interrelating network so complex that you will have to end up with the conclusion ‘all is one’. Assuming that you can fully know someone’s life world is an illusion which might create certain realities that will enhance dualism and get you even further away from any kind of progress.

Not-knowing is true knowledge Presuming to know is a disease First realize that you are sick Then you can move toward health (Tao)

Although it is not possible to fully know someone’s lifeworld, since it too complex and moreover constantly dynamic, it is possible to visualise certain patterns in this network. Patterns of evolving institutions, that interrelate with actors, actants and one another. In my thesis, I will try to understand these dominant patterns and the interrelation with the actors by emphasizing on ‘self-reproductive, self-enhancive Ideas’, its influence on the thoughts and practices of actors and how the change from created desires towards inner desires can serve as a motor generating a process of change. I want to emphasise on these larger patterns (the Foucaultian prison and evolving institutions) interacting in the dynamic network with actors (AOA). I know a thesis needs to focus and be specific, but I am convinced that visualising the patterns in the network can help to generate a process of change.

For half a year I have been living in small villages in Vietnam for my thesis biology. I decided to stay in Asia, go to Indonesia to search for a thesis topic for MDR. After an exciting search - visiting universities, organisations, NGOs, speaking to farmers, people from the World Bank, students and professors – I ended up with the NGO IDEP in Bali. As I dived into Bali’s recent history related to the Green Revolution, my passion for writing this thesis was born.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 The current debate: how to feed the world in 2050? ...... 1

Chapter 1. Structure of the thesis ...... 3 Research Location Bali, Indonesia ...... 3 Research Questions & Research Objectives ...... 6 Research Question: ...... 6 Research Objectives ...... 6 Theoretical Framework ...... 7 Planning ...... 8 Acknowledgements ...... 8

Chapter 2. Going back in history: ‘How to feed the world’ in the 1940s ...... 9 Control the discourse: ‘Relieve the famine of half the world’ ...... 9 Control the government and the economy: USA-backed Shock Doctrine, Indonesia ...... 12 1. Understanding reality, creating reality ...... 12 2. Preparing a military regime and regulating aid ...... 12 3. Overthrow of the government: the shock of 1965 ...... 14 4. ‘We are the winners, so we make the history’...... 15 5. A country in shock and the corporate take-over of Indonesia ...... 16 Control the people: Pushing through the Green Revolution (‘BIMAS’) ...... 19

Chapter 3. The impact on the peoples’ life...... 22 Their stories about the Green Revolution ...... 23 Impact on Food Sovereignty ...... 25 1. Access to seeds ...... 25 2. The ‘increased’ yield ...... 26 3. Diversity and yield ...... 29 4. The storage of food ...... 30 5. From secure trade to an insecure free market economy ...... 31 Returning to the debate: ‘How to feed the world’ – again? ...... 32

vii

Chapter 4. MOVING FORWARD: the transition ...... 34 The transition in theory ...... 34 1. Grasping the Network, working towards change...... 35 2. Becoming Prince, governing the process of a Revolution ...... 40 3. Epimelesthai sautou! Foucault meets Chomsky ...... 42 4. AgriCulture ...... 44 5. The shift from ‘bad people’ to ‘bad structures’ ...... 48 The transition in practice: Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, Bali...... 50 1. The road towards an Eco Neighbourhood ...... 52 2. Forming the group ...... 56 3. The local economy ...... 56 4. The design of the Neighbourhood ...... 58 5. An organic development process...... 62 6. Permaculture...... 65 7. Water ...... 65 The Transition in practice: the local peoples’ point of view ...... 67

Chapter 5. Conclusion and Discussion ...... 71 Moving forward in the debate: ‘How to feed the world?’ ...... 71 Moving forward in practice: the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood ...... 73 Moving forward in science: Research Institutes ...... 76

References ...... 79

viii

Introduction I mentioned before that the world is beautiful. And she is. That does not mean, however, that we are living in a Utopian world - in fact, we are far away from it. ‘War, suffering, misery, and exploitation increasingly characterize our globalizing world.’ It is the first sentence of Commonwealth, the book from Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri about the current situation of our everyday life world. It is unfortunately so, that the ‘motor’ of this continuing process consists for a big part of those who often do not experience war, suffering, misery and exploitation. They are the ones on the vehicle of economic process, as Bauman calls itviii. And currently, they are also the ones who are having a fierce discussion on the topic: ‘How to feed 9 billion people in 2050’ - sometimes even closer: ‘How to feed 8 billion people in 2025?’. I would like to zoom in a bit on this discussion, since many governments, organisations like the WB, WTO and IMF, NGOs, activists, social movements, corporations and research institutes like my university the WUR are focussed on it. Both the solutions to as well as the causes of the problem are diverse, sometimes even contradicting – and so is the data about it.

The current debate: how to feed the world in 2050? A recent discussion with the topic ‘Concerning Forces in Food Systems: How to Feed 8 billion people by 2025 and protect the plant’s natural resources’ at the University of California, Berkeley, invited a global panel, consisting out of members from different disciplines and interestix. The facilitator – openly trying to push through his opinion that science and especially GMOs are needed to feed the world - started the discussion: ‘One of the facts is, we live in a world with about more than 6 billion residents and in the next 30 years we’re going to have to grow as much food as we have grown in all of human history to feed the people that are living on this planet. That’s a lot of food.’ Note that the very opening of the discussion starts with the ‘fact’ that we need to grow more food. Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, comments later on:

‘One of the big things that’s happening right now is this focus on investment. That’s investment in agriculture, an area that developing countries were told not to invest in. (…) This whole kind of development model, the new paradigm that has been send by donor countries, by development agencies as well as by the World Bank group, is one of let the private investors come and invest in agriculture and in water. The result is in Ethiopia – while they’re talking about ending food security, a country which already has 10 to 15 million people dependent on food aid – you have 1.5 million people being forcibly relocated so that big plantation can come in, owned by the Malaysians, the largest investors, unfortunately my country India for cotton, and we can’t ignore those. You look at Zambia which has taken loans from the World Bank to do this whole farm blog scheme, giving away a million hectares of land. We’re working in Papua New Guinea where nearly 11 million hectares of land are being given away for logging and special agricultural business leases. (…) The development paradigm which is coming from outside, which takes not into account the aspirations of the local people, the ways of life, and this top-down model ‘one size fits all’ does not work. People in Africa, Asia, Latin America - they know how to feed themselves, perhaps we need to figure out how to get out of their way’ x

The topic changes to talk about the fact that many young farmers in fact want to leave the farm. Jonathan Shrier, US state department, comments:

‘But that’s if they don’t see prosperous livelihood in agriculture. Instead, that involves changing the agricultural economy in these places. And that’s something that many developing countries have taken on as a national priority. Because one of the great learnings of the past decade or two of development assistance work is been the recognition that solutions won’t work if they’re imposed from the outside and they have to be generated first and foremost by the countries involved. And those are national priorities for agricultural development and so in Africa for example, we’ve seen the great success of comprehensive African agricultural development program whereby the leaders of Africa’s countries, committed to develop national plans with national priorities for their agricultural development. Those priorities have often included a substantial role for private sector development in agriculture. And so a subset of those countries worked to establish something called the ‘Grow Africa Partnership’ and they said: ‘We want to find ways to improve the conditions for private sector activities, both domestic and international.’ And so they did create policy space for private sector activity, committed to policy changes. The G8 –some of the largest economies in the world - reached out to work with several of these countries to commit resources align behind their national priorities, but also to foster connections with private firms that wanted to invest. (…) And it really requires collaboration between first of all led by the countries involved, but then collaboration with donor nations, with international research institutions, with international organisations, with universities and so on.’xi

Here we see a strong contradiction. Whereas Anuradha Mittal is convinced that many problems are caused by the Western corporations, governments and organisations, Jonathan Shrier from the US state department is convinced we can only help to feed the world by a collaboration of donor nations, international research institutes, organisations universities etc. Anuradha continues:

‘Since the 2007 food price crisis – and it’s linked to the financial crisis where actors, pension funds and others are looking, including universities, are looking at the next soft commodity to investment to and agriculture is that one that they’ve been drawn towards. The need for regulation becomes very important there were attempts that have been made, they haven’t been followed through and it really again comes back to the issue of food democracy and knowledge and transparency that we as citizens can actually be involved in. The fact that people that know nothing about agriculture are investing, are controlling – if you use the framework of human rights, it should really be a crime against humanity that they can play around and speculation that happen which will impact the poor residents in poor countries; you need to be hold accountable. (…) Instead of just focussing on technology and increase food production, we forgot about communities and farming families and communities and the policies had to be made around them instead of outside like we have. As long as we have an agricultural model which is upside down and backward not dealt with because it is political, we’re not going to be dealing with food security.’xii

As biologists and sociologist, I am very passionate about the debate ‘how to feed the world?’. Instead of focussing on tables, figures, data and wishes of the consumers, I will first try to discover how this question is embedded in our society, focusing on our dynamic network with interrelating actors, actants, evolving institutions etc. By trying to grasp the network, I hope to visualise some important patterns in it, which might contribute to the search for a better world for all.

Chapter 1. Structure of the thesis  Research location  Research Objectives and Research Questions  Methodologies, methods and techniques  Theoretical Framework  Planning  Acknowledgements

Research Location Bali, Indonesia I have conducted my research in Bali, Indonesia, from September 2013 - February 2014. My first reason to go here, is that there was an Eco Neighbourhood located on the island: Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, a kind of commune way of living together. I was very interested to understand their motivations, their ideals, and the practical implementation. Was this the way to go, or would it yet be another expat-project that had no benefits or whatsoever for the local people? Besides this reason, I was drawn to the island by the stories I’ve heard as a child from my grandfather. During my stay in Bali, however, I started to realise a very strange truth: my grandfather was working on the island for Philips in 1967, just two years after the coup d’état in Indonesia.

The Republic of Indonesia is an archipelago, comprising thousands of islands, and it is inhabited by an estimated 252 million people (see Fig. 1) After three and a half centuries of Dutch colonialism, and Japanese occupation during World War II, Soekarno declared Independence of Indonesia in August 1945 and was appointed President. The Netherlands tried to re-establish their power, resulting in a conflict that ended in December 1949, when the Dutch finally recognized Indonesia as an independent country.xiii From this moment on, Soekarno had the task to rebuild the country, after colonialization and devastating wars.

Bali is an island and province of the Republic of Indonesia (see Fig. 2). It covers 5.780 km2, and has a population of 4.22 million people, of which the majority are officially Hindu (this is the religion the people had to ‘choose’ after 1965, but in fact the Balinese have a very ancient, unique religionxiv). The Southern part of Bali is touristic. Most people have a job in hotel, tourist industry, textile and garment industry and many small scale home industries producing handicrafts and souvenirs.xv

Research Questions & Research Objectives As described in the preface, the aim of this thesis is to explore how we are are going to reach people to generate a process of change and not just again (and again and again) explain their social actions in a very intellectual form. In other words, how are we going to start governing the process of a revolution, as Hardt and Negri describe it in their book Commonwealth? But before we think about how to govern the process of a revolution, I think it is important to ask ourselves: ‘Why are we born free and end up enslaved?’ – Noam Chomsky1 Going in line with the notion of dynamic assemblagesxvi in a Network we all live in, it is important to see how assemblages develop through history. As DeLanda explains: “Families, institutional organizations, cities, nation states are all real entities that are the product of specific historical processes and whatever degree of identity they have, must be accounted for via the processes which created them and those that maintain them.”xvii So, first, we need to understand the historical processes that took place, in order to understand what we are actually facing right now: what is it, we have to ‘fight’ against, what exactly is it that ‘enslaves’ us? Second, we then need to know where we want to work towards. Is there intrinsic goal humanity wants to reach? What are the dangers of visualising an ‘ideal society’ and can we tackle these challenges? Third, can we learn from pioneers who are already setting up alternative ways of life?

Research Question:

Drawing on the work of Hardt&Negri: How can we start governing the process of a revolution towards a better society?

1. What can we learn from the ‘How to feed the world’ debate, as being a dynamic assemblage, throughout the history of Indonesia in order to gain insight on how to govern the process of a revolution in present times? 2. What can we learn from the impact the ‘How to feed the world’ assemblage has on farmers in Bali (esp. related to food sovereignty), in order to better understand current challenges and possible solutions needed? 3. The process of a revolution in theory: what are the dangers of visualising a ‘better society’ and how can we overcome this? 4. The process of a revolution in practice: what can we learn from the Eco-Village ‘Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood’ in Bali, as being an assemblage of traditional agriculture and modern sustainable designs and livelihoods in practice?

Research Objectives In order to answer my research questions, my objectives are: 1. To conduct literature research, analyse documentaries and movies related to RQ1 2. To conduct interviews with farmers in Bali, Indonesia, and compare this with literature, related to RQ2 3. To conduct literature research and analyse documentaries, related to RQ 3 4. To conduct interviews with the founder of the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, as well as with local people in the surroundings, and compare this with literature on Eco Villages, related to RQ 4

1 Noam Chomsky, 1998. Ibid. 6

Methodologies, methods and techniques

For this thesis I have conducted literature research and semi-structured interviews. Moreover, I have analysed documentaries related to the research questions.

I have used snowball sampling as a technique to obtain find people for interviews. Also, I have contacted strangers on the road that I came across.

Note on pictures. I want to mention that I’ve added hardly any pictures in this thesis. This is because, during my stay in Asia, I am already seen as ‘the rich foreigner’ and I didn’t want to emphasise this, not the image of ‘the tourist’. Moreover, ‘not taking pictures’ is a kind of method I started to use in my life since 6 years ago to analyse life more precise, since I’ve noticed that pictures can very easily create realities, different from the reality in the moment the picture was taken. Since I’m not taking pictures anymore, I’ve learnt to focus more on all senses, including feelings and thoughts, instead of only that ‘well-framed image’. Instead of pictures, I always carry a note book with me and take time to write things down and in that way also analyse the moment – a kind of ‘epimelesthai sautou’, which I will explain later on in the thesis.

Theoretical Framework For the theoretical framework, I combine the Balinese belief, which sees the universe as an interconnected whole,xviii with the notion of the assemblage from Deleuze and Guattarixix (further processed into the ‘assemblage theory 2.0’ by DeLanda.xx).

Balinese farmers have explained me how everything is part of the universe and thus in one way or another interconnected, whether we are conscious about it or not. However, although everything could be seen in that way as being one, there are certain patterns that can be observed, and I believe these patterns to be very important. The best way to explain these patterns is by the notion of the assemblage. xxi Where pure realism suggests that the truth is out there to be grasped by humans, via scientific discovery for example, pure constructivism allows only for the combination and recombination of existing social elements via a human mind that is rational. The assemblage theory goes beyond these two theories, by arguing for a human and non-human becoming which has no place for the nature/culture divide or transcendent forces, like the notion of God or the human mind. According to Deleuze and Guattari, the social word cannot be explained in such a static way. Rather, social formations are dynamic assemblages of complex configurations, and those configurations in turn play roles in other, more extended configurations. Moreover, the components of the assemblage can be involved in processes. It should be explained with terms of transition, configuration, fluidity, human and non-human becoming etc. – rejecting dualism and emphasising on the non-static way society should be interpreted, portrayed, (and thereby also partially shaped!). According to the assemblage theory, the relations among the parts of an assemblage are contingent. Moreover, the relations imply that “a component part of an assemblage may be detached from it and plugged into a different assemblage in which its interactions are different.” This is where I’d like to combine

the assemblage theory with the Balinese belief that everything is interconnected. I think that, in essence, everything in the universe is interconnected. You can not detach yourself from it, nor plug anything in another assemblage. You can, however, have stronger interconnections, more visible interconnections, or be more conscious of a certain interconnection – and the opposite holds true as well.

In short, everything and everyone - ideas, discourses, desires, technique, creations, feelings living creatures etc. - is interconnected and dynamic, constantly transforming through this interconnectedness. This goes in line with the fact that everything in the universe is interconnected. However, within this whole, we can observe structures, assemblages. In this way, the theoretical framework can serve as a framework for connecting micro- and macro- levels of social reality. It is also important to understand then, that agency should in this way be considered as an emerging product of the assemblage.xxii Related to this thesis, it is thus important to not see ‘whom to fight’, but ‘how to transform certain assemblages’ in order to govern the process of a revolution.

Planning The planning regarding my thesis is as follow:

Augustus - September 2013: searching for a thesis topic and NGO/organisation where I can work with, while conducting some interviews already. October - half November 2013: writing thesis proposal mid November 2013 – end February 2014: field work March 2014: writing thesis (April 2014 – September 2014: Internship NCP & permaculture course) Mid October 2014 – February 2015: Writing the thesis

Acknowledgements First of all I’d like to thank my supervisor Pieter de Vries for allowing me to follow my curiosity, as a scientist without a plan in advance. Second, I’d like to thank all the respondents in Indonesia, those who I’ve quoted in this thesis, as well as those who shared their stories with me that went beyond the scope of this study – still they have all inspired me and taught me so much and for that I am so grateful. I’d like to thanks all the people who helped me with the interviews and info: Adi, Carly, Blanka & Patrick and all the members of IDEP. Moreover, many thanks those all those who inspired me and taught me so much: Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Naomi Klein, Michel Foucault and many others; those who gave me the strength, inspiration and energy to continue on the road with sometimes very challenging moments: Louis Armstrong, Harry Belafonte, Bob Marley, Ralph Smart, Krishnamurti, the Tao and Mette – and my friends, OB1 and family : )

Chapter 2. Going back in history: ‘How to feed the world’ in the 1940s

 Control the discourse: ‘Relieve the famine of half the world’  Control the government and the economy: USA-backed Shock Doctrine, Indonesia  1. Understanding reality, creating reality  2 Preparing a military regime and regulating aid  3. Overthrow of the government: the shock of 1965  4. ‘We are the winners, so we make the history’  A country in shock and the corporate take-over of Indonesia  Control the people: push through the Green Revolution.

It is not the first time in history that concerns were raised regarding worldwide food security. In this chapter, I will show how the question of ‘How to feed the World’ was addressed in the 1940s. This question turned out not to be coming from America’s ‘warm heart’ responding to mass starvation – rather is was the first part of a method used to gain control over a resource- rich country. After creating this reality of ‘a famine of half the world’ in the West, the second step was a USA-backed Shock Doctrine in Indonesia in 1965, after which a pro-American military dictatorship was imposed, allowing the corporate take-over of Indonesia and its transformation of its economy into a free-market economy. After control was gained over Indonesia’s government and economy, the third step was to gain control over its production and its people. This was achieved by the USA with food as a weapon: pushing through the well prepared Green Revolution. With this story I hope to demonstrate that the question ‘how to feed the world’ was not really a question. Rather it was part of a method where ‘the weapon is food’ - and this weapon was a lethal one: it required the massacre of 2 million people.

Control the discourse: ‘Relieve the famine of half the world’ As early as 1946, one year after WWII (one of the biggest ‘crisis’ in history), USA President Harry S. Truman warned about a coming famine of half the world. ‘Surely we will not turn our backs on the millions of human beings begging for just a crust of bread. The warm heart of America will respond to the greatest threat of mass starvation in the history of mankind. (…) The United States is determined to do everything in its power to relieve the famine of half the world.’xxiii In his 1949 Inaugural Address, Truman expanded his concern into a plan of action, the so called Point Four Program. He said that in order to stop the spread of Communism, America was prepared to transfer its ‘imponderable resources in technical knowledge’, especially agricultural technology, to hungry countries around the world and ‘foster capital investment’ in cooperation with business, private capital, agriculture and labour in order to ‘increase industrial activity in other nations’. Moreover, the US would ‘carry out our plans for reducing the barriers to world trade and increasing its volume.’xxiv These two speeches by the American President, show linkage between several concepts,

which are very important to keep in mind: the (threat of a) world famine, the determination of the USA to do something about this, the transfer of agricultural knowledge, the actions to foster capital investment and transform countries towards industrial activity (so called ‘modernisation’) and lastly carrying out plans for reducing barriers to world trade. This goes in one line ‘against the spread of communism’. After the WWII, the USA had to find ways to keep this power in their hands. Food aid and economic aid, was not distributed due to America’s ‘warm heart’. A confidential memorandum, dating from February 1950, to USA President Truman states:

‘Two economic facts of international significance have emerged during the post-war period which stand out above all others. One is the tremendous increase of production in the United States. The other is the heavy dependence of the rest of the world on this production. (…) The pre-war pattern of trade has been greatly altered. We have been able to maintain the flow of our products to meet these foreign needs only in part through the normal economic processes of international trade, public and private investment, gold purchase and the like. About one-third of total foreign requirements has been sustained by huge grants of extraordinary foreign assistance, in amounts surpassing the total of our annual reports before the war. (…) A decline in our foreign trade, which is likely to take place in the absence of corrective action on our part, is large enough to jeopardize our political and security interests in Europe and elsewhere. We therefore must continue to maintain in the United States a high level of production and exports (…) The use of extraordinary financial assistance is closely related to the achievement of our [USA] political and security objectives.’xxv

As I’m writing this thesis, I’m sitting in a library in Ubud, the ‘city of Art’ in Bali, Indonesia. Although Bali looks like a touristic heaven now, most tourist are unaware of what happened on some 60 years ago when hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and slaughtered here on this island within one year. When I started to dive into this history, I came across a bizarre story - it seems there was something more behind America’s ‘warm heart’, responding to a ‘famine of half the world.’

One year before Truman’s Inaugural Address, George Kennan, one of the chief architects of US policy, described Indonesia as ‘the most crucial issue of the moments in our struggle with the Kremlin.’ The real reason of Indonesia being a specific target of the Kennan administration, was the fact that the country was considered at the forefront of the struggle for freedom from colonial rule. Since the Dutch had lost authority in 1945, Kennan described the situation in Indonesia lay ‘between Republican sovereignty and chaos’, the latter meaning ‘an open door to communism’. Kennan emphasised that ‘it would only be a matter of time before the infection would sweep westward’ throughout all South Asia.xxvi This spread of communism would mean an end to the access of the US to Southeast Asian resources. Resource rich Indonesia was a specific concern, since its raw materials were intended to be used for the reconstruction of Japan, which was under control of a US-dominated system.xxvii xxviii

After Indonesia’s independence from the Dutch in 1949, nationalist leader Sukarno focussed on rebuilding and developing Indonesia by depending on its own resources, redistributing the wealth, nationalizing Dutch holdings and replacing ‘colonial economy’ by a ‘national economy’. Both pre-colonial states and colonial regimes instituted changes over time, some of which radical ones, to structures and systems of access to agricultural land over large parts of Indonesia. Therefore, many post-colonial peasants, activists and policy-makers under the Soekarno regime felt it imperative to introduce agrarian reforms to correct some of the distortions introduced by earlier feudal and colonial regimes – Indonesia was in a process of recovery, and that is very important to keep in mind.xxix An Indonesian farmer, Pak Sunarka, explained to me: “Imagine, we were colonized for such a long time by the foreign countries: Portugal, England, then more than 300 years by Netherlands, and then again by Japan… can you imagine how devastated our country is?! So Soekarno focused in rebuilding it, to make our country independent. If he had not lose his power that fast, without foreign interventions, I am sure that Indonesia will be the richest country - just see around you, we are very rich in resources: minerals, gas, oil, fertile lands, labour..”xxx

This nationalization heightened anxieties for foreign enterprises as well, while it made the farmers and workers feel powerful for the first time after many decades of suppression. After hundreds of years of colonisation, peasants starting to feel more and more freed from colonial rule, from landlords and bosses, while being more motivated to produce, since now, at last, they themselves would benefit from their own labour. Sukarno was dedicated to resist what he called ‘Nekolim’ (neo-colonialists-imperialists) of the Westxxxi. As he explained in 1959, the Indonesian ‘revolution’ had not been designed for the archipelago ‘to become a place for land grabbing riches for whomsoever’. Indonesia ‘must completely leave all the constructions of the liberal world and (…) must replace them with the foundations of guided democracy and guided economy.’xxxii Internal politics focussed on balancing the two major power centres in Indonesia – the anti-communist army and the communist party PKI (Partai Komunis Indonesia). Soekarno started to enact laws on crop sharing and on land reform, favouring tenant farmers and landless peasants. xxxiiiAlthough he was not a communist, but an Indonesian nationalistxxxiv, these laws were supported by the PKI. Even conservative experts on Indonesia describe how the PKI’s strength was based on the fact that it really did represent the interests of the poor. Whereas peasants were always treated as objects, not as subjects of politics, the ‘PKI’s appeal to the peasants is based not exclusively on obvious agrarian grievances, but also on recognition of their human dignity and cultural importance in the national community’.xxxvAll could feel the power shifting from those who controlled towards those who worked the fields. Whereas the communist party the PKI and president Sukarno were concerned with redistributing the wealth and nationalizing Dutch holdings in order to develop Indonesia in a self-sufficient way, the focus of the West (mainly the USxxxvi and the UKxxxvii) was completely directed towards creating and keeping access to Indonesia’s resources.

Control the government and the economy: USA-backed Shock Doctrine, Indonesia

1. Understanding reality, creating reality Since the 1950s, the US substantially increased government funding for Southeast Asian studies, and Indonesian studies in particular. Guy Pauker, for example, extensively studied Indonesian politics, especially the PKI. Pauker was a consultant for the CIA- and Ford Foundation sponsored Research And Development (RAND) Corporation, a global policy research institute, offering research and analysis to the United States armed forcesxxxviii xxxix. Pauker’s obtained knowledge on ‘the reality out there’ could then be used by the US for engineering events, producing stories, in short: changing or manipulating ‘the reality out there’. While acquiring knowledge was leading to power, the opposite turned into reality afterwards: the power started to create knowledge. In 1958, a committee appointed by the National Security Council of the US, recommends the US should ‘induce psychological awareness of the menace of Communism on Java and seek to focus world opinion on the Communist menace on Java’xl. While on the one hand efforts were undertaken to suppress communism – the ‘enemy’ of the free market economy – on the other hand, everything was done to enhance the idea of the free market economy. The billion dollar Ford Foundation (in close cooperation with the Rockefeller Foundation) launched its first project to make Indonesia a ‘modernizing country’ by creating a ‘modernizing elite’. In 1954 field projects from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cornell produced scholars in free market economy and political development. Indonesian universities had to use Cornell’s elite-oriented studies to teach post- Independence politics and history. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation facilitated a rapid increase in social scientific research on Indonesia in the United States. Meanwhile in Indonesia, the same foundations also funded participant and educational exchange programs for Indonesian engineers, military personnel, agrarian specialists, teachers technicians and especially also Indonesian economists, who were sponsored to study free market economy at MIT, Cornell, the University of California at Berkeley, and other institutionsxli xlii xliii.In sum, knowledge was first obtained (Baconian knowledge/power) and then constructed (Foucaultian power/knowledge) by the US.

2. Preparing a military regime and regulating aid Besides the gathering of information on Indonesia – especially the political and economic situation, and the creation of knowledge, western aims were largely shared by the Indonesian army. In fact, an US-oriented Indonesian military elite was created by training members of the army either in the US, or in schools like the Army Staff and Command School (SESKOAD) in Bandung, where officers were ‘upgraded’ with manuals and methods picked up during training in Ford Leavenworth, Kansas. In 1958 the same committee that recommended to ‘induce psychological awareness of the menace of communism’, also recommended the US to ‘seek to prevent the growth of the military potential of government forces in Java while at the same time utilizing and supporting the non and anti-Communist forces in the military and para-military forces on Java and in the Central Government [of

Indonesia].’xliv Already in 1959, for example, the Assistant Secretary State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) writes to Secretary of State Dulles to increase the military financing for ‘Presidential Determination’ from $7,2 million to $15.0 million, since he believes this support to be: “essential to the success of our policy in Indonesia that we respond favourably and quickly to the Indonesian Army’s request that we furnish this basic equipment for 20 infantry battalions. The Army with a strength of about 200,000 men is a potent political force. It is the only force in Indonesia which stands a reasonable chance of being able to stem Communist advances and has made a start in this direction”xlv

This so called ‘military modernization’ theory, a conceptual and policy turn amongst U.S. social scientists and officials in the late 1950s and early 1960s worked towards the embrace of military-led regimes as being the driving force behind political and economic development.xlvi In total, the US government invested 5 million dollar in bringing approximately 2100 Indonesian military personnel to the US for trainingxlvii. This was partly done at the US Army School of the Americas, founded in 1946 (and since 2000 known as US Department of Defence Institute ‘Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation’). During the cold war, the goal of this institute was to teach anti-communist counterinsurgency training to military personnel of the ‘communist’ Third World countries.xlviii xlixMajor Joseph Blair - instructor, US Army School of the Americas from 1986-89 - explains:

‘The doctrine that was taught was that if you want information, you use physical abuse, you use false imprisonment, you use threats to family members, you use virtually any method necessary to get what you want, torture and killing. (…) If there’s someone you don’t want, you kill them. If you can’t get the information you want, if you can’t get that person to shut up or stop what they’re doing, you assassinate them.’ - Major Joseph Blair l

Since 1961, the Kennedy administration expanded and reoriented military and police training and assistance in Indonesia to focus on counterinsurgency and other programs. The aim was to position military personnel in rural areas, where they could both establish closer ties with as well as expand their surveillance and control over the Indonesia’s rural populations in the name of development.li The US was clearly training the army and educating economists in order to take control of the Indonesian society, eradicate communist ideas and thereby open up access to resource rich Indonesia and take control.lii Since the PKI was gaining more and more members and becoming part of Indonesian society, this manipulation of reality seemed to be the only strategy to stop this development.liii

Besides training and sponsorships, a massive amount of aid was part of America’s strategy: during the years before the coup, there was an excessive increase in military aid: 39.5 million dollar went to the Indonesian army, while in that same period there was a gradual but complete cut off of all economic aid from the US to Indonesia in order to put Sukarno under pressure and radically destabilize the Indonesian economy.liv lv Pak Nyoman Rudita told me about that time in 1963. “I had experienced the worse when I was still a child. At that time even to buy peanuts, 5 rupiah, we didn’t have money, it was around 1963. Even if I asked only

1 rupiah to my mom, she never gave me, because we had no money.”2

3. Overthrow of the government: the shock of 1965 Meanwhile in the early sixties, rapid nationalization continued, placing British firms under ‘protective custody’ by the Indonesian government.lvi In 1962, Guy Parker, closely involved in US-policy making, urged his contacts in the Indonesian army to take ‘full responsibility’ for the country, ‘fulfil a mission’, and ‘strike, sweep their house clean.’lvii Tensions were growing stronger between Indonesia and the West. When Soekarno withdrew Indonesia from the United Nations (the first member ever to withdraw from the UN), as well as from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1965, the barriers to world trade were growing stronger as well.lviii Between June 30 and October 1st of 1965, the price of rice quadrupledlix. On August 17, 1965, Soekarno gave a speech suggesting that Indonesia should join anti-imperialist alliance with other Asian communist regimes. This was the biggest fear of the USA president at that time, Lyndon B. Johnson. Weeks after Soekarno’s speech, the ‘reality out there’ was created: six top Army officers were killed and it was claimed that the PKI-members were behind the killings. Pro-American General Soeharto took over and together with his army, paramilitaries, gangsters and youth groups, like Pemuda Pancasila, he presided over the slaughter of approximately 2 million landless peasants, activists and intellectuals.lx lxi lxii But not only the communist party, PKI, was hunted - members of BTI (Indonesian Farmer’s Union), SOBSI (Indonesian Workers Union), LEKRA (Indonesian People’s Culture Institute), Gerwani (Indonesian Women’s Movement) and the youth organization Permuda Rakyat (The People’s Youth) were all targeted in the initial arrests and imprisonments.lxiii Large numbers of academic staff were expelled from their campuses - some never returned, others returned under severe constraints, including regular interrogation and travel restrictions. Military interrogation centres were present near or even on campuses to assure control.lxiv More than a hundred thousand Indonesian people were imprisoned and transported to labour camps or death camps.lxv lxvi In Bali alone, between 80.000 and 200.000 people were ‘clubbed and chopped to death’ (which is between 5% and 12.5% of the total Balinese population in that time).lxvii “They got kidnapped and massacred in another place, I don’t know where”, the 53 year old farmer Sunarka told me. “In every village there were intelligent agents. At that time we called them ‘tameng’, now its ‘hansip’ (pertahanansipil - civil defence).3 These kinds of organisations were all closely connected to the military. “South of my village, there were people being taken by the police, I don’t know where they brought them to, and then they got slaughtered…” (…) I want to tell you something - I remember, before that event, it was already on in the media. I often heard in the radio they said ‘erase… erase PKI!’, but then we think that they meant to erase the party itself, not the people. That was still in Soekarno time.. but then I don’t know why, people got massacred. It’s really wrong, it was in time of shift from Soekarno to Soeharto…4

2 Interview with Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. A 67 years old man from Tampak Siring, Gianyar, Bali, who is selling souvenirs during day and being a farmer in the evening. 3 Interview with Sunarka (53year old), 19th November 2013 at Banjar Selah, BuahanKajaVillage, Payangan District, Gianyar Regency, Bali, Indonesia. 4 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 14

Suharto and the army went on to compile a world-class record of terror, aggression, massacre and torture.lxv Time magazine described that ‘travellers from these areas tell of small rivers and streams that have been literally clogged with bodies; river transportation has at places been seriously impeded.’lxviiiThe Clinton administration has described Suharto as ‘our kind of guy.’lxix UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher reminded Soeharto as ‘One of our very best and most valuable friends.’lxx She praised Indonesia’s agriculture and industrial development as well as the newly introduced free market economy:

‘Trade brings us together and identifies our interests, and I am sure that trade between Indonesia and Britain will increase as a result of the very friendly and warm atmosphere created by my visit here. We are clearly the best of friends and there is no sounder basis on which to construct future collaboration.’lxxi

Ralph McGehee, a senior CIA operations officer in the 1960s, described the horrors of Soeharto’s takeover of Indonesia in 1965-6 as the model of operation for the USA-backed coup that got rid of Allende in Chile seven years later, followed by the pro-American dictator Pinochet.lxxii Like Pinochet in Chile, Soeharto instituted a repressive regime in Indonesia that lasted until 1998.lxxiii Killings and torture were part of this regime, also after the shock of 1965. In 1969 for example, new reports circulated about mass executions of political prisoners. Local civic guards were said to have killed some 3500 alleged followers of the PKI by means of blows of iron staves in the neck.lxxiv But also later, in the 1970s, Indonesia still had tens of thousands of untried political prisoners.lxxv And the ‘shock effect’ is still present in Indonesian society. “I have to shut my mouth whatever happens, it’s better to be uninvolved in anything, because if I get involved, it will be difficult, what if the same thing (1965) happens today? People don’t know anything, they got accused, and killed.. I don’t want that, it’s better to be safe…”5

4. ‘We are the winners, so we make the history’. In the recent documentary film ‘The Act of Killing’, the gangsters Adi Zulkadry and Anwar Congo from the paramilitary demonstrated in detail and full of pride how they had ‘saved the country from communists’ by killing them with iron wire, or crushing their heads under the table.lxxvi Besides the description of the history, they also justified their actions as saving the country from communists. ‘We are the winners, so we make the history.’lxxvii History was made by the winners who were creating discourses about communists, e.g. by creating the movie ‘Pengkhianatan G30 S/PKI’lxxviii where communists were slaughtering parents of innocent children – the official history of Indonesia, as well as the exact opposite of what truly happened in 1965. The movie was written and directed by Arifin C. Noer, a film producer who participated in the International Writing Program in the USA some years before the release of the film. Umar Kayam is an Indonesian sociologist who is starring in the movie. He had graduated from the Gadjah Mada University (part of a USA Land Grant University project since the 1950slxxix lxxx), he had received his M.A. from the University of New York, USA in 1963 and received a PhD from Cornell University, USA, in 1965. The

5 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 15

movie, portraying the official history, was shown to children at schools in Indonesia every year until the end of Soeharto’s power in 1998. When we asked a farmer about the slaughter of 1965, he answered it was good to get rid of those bad guys: “There was a ‘cleansing’ of dirty people, those who opposed the traditions and religions. I don’t understand fully, but if it’s to cleanse the society from dirty people, its good - those who acted like animals, who did not put respect, rejected traditions and religions.”lxxxi Power keeps specific versions of history alive for decades. “Communism will never be accepted here, because we have so many gangsters, and that’s a good thing.”6

Likewise in USA, the media hardly covered the events of 1965, and when it did, the victims were usually described merely as ‘Communists and sympathizers’lxxxii. Moreover, the killings were explained as ‘conflicts over land [which] release man’s “fighting instincts”’lxxxiii – hence the emphasis on the danger of overpopulation and the necessity of the USA to ‘feed the world’. The exact role of the US in the coup of 1965 is unknown. In 1990 however, a study by Kathy Kadane found that the US government provided the Indonesian army with a list of 5000 names of Communist Party leaders, that they later checked off the names from the people who were either killed or captured.lxxxiv

5. A country in shock and the corporate take-over of Indonesia All these killings, but especially also the massive torture results in a country being in ‘shock’: not many people dare to oppose the ruling government anymore. Unfortunately, Indonesia’s story behind this ‘shock’ is not a unique one: subsidizing students to study free market economy in the USA, training an army that then creates a state of shock in the country by not only killing people, but torturing them and making thousands of opponents of the free market economy ‘disappear’, looks exactly like what happened in Iran (1953), Guatemala 1954, Brazil (1964), in Chile (1973), in Argentina (1976), and in many other countries.lxxxv Over and over, history shows how the USA and UK are (strongly) involved in the rise of a pro- Western military dictatorship, in order to push through the free market economy, thereby creating access to and gaining control over the country’s resources. The idea came from Milton Friedman, an economic teacher at the University of Chicago. In a personal letter to the Chilean dictator Pinochet, Friedman encouraged him to the “removal of as many obstacles as possible that now hinder the private markets.”lxxxvi Friedman believed that economic shock therapy could encourage societies to accept a pure reform of deregulated capitalism: ‘Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change’, he said.lxxxvii Arnold Harberger, an economics professor on the same university explains:

‘Economic technocrats may be able to structure a tax reform here, a new social security law there, or a modified exchange rate regime somewhere else, but they really never have the luxury of a clean state on which to set up, in full flower as it were, their complete preferred economic policy framework’ lxxxviii– Arnold Harberger, University of Chicago economics professor, 1998.

6 Governor of North Sumatra, Syamsul Arifin, 2013. Quoted from The Act of Killing. 16

According to the ‘Chicago boys’ the free market economy is a perfect scientific system where individuals are able to express their absolute free will through their consumer choices and thereby creating the maximum benefits for all. According to them, without any intervention by the government, people are free to trade with whoever offers the most advantageous terms, resources will be used efficiently, and a higher standard of living will be realized. ‘As consumers, buying in an international market, the more unfair the competition the better, that means lower prices, and better quality for us [the Americans]. If foreign governments want to use their tax payers money to sell to people in the United States goods below costs, why lxxxix should we complain?’ – Milton Friedman. Neither did Nixon complain. Two years after Comment [HE1]: Ja, dit is letterlijk wat hij zei, zie ook het transcript: the Indonesian massacre, Richard Nixon – the yet to be President of USA after the http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/broadcas ts/freetochoose/detail_ftc1990_transcript.ph assassination of Robert Kennedy – stated in 1967: p?page=2 Het gaat hem hier niet zozeer over export subsidies – eerder dat we niet over ‘The U.S. presence has provided tangible and highly visible proof that communism is ‘oneerlijke competitie’ moeten klagen en de internationale vrije markt moeten omarmen. not necessarily the wave of Asia's future. This was a vital factor in the turnaround in Indonesia, where a tendency toward fatalism is a national characteristic. It provided a (Comment Pieter: Wie zegt dit, Milton Friedman? Lijkt me sterk dat de shield behind which the anti- communist forces found the courage and the capacity to voorvechter van open markten en kleine overheden export subsidies in stage their counter- coup (…) With its 100 million people and its 3,000-mile arc of ontwikkelingslanden zou verdedigen.) islands containing the region’s richest hoard of natural resources, Indonesia constitutes by far the greatest prize in the South East Asia area’xc

In November 1967, the greatest prize was handed out at the three-day Indonesian Investment Conference led by David Rockefeller. All the main corporations were present – major oil companies, banks, General Motors, Imperial Chemical Industries, US Steel Corporation, Aluminum Company of America, British American Tobacco, American Express, Siemens, Philips etc. On the same table sat Suharto’s economic team called ‘the Berkeley Mafia’, trained in the US and now agreeing on the corporate takeover of Indonesia. They divided into different sectors: mining, food services, light industry, banking and finance – all in different rooms. Simultaneously, they started hammering out different policies, They started to rewrite Indonesia’s investment laws to create a ‘favourable climate for investment’, after which foreign corporations soon returned to exploit the cheap labour and laborious working class.xciThe economic development by a capitalist mode of production became the ‘grammar of talk’; it was set as a reference point from where and to where every discourse should be directed. Multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank were welcomed back in Indonesia, offering loans on the condition that the country will privatize the economy and allow Western corporations free access to their raw materials and markets. In 1966, Soeharto had even made a constitution which states that Indonesia had to pay back the war debt of the Dutch to the IMF, which the Dutch had used to occupy Indonesia. “It is so ironic, they lend money to buy the weapons to massacre us, exploit us - and we have to pay their debt…”xcii In his documentary The New Rulers of The World, John Pilger explains how “Up to a third of the banks loans to the dictatorship of general Soeharto, went into the pockets of his cronies and corrupt officials. That’s around 8 billion dollars.(…) The poor get poorer, as their jobs and public services are cut back in order to pay just the interest on debt owed by their governments to the World Bank.”xciii This debt is used as an instrument in order for the IMF and the World Bank to get their policies implemented in many Developing Countries. 17

Suharto, calling himself the ‘father of Development’, granted contracts to foreign corporations for mining Indonesia’s natural wealth (copper, nickel, hardwood, rubber and oil), opening up new markets, and using the local people as cheap labour both in the rural areas or in the cities’ sweatshops, where workers often get paid the minimum wage of 1 dollar a day and sometimes having to work shifts of 35 hours with just a few hours as a breakxciv xcv.Land was taken from the people and so was their livelihood: ‘foreign capital seems to be interested at present primarily in extractive industries, which can only provide employment for a very small fraction of the excess population’.xcviLooking back at Indonesia after the 1965 killings, an Indonesian worker commented:

‘The military regime borrowed billions from rich countries, from private banks, the IMF, and the World Bank. (…) What does ‘development’ mean?! The banks loan money for tanks, fighter planes, and landmines to suppress social movements. They loan money to expand businesses that are already big, killing smaller, local businesses. They loan money so rich people can take land from the poor. Replacing their rice and vegetables with palm oil and rubber for export to rich countries. They loan money for pesticides that poison us.’ xcvii

The sovereign power had the right to decide life and death: ‘take life or let live’xcviii. Direct death since the coup in 1965, and indirect death by exposing people to dangerous life or taking away their livelihood. But a country in shock, the core of the pro-worker and pro- farmer ‘communists’ being tortured and wiped out, a corporate take-over, massive land grabbing and a push through of the free economy in Indonesia was not enough to gain complete control over the country, its markets and resources. The shock doctrine is the way to take over the government, and reform the economy – but markets involve people. How could the USA take control over the people of such an enormous country? The answer is food. And food, as the American Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, said in 1974: ‘Food is a Weapon’xcix. And it’s a lethal one – it required the massacre of 2 million people in Indonesia.

Control the people: Pushing through the Green Revolution (‘BIMAS’) The Green Revolution was promoted and enforced in Indonesia through the government program called BIMAS (Bimbingan Massal – Mass Guidance), implemented by the central government’s agricultural extension service, whose top men were trained by an AID-funded University of Kentucky program. c As described before, the coup d’état started on the 30th September of the year 1965.

‘It was also the year in which BIMAS was born.’ci

While massive torture, killings, rape and kidnapping were taking place, 1500 students were send to the villages in 18 out of 25 provinces in Indonesia to push through the Green Revolution: “In spite of the turmoil which followed [after 30th September 1965], BIMAS was implemented.” In the years following, more and more people from extension services and koperta workers were assigned to implement BIMAS. The ‘Green Revolution’ was introduced with its main goal: increasing yield by introducing chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides and hybrid seeds of the so called ‘High Yielding Varieties’ (HYV) – although a more appropriate term would be ‘High-Responsive Varieties’ (HRV)cii. In order to produce high yields, these hybrids namely require far more inputs than traditional varieties such as intensified irrigation, herbicides, pesticides, and/or chemical fertilizers. “Only foreign assistance can satisfy this need,”ciii which is why the US Agency for International Development emphasises in 1968 already the need to provide loans with interest “to finance exports of American Fertilizer: $200 million to India, $60 million to Pakistan, and lesser amounts to Brazil, Chile, Morocco, Tunisia, Indonesia, and Laos, among others.”civ Average annual quantity of kg fertilizer per hectare of cropland in Indonesia increased from 5.92 kg in 1961-1965 to 61.36 in 1981-1985. That is more than a thousand percent increase in the use of fertilizer per hectare of cropland.cv

The seeds of the High Responsive Varieties, were developed at the International Rice Research Centre (IRRI), a research centre of the University UPCA in the Philippines. Both the university, as well as the research institute were founded with American dollars: The UPCA was founded by the American colonial government in 1909, and the IRRI was founded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations in 1960 – five years before the coup in Indonesia. The Rockefeller foundation moreover helped funding training programs for the university’s researches. From 1947 to 1958, a total of 146 faculty members had been granted MS and PhD scholarships in US universities.cvi

In fact, not only the path towards a the free market economy and a suppressive military regime was well planned by the USA years in advance of the coup d’état – so was the introduction of Green Revolution. The BIMAS program was developed at the Agriculture Faculty of University Indonesia (UI) in Bogor, which was part of a US program. Since the 1950s, the U.S. Department of State sponsored, through its Foreign Operations Administration and successor agencies, like USAID, programs supporting the development of universities of developing countries - Latin America, Africa and Asia - through contracts primarily with the Land Grant Universities of the United States.cvii Dean Rusk, then President

of the Rockefeller Foundation (later to be USA Secretary of State from 1961-1969) once called this one of the really good ideas, both in concept and execution. cviii Most of these contracts were terminated at the early 1970s, when the Green Revolution had entered the world – ‘Some believed that the job of building universities had been done and it was time to move on to other matters.’cix

During the projects, various North American Land Grant Universities established affiliation programs with Indonesian faculties. Since 1957, for example, the University of Kentucky team (‘Kenteam’) went to the Agriculture Faculty of University Indonesia (UI) in Bogor, while 219 of Indonesian staff were sent to the USA to study agriculture.cx cxi At the UI Bogor, new agricultural faculties were established, and library support in agrarian science was contributed by the Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs (CECA; later re-named the Agricultural Development Council, ADC), established by John D. Rockefeller III in 1953, with its primary objective the development and training in agricultural economics in Asia. Upon request by Indonesian universities, books on social organization or social change, however, turned out not to be granted by CECA. What council did provide, were teaching materials in the rural social sciences through a program initiated with a Ford Foundation grant to CECA in 1963. The program involved the collection and distribution of materials relating to agricultural development. The three staff members of this project were all North American, as was its advisory board of six representatives of US universities and foundations. cxii The most influential product of this program was the first commissioned book, written by the CECA-ADC Director, A. T. Mosher. The book, entitled Getting Agriculture Moving: Essentials for Development and Modernization (Mosher 1965), was translated into numerous languages, including Bahasa Indonesia. It completely reflects the dominant modernization theory in rural development discourse, as well as the new focus on the ‘green revolution package’ of productivity-enhancing measures, the ‘five accelerators’ of agricultural modernization. Moreover, it reflected the shift, both by governments and donors, away from politically difficult measures like land reform.

The name to this agricultural modernization – the Green Revolution - was given by the director of United States Agency for International Development, William S. Gaud, in 1968 who celebrated efforts of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations in transforming Third World agriculture through the introduction of chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides, and hybrid seeds:

“Throughout much [of] the developing world - and particularly in Asia - we are on the verge of an agricultural revolution (…) It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution.”cxiii

It was thus in the middle of the cold war that the Green Revolution was born. In his detailed study on agricultural development in Indonesia, Pauker describes how the Green Revolution is the most strategic path to modernize the rural population. As a result they would no longer be susceptible to Communist propagandacxiv. He continued stating that a widespread use of

the Green Revolution could in fact reverse the population growth exceeding that of agricultural output, and give Indonesia time to seek the only solution effective in the long run: ‘transfer of surplus agricultural labor into secondary and tertiary production’.cxv The Green Revolution, being nothing else than a capitalist mode of economic development, was turned into a reality of being the only solution to all problems faced by the Indonesian nation.cxvi Problems with unequal distribution among the population, for example, were not regarded as important.cxvii In his era of ‘New Order’, President Suharto included food security in his economic development policy. “Policies included large state subsidies for agricultural inputs, intervention in markets for food staples, and the promotion of Green Revolution crop varieties.”cxviii Agricultural agents were given a monopoly in the sale of seed and the buying of rice, which puts them in a natural alliance with the local military commanders - often controlling the rice transport business. Peasants had to fully cooperate, if not, they were accused of ‘sabotaging a national program’ and thus of being communists.cxix Farmers were forbidden to plant local varieties, and instead were forced to grow the ‘miracle seeds’ of the Green Revolution: the hybrid seeds of High Yielding Varieties (HYV)cxx Traditional local practices, knowledge and materials were replaced by new hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and machinery. Without the Green Revolution, Pauker writes, social, economic and political problems are likely to arise, like the ones during the time of Sukarno and the PKI.cxxi This development discourse, stating western economic development to be the only solution, became a regime of truth, pervading society deeper and deeper.

Due to the introduction of the Green Revolution, the sovereign right to ‘take life or let live’cxxii was now replaced by a power to ‘foster life or disallow it to the point of death’cxxiii and thereby the goal of gaining control over the people, according to the political or economic usefulness of their life (or death)cxxiv, was achieved. The Indonesian government, its economy and its people were now under control by the West.

Chapter 3. The impact on the peoples’ life.  Their Stories about the Green Revolution  Impact on Food Sovereignty  1. Access to seeds  2 The ‘increased’ yield  3. Diversity and yield  4. The storage of food  5. From secure trade to an insecure free market economy  Returning to the debate: ‘How to feed the world’ – again?

During my stay in Indonesia I have spoken to many different people about this topic of my thesis: university teachers, activists at the WTO demonstration, activists trying to discover the locations of the mass graves (‘Taman 65’), farmers, priests, artists and musicians trying to prevent the selling of land, taxi drivers, street sellers, people from the government, people living in the slum next to the garbage dump, people from NGOs and I went to prison – to visit a permaculture garden inside and speak to the inmates. Unfortunately, I cannot describe all their stories in detail here. I am also aware that it is impossible to describe the complete impact of the Green Revolution in this one thesis, since this could fill an entire library on a diverse range of topics. But even though it is impossible to make it a ‘complete’ story, I still find it very important to provide a summary of the stories that these people have shared with me. I want to have their voices heard, because they underline the necessity of rethinking the question ‘How to feed the world’.

The first farmer I spoke to in Bali was Dr. Ir. Ibu Kartini, a 54 year old senior lecturer of Udayana University, Bali, who is also a farmer and now the director of Bali Organic Association. She is an inspiring woman, and very passionate about sustainable agriculture. I combined her story with that of:

Pak Sunaka, a 53 years old, very wise and inspiring Balinese organic farmer from Banjar Selah, Buahan Village, Payangan, to whom we have spoken for many hours, multiple days. “Actually, we’ve been practicing organic practices since the old times, that’s our original practices.”7 He owns 0.5 hectares for white rice, 0.25 hectare for red rice and 0.5 hectare of dry lands. Moreover, he has some pigs, cows, chickens and ducks. Moreover, he is an extension agent, part of the Internal Control System, giving trainings about organic practices once a week;

Ibu Sayu, a Balinese farmer and Permaculture teacher, working for the IDEP foundation;

Pak Roberto Hutabarat, a 42 year old SRI specialist from Java (working in Bali for many years), passionate about promoting Agroecological methods throughout Indonesia;

Pak Ketut (48y) & pak Nyoman (60y), two farmers from Desa taman, Bangli, Bali, who are currently switching from conventional to organic farming. Pak Nyoman has lost all his land, and is currently renting 25 acres for paddy, and one acre for organic experiment. His rent is paid with half of his harvest. Pak Ketut has 16 acre for paddy, one acre of experimental

7 Pak Sunarka, 2013a. First interview at his house in Banjar Selah, Buahan Village, Payangan District, Gianyar Regency, Bali, Indonesia at 19 November 2013. 22

organic. He also rents 25 acres, and then another 15 acres for vegetables, for which he pays the rent with rice.

Pak Wayan Sudira, a 60 year old man from Penestanan, who is working at a parking lot in Ubud, Bali, and still has some land to grow a bit of rice and other food ‘just as a hobby’;

Pak Nyoman Rudita, a 67 years old, very inspiring man from Tampak Siring, Gianyar, Bali, who is selling souvenirs during day and being a farmer in the evening.

Their stories about the Green Revolution Before the Green Revolution, farmers always planted the local varieties in a diverse way, according to the traditional 210 calendar. Ibu Kartini: “We never did monoculture before. We always plant different things in our field.”8 Of course there were animals present - such as grasshoppers, Walang Sangit (‘smelly bugs’) and mice - but they were not considered as a pest. Pak Sunarka: “The ecosystem was still perfect and balanced. (…) Everything has its function, its own role in the Universe.” 9

Then Green Revolution entered Bali in the late 1960s through the government program called BIMAS (Bimbingan Massal – Mass Guidance). Farmers were forbidden to grow the local varieties, and forced to grow the new High Yielding Varieties. The HYV, are in fact High Responsive Varieties, meaning that they can only produce more yield when a higher input is added, namely chemical fertilizer and water. The HYV require a constant and accurate supply of water since the HYV are very susceptible to water stress, ultimately leading to great problems regarding the carefully planned out water distribution. Farmers were encouraged to plant as much rice as possible and abandon the traditional irrigation schedules, the traditional cultivation techniques, the 210 day calendar and rotation cropping patterns which were all part of the traditional rice production. The BIMAS program of the government provided subsidies for the inputs (hybrid seeds, fertilisers, pesticides), and they even provided loans to those who weren’t able to buy the inputs. Government agents were sent to the villages to introduce these new agricultural technologies - sometimes, they were accompanied by one or two guys from the military.cxxv Other farmers were not directly forced, but still experienced it as an obligation to join with the stream. Pak Ketut: “We had to survive, compete with other farmers. If we don’t follow the stream, if we’re slow - using traditional method is slow - only two times harvesting in 1,5 years. So we won’t be able to compete with other farmers. Compared to conventional [agriculture] we won’t stand a chance.”10 In either way, farmers were forced to keep up with their production of rice, even though the traditional cultivation was safer and might even yield more and better quality. Ibu Kartini: “At that time, I noticed something is wrong since our first application of chemical fertilizer. I saw the worms were dying (…) Since the Green Revolution, everything started to change. First, they introduced the chemical fertilizers [urea] to us, but it did not work because the local varieties are not responsive to the chemicals. Then they told us to plant hybrid seeds of new varieties, what they called High Yielding Varieties [produced at the International Rice Research Centre, IRRI]. Then our production increased, but the other problem came: the new varieties somehow attract pests like we never had it before.”11 Losses

8 Ibu Kartini, 54 years old. Interview at Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali at 23rd September, 2013 9 Pak Sunarka, 2013a. Ibid. 10 Pak Ketut, 48 years old. Interview at Des ataman Bali, Banjar Dadya, Bangli, Bali, Indonesia at 22 November 2013. 11 Ibu Kartini, 2013. Ibid. 23

in 1977 due to the brown plant hopper (Nilaparvata lugens) were over 2 million tons of rice - enough to have fed six million people for a year.cxxvi In order to combat those pests, the government started to push through new chemical pesticides. Extension agents came to the villages to explain how to use it. Pak Nyoman Rudita: “They told us how to use it when they gave it to us, but how am I supposed to remember that? Most of the farmers in my village, they just spray as long as they still have pesticides. There are manual instructions on the package, but people like me, illiterate, can’t even read…what can I do? I asked to my friends, and they are having the same problem, so we just follow each other.”12 Pak Sunarka: “There was this program that made us spray often, once in two weeks - even if there was no pests or disease we still had to spray.” 13 Pak Wayan Sudira: “The government pushed it, it means its obligatory. So I could not do anything! First the government gave the chemicals for free, then they subsidised it, but then now [2014] it became more and more expensive. What can I do? I don’t have money for that, it’s better for me to use the money for buying food.”14

Via government programs, more and more new chemicals were introduced, such as chemical fertilizers like TSP (triple superphosphate) and NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium), and chemical pesticides, like Aldrin, Diazinon and also Endrin: an insecticide/rodenticide which is a persistent organic pollutant and carcinogenic to humans – nowadays banned in most countriescxxvii cxxviii. The government didn’t just want to manage, but to completely exterminate the pests. Therefore programmes in the 1980s required farmers to spray every two weeks, with or without pests present on the field. “Pesticides became one of main inputs, farmers started to be dependent, they even got sick, poisoned, but they still had to do that because the pests were so intensive.”15 All the farmers confirm this how pesticide use causes a wide variety of health effects, like nausea, dizziness, and even poisoning. Ibu Sayu ended up in the hospital for one week, after being exposed to pesticides, when she was mapping in conventional agriculture, 11 years ago. “In Giangar hospital they said ‘heart failure’ and then they sent me to Denpasar. And then in Denpasar, they said there is some poison in my long.”16 But also indirectly, pesticides had effect on the peoples’ health. “There is chemical residue, its bitter, and if we eat that we will feel nausea and if we eat a lot we will throw up, or it can even be deadly.”17 Meanwhile the chemical fertilizers were exhausting and the soil and destroying the soil life, and the HYV were rapidly removing micronutrients from the soil, causing micronutrient deficienciescxxix.

Also other new varieties of rice were introduced which were claimed to have more yield and a shorter growing cycle. On the website of IRRI, it says: IRRI and Indonesia’s partnership covers breeding rice varieties with high yield potential, grain quality, and resistance to pests. Until 2009, more than 30 hybrid varieties of IRRI were released in Indonesia.cxxx Moreover, the Indonesian government forced farmers to use certified seeds: “It means that even if there is new seed, it cannot be used if it doesn’t have certification from the government. Using seeds that were not from the government was not allowed.” 18

12 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 13 Pak Sunarka, 2013a. Ibid. 14 Pak Wayan Sudira, 60 years old. Lives in Penestanan Ubud, Bali. Interview at parking lot in Ubud, Bali at 31st December 2013. 15 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Second interview at his house in Banjar Selah, Buahan Village, Payangan District, Gianyar Regency, Bali, Indonesia at 26 November 2013. 16 Ibu Sayu. Interview at IDEP Foundation, Bali at 13th December 2013. 17 Pak Sunarka, 2013a. Ibid. 18 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 24

All in all, the traditional type of food production was completely changed: “We started to exploit the land by planting rice all year long, three even four times a year, and we stopped planting other plants like horticulture: cassava, water spinach, corn, onion, garlic, beans, even legumes to be used as organic fertilizer.”19 Ibu Kartini: “Our production increased, we started having more than we need for our consumption, so we started selling to other regions and make money. But then as time went by, problems started showing up one by one, and it still keeps going on up till now. Look at our soil, our water, our environment - we are losing our traditions, our old varieties and our harmony with nature. Look at our farmers who are busy competing, monopolizing and ‘killing’ each other, land grabbing, our war with nature which now we consider as our enemy. Many of the farmers complained about their health because of their long-term exposure to the chemicals, not to mention the occurrence of other actors - especially corporations - in the chain, which are always exploiting small farmers”20

Impact on Food Sovereignty “Food Sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just incomes to all peoples as well as the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition.” - Declaration of Nyéléni, 2007cxxxi. From all the people I’ve spoken to in Bali, there are some main conclusions that can be drawn from their stories, related to the impact of the Green Revolution on food sovereignty.

1. Access to seeds

In Bali, every Banjar (a community of people) has a subak (a group who made agreements amongst each other about what to plant, which kind of seeds to use, agreements about irrigation etc.) Before the Green Revolution, this is Adat, a kind of internal government, which officially has complete autonomy of the state. Ibu Sayu: “From what I know from my grandma – people didn’t really care about the structure of government. Everything was internal government.”21 After the 1970s, however, these agreements were taken over by Dinas, the structure government. People have to first send a request to the Dinas Pertanian (service Agriculture of government), and then they will say what to plant, when to plant, which fertilizer to use etc. Up until now, people are very scared to save seeds or obtain again their local seed varieties from hybrid seeds. “They are afraid about the permission, about everything!”22 If farmers want to get back the local gene of the eggplant, for example, they can take a hybrid eggplant and plant for two years. In the fifth generation, you can obtain the local gene again, the local variety. Up until that moment however, it is illegal. “Actually IDEP and some friends are afraid that one company that produce the hybrid will come to IDEP and then send me to the jail like that, because there’s many cases like that! Many cases in Java, that someone makes their own seeds from hybrid seeds. Then the company came and send the farmers to the jail.” 23 Even though there are no regulations on the local seeds,

19 Pak sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 20 Ibu Kartini, Ibid. 21 Ibu Sayu, 2013 Ibid. 22 Ibu Sayu, 2013 Ibid. 23 Ibu Sayu, 2013 Ibid. 25

people are still very afraid to save seeds, because they don’t know the regulations and are afraid that they will be thrown in jail. This fear is spread and incited via government extension agents as well as via the news on television: “It’s very political there [Java]. They [the companies] give money to the law and then send these farmers to the jail.”24

2. The ‘increased’ yield.

‘US$1.46 billion a year - that's how much more worth of rice farmers are harvesting in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia at the least, thanks to IRRI's improved rice varieties.’ – IRRI website 2014.cxxxii

There is no doubt about it that the absolute rice production in Indonesia increased rapidly since 1967 (see Fig.3). However, the stories of the farmers brought up some very important things to realise about this increase in yield. First, before the Green Revolution, farmers in Indonesia used their land for a diverse range of products, like cassava, water spinach, corn, onion, garlic, beans, legumes. After the GR, however, this same land was then used for a monoculture of rice. The diverse range of food crops was thus by large replaced by a monoculture of cash crops (rice). Obviously this meant ‘more rice’ grown at that field – but this is then not the result of an increased yield due to the GR ‘miracle seeds’. As you can see, the total paddy area harvested, increased significantly as well (see Fig.3).

Second, the High Yielding Varieties, are in fact High Responsive Varieties or - as IRRI describes it on its website: ‘rice varieties with a high yield potential’cxxxiii. This means that the varieties can only produce more yield when a higher input (water, fertilizer as well as pesticides) is added (see also Fig.3). National fertilizer consumption, for example, increased 3.000 percent from 1961 to 2009. Roughly 52 per cent of it was used for the production of rice.cxxxiv It should be realised that this input was subsidised and even loans were provided by the government. “The government program, they gave us the chemicals and seeds for free as donation in the beginning.”25 This money came from the U.S.A., the IMF and the World Bank.cxxxv In other words the obtained higher yield didn’t come miraculously: it was indirectly paid for with billions of US dollars. The finances of the International Rice Research Institute alone, where the High Yielding Varieties were developed, add up to more than 127 million US dollars between 1962-1980, being financed by Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, US AID, the UN, National Governments (including European), corporations and universities.cxxxvi This ‘investment gap’ (both in research as well as in financing inputs) between organic/traditional and conventional agriculture is still present – maybe even more than ever - creating false images about the difference in efficiency between both types of agriculture, especially when one also takes into account the externalisation of costs in agriculture.cxxxviicxxxviii

In fact, an in-depth study of Sean Foley from 1979 about rice cultivation in Bali, shows three important findings related to the difference in actual access to the food. First, the difference in yield between the most modern HYV (IR-36; 19.48 kg/Are) and the highest yielding of the traditional varieties (Cicih Beton; 17.80 kg/Are) is only 9% (1.68 kg/Are). Second, the HYV have reported losses during storage of up to 20%, as compared to no or very low losses during storage of the traditional varieties. This losses during shortage were confirmed by all

24 Ibu Sayu, 2013 Ibid. 25 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 26

farmers we spoke to. “The new paddy variety is really fragile, it rots so quickly and is easily damaged. Not like the old variety, which is stronger, last longer, it even last for tens of years.”26 Third, the 9% increase in mean edible energy output of IR-36 (287.8 MJ/Are) as compared to Cicih Beton (262.91 MJ/Are), depends upon a 136% increase in energy inputs, mainly resulting from the application of nitrogenous fertilizer.cxxxix Moreover, one has to strongly keep in mind that statistical data on Indonesia around 1965 was mainly produced by the Ford Foundation – the co-financer of the IRRI - who financed more than eighty agro-economic surveys in order to gather all relevant information for the government to assist in evaluating the present character of the agro-economy in Indonesia.cxl

IRRI describes on its website how ‘IRRI and Indonesia's partnership covers breeding rice varieties with high yield potential, grain quality, and resistance to pests’. It continues to describe how ‘Indonesia achieved rice sufficiency in 1984. From being a chronic rice importer in the 1970s, Indonesia today is the third biggest rice producer in the world, and has been consistently so in the past decades.’ All this of course ‘at the least, thanks to IRRI's improved rice varieties’cxli. This implies that, thanks to the IRRI hybrid varieties, Indonesia increased rice production and this was so successful, that they transformed from a ‘chronic rice importer’ in the 1970s towards a very successful rice producing country: the ‘third biggest rice producer in the world’. cxlii The same line of thought is stated by the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA:

‘A series of very beneficial developments from 1960-2000 helped Indonesia radically increase its rice production capability during a period of very rapid population increase. These developments ensured that national rice production basically kept pace with rapidly rising domestic demand (consumption) for rice, ensuring the country’s basic food security while also reducing its requirements for imports’cxliii

This is creating quite a false representation of success. When looking at fig.3, it is clear that Indonesia has had many years where it was a much more ‘chronic importer’ of rice as compared to the 1960s or 1970s, with a peak in 1999 where 4,671,223 tonnes of rice were imported, costing Indonesia US$ 1,327,460,000. The latest FAO data regarding rice import, covers the year 2011, where Indonesia is paying the highest price ever in history for rice import: US$ 1,513,164,000 (see Fig. 3).

26 Pak Ketut, 2013, Ibid. 27

Figure 3. Above: Paddy Production quantity (million tonnes), and paddy area harvested (ha) in Indonesia; Middle: Total Fertilizer consumption in Indonesia (million tonnes); Below: Total rice Export quantity (million tonnes), total rice Import quantity (million tonnes), total rice import value (*1000 US$) in Indonesia. Note that since 1967 there is a significant increase in paddy area harvested as well as total fertilizer consumption (Source: FAOSTAT 2014).

3. Diversity and yield. As explained above, before the Green Revolution, farmers used to plant many different products, like cassava, taro, cucumbers ‘sekape’, sweet potato, green bean, mung bean, water spinach, corn, onion, garlic, beans and even legumes in their field. In fact, the subak had the rule that farmers were obligated to plant a diversity of food sources. “Minimum 10 trees for each type in the sides of every rice field plot - it means that our ancestors have already thought about food security by diversification.”27 With such a diversity, rice was only a small part of the diet. Only during religious ceremonies, weddings and other special occasions, rice was eaten as being the only carbohydrate source. During all other, normal dinners, the diet was very diverse with not only rice, but also cassava, taro and ‘sekape’ as carbohydrate source: “We never had food shortage, because in our tradition, our eating pattern, we did not eat only one source of carbohydrate.” 28 Also, there were eels, dragonflies, grasshoppers, frogs, snakes, ducks and fish in the field which all served as a source of protein. “So at that time rice field provides almost everything we need.” 29After the introduction of chemicals however, they all disappeared - except for the ducks, which now feed themselves in water full of chemicals. (In quite some rice fields I observed that a small percentage of the ducks present there are blind. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to study whether this was caused by the chemicals in the water).

Meanwhile, the government told people to eat rice in order to be developed. Pak Nyoman: “At that time [after 1965] the government wanted to secure our food supply, to meet the food demand. Like in Papua, the main food was sago, but the government said it’s not good: in order to develop, people have to eat rice, that’s why they teach them how to plant rice.” 30 Whereas rice used to be only a relatively small part of the diet, Indonesia now has the 7th highest per capita rice consumption rate in the world, at 139 kilograms per person. The Indonesian government now estimates that its people currently rely on rice for approximately 50 and 40 percent of their daily caloric and protein requirements, respectively. cxliv

The introduction of chemical fertilizers and pesticides did not only decrease the variety of plants, insects and animals in the field – it thereby also caused a decrease in rice yield. As can be shown in a study of Khumairoh, the rice yield decreases when azolla (N-fixing bio- fertilizer and weed-suppressive plant), ducks, fish and compost (attracting worms which aerate the soil and serve as fish-food) are left out of the rice field. Adding these components to the field, however, strongly reduced pests, increased the rice yield and the revenues of this system were 114% higher than rice cultivation with only compost as fertilizer.cxlv Pak Sunarka sees farming with such a diverse agro-ecosystem as the harmony between human and nature, which makes him feel one with Life:

“The point is that we should use the nature’s knowledge, nature’s law, and it will have its own control to make it balanced. (…) I think organic practice is love between living beings - not only the living, but all elements of universe - which then lead to the Living. (…) For me that is number one, to be family with nature - it is extraordinary.”31

27 Pak Sunarka, 2013a, Ibid. 28 Pak Sunarka, 2013a, Ibid. 29 Pak Sunarka, 2013a, Ibid. 30 Pak Nyoman, 60 years old. Interview at Des ataman Bali, Banjar Dadya, Bangli, Bali at 22nd November 2013. 31 Pak Sunarka, 2013b, Ibid. 29

Figure 4 Yield of rice grain for increasingly complex rice cultivation systems. R = rice; D = with ducks; C = with compost; F = with fish; A = with azolla. Source: Khumairoh et al., 2012

4. The storage of food. Several farmers, like Pak Sunarka, Pak Nyoman Rudita and Ibu Sayu, have told me that this original way of farming without chemicals, also conserved energy in all parts of the eco-system. “Before the Bimas, we could store our yield for 45 years and the rice still have good condition, but the new seeds, it rots faster, maybe less than 3 years - that’s the difference. It’s because in the past, agriculture was not just producing food, but it was also a way to maintain our relation with nature, with god. We did not use man-made materials to control the nature. It’s the law of nature.”32 Pak Sunarka showed us rice in his rice storage hut which was harvested in 1921. This rice is still good (no damage) and according to pak Sunarka, it can still be consumed, since the ecosystem was still very good in harmony back then, giving the rice a very good quality and good energy. In his report on rice cultivation in Bali, Foley documented that HYV have poor storage qualities, with losses up to an estimated 20%. Storing rice longer than one year, results in higher losses and deterioration of grain quality. On the other hand, the traditional varieties have no or low losses during storage and can be stored for many years without deterioration of grain quality.cxlvi Iby Sayu told me a similar story: “You can keep the [traditional rice for many years. But that’s not just for rice! Before, my grandpa and grandma, they harvest sweet potato, they can keep it for like 5 years!”33 But this changed. “In Bali the agriculture, we lost the energy after the Green Revolution. We broke all the balance, the harmony, everything.”34 Ibu Sayu is convinced that we do not need to grow more food, but we need a shift in thinking, a shift from grabbing food and resources of nature, towards a relation with nature again: “Begin with yourself first, trying to grow your food. And if then all people have that, that’s

32 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 33 Ibu Sayu, 2013 Ibid. 34 Ibu Sayu, 2013 Ibid. 30

food wisdom - that will happen!”35

5. From secure trade to an insecure free market economy. Before the Green Revolution, people were still trading – not with money, but by exchanging their products. Rice was stored in warehouses and auctioned to the villagers. Pak Sunarka “The priority is not those who have more money, but those who were having shortage and really need the rice. The price is also flexible, depending on the ability of the buyer, how much they can pay (..) If there is someone who’s in need, that person can just borrow the rice from his neighbour, while he can wait for his own rice to be harvested, and pay it back later. In my village, it was very normal to borrow rice from the neighbour, I still remember that..”36 If you wanted to sell your rice, you sold it directly to those who were in need, or exchanged it with traders from outside the village for salt, sea fish or even clothes. “We brought them the product of our hard work and harmony with nature – now people bring money..(…) Money and materials will weaken our identity, because it creates dependency (…) Slowly people will be powerless.” 37

Pak Nyoman Rudita also feels that money weakens one’s identity, since it created that people don’t help each other anymore. There seems to be a loss of empathy: “If I had friends in need, for small example, someone needs to harvest the coconut from the tree, then I just gave him a hand, I have no problems of climbing few trees to help him, no need to pay, I am always willing to help people as long as it’s in my capacity. And so did the others, people were still thinking that way. Now is different. I just asked a guy to help me to harvest coconut, and he asked 10 thousand for the fee, everything has to use money.”38 But not only safety via friendship and empathy, also safety provided by the government has changed. “I prefer the past, because at that time, government really had control of prices, especially staple food, so people can buy it. Now prices are out of control… the price of chicken egg is 1500 [rupiah; 0.10 Euro] a piece, I cannot believe it! In the past, we, as commoners felt safer, government gave their attention to us, they cared about us, that’s what I felt in Soekarno’s time.”39

Pak Nyoman Rudita explains that he would prefer the life before 1965, since the society was more calm and secure. “Yes, now things got more difficult, we have more needs. There was no instant noodles in the past! [laughing] Besides, even now it seems that I am making more money, but it’s different, the price of things are expensive now. And in the past, people still have high empathy, now everything has to deal with money. So if I have to compare the past to now, I would say it’s better in the past, even though I had small income, but my costs were not as big as now.”40

35 Ibu Sayu, 2013 Ibid. 36 Pak Sunarka, 2013a, Ibid. 37 Pak Sunarka, 2013a, Ibid. 38 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 39 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 40 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013, Ibid. 31

Returning to the debate: ‘How to feed the world’ – again? Should the question ‘How to feed the world’ be seen as a question, or should we rather see as part of a control method?

The 1940s. We have seen how the question was formulated in the 1940s by the USA . We also saw the impact that their policies had on Indonesia since the 1960s. Instead of feeding the people, it rather seemed a legitimization for pushing through the free market economy and the technologies of the Green Revolution, after taking control over the country, by secretly backing up the imposed shock therapy and establishing a pro-American military regime in the country. This all resulted in a destruction of food sovereignty, peoples’ autonomy and freedom.

The 1970s. In the 1970s, just years after the shock of 1965, the same question is asked. In the 1976 documentary ‘Zap!! The Weapon is Food’ by John Pilger – one of my favourite documentary makers – the American secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Earl Butz, explains how we need to feed an increasing world population and moreover introduces his term Agro Power:

‘Agro power is a concept that we have developed here in connection with food power. I think it’s one of the great sources of strength in the days ahead. In the world today we have two major power types: we have petrol power and agro power. With the population in the world which is going to increase with 80% in the next 25 years, food is bound to move to the front burner, it’s going to be one of the most important things we face. How do we feed 80% more people than we have today? That’s what I mean by Agro Power. I think here in the United States, we have Agro Power. We have the world’s major ‘bread basket’, we are the world’s major source of feed grains and food grains that move in international channels. Last year, over half the grains that moved in international trade originated from the United States. We have that Agro Power right here.’ - Dr. Earl Butz, 1976cxlvii

In his documentary, John Pilger explains how the USA is basically using food aid and economic aid to have a grip on nations that are politically very important to the them. The food was being used not to feed ‘the hungry world’, but as a control method, a political weapon called food power: ‘Economic commodities, just as military weapons, can be used to punish enemies and reward friends.’cxlviii It can, for example, be used to control a country’s policies (e.g. boycotts when it rejects US policies or increase US aid when that same country accepts US policies) or even to subvert a government, like that of Goulart, Allende or - indeed - Soekarno. In his article ‘Scarce Goods as Political Weapons. The Case of Food’, Wallensteen describes four factors that need to be controlled in order to use economic commodities as means of influence: scarcity (an attractive commodity), supply concentration (the commodity is in the hand of only a few producers/sellers), demand dispersion (other countries are interested in the commodity) and action independence (the seller/producer must himself either control the production process or have access to means on other dimensions to ensure that he can maintain or extend control over his assets).cxlix Food power thus is not only about providing or restricting food aid to a certain country, it is also about controlling the food production and food market – especially the four factors described above – in order to use food as a means of influence. Pushing through the free market economy, combined with the Green Revolution was the way to achieve this. Feeding the world is pure power, ‘Agro Power’.

The present, 2015. Is the current question of ‘How to feed the world’ an actual question, or is it again – or even still - part of a control method, a way to justify further control, further destruction of peoples’ autonomy? On the website of IRRI the following is stated:

Indonesia’s rice consumption in 2010 was more than 139 kilograms per capita per year and is among the highest in the world. IRRI estimates that Indonesia will need 38% more rice in the next 25 years, which means that the average yield of 4.6 tons per hectare must rise to more than 6 tons per hectare to fill the gap. [In this way, Indonesia’s agricultural development program wants to achieve] improved quality of life and less poverty for farming households through high production. (Source: Rice for Food Security, ICFCRD-IRRI 2010). cl

A brief overview of Indonesia’s history – which is not always known in the country itself due to propaganda of ‘the winners’cli – combined with the stories of the farmers, shows that posing the threat of overpopulation and starvation, legitimised powers to actively set up and fund military regimes, killings, induce a corporate take-over of a resource-rich country, which in fact led to reduced food sovereignty of its people. For decades, the main plank for those holding the Food Power, was to create a moral framing around the need to produce more food to combat food scarcity due to overpopulation. Especially since the food crisis of 2007-2008, every food crisis was met with a surge in media coverage and commentary about the potential role of biotechnology to solve this. clii

All in all, the world currently already produces sufficient calories per head to feel a global population of 12-14 billion people. Yet almost one billion people chronically suffer from starvation and another billion are mal-nourished.cliii Hunger nowadays is caused by ‘poverty amidst abundance.’cliv Feeding the world is about access to nutritious and diverse food and seeds, access to healthy soil and clean water. Some 70 percent of the people that suffer from hunger are themselves small farmers or agricultural labourers, who are often dependent on cash crops and lost self-sufficiency. clv Thus, an increased quantity of food alone will not feed the world. In fact, trying to achieve an increased yield with more patented seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and other Western technologies only strengthens the Food Power, or Agro Power, of the West, especially now the West is strengthening its market position with trade agreements, like the TTIP and the CETA. This is very important to realise: further introduction of western technologies in agriculture, further monopolisation of seeds, further privatization land, further empowerment of the Agri-business, further control over research institutes by corporations all in the name of ‘increasing yield for feeding the world’ will in fact strengthen the Food Power of the neoliberal states and thus decrease global food sovereignty. Indeed, many food sovereignty narratives identify neoliberal state policies and global capital as the source of food insecurity.clvi The industrial producers in the food system want the people to believe that only they can produce enough food for the future population, while non-industrial systems of farming can not.clvii

‘Enabling people to become food self-sufficient or earn an appropriate income through agriculture to buy food needs to take centre stage in future agricultural transformation.’ – UNCTAD, 2013clviii

Chapter 4. MOVING FORWARD: the transition

‘Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come’ – Victor Hugo

 The transition in theory  1. Grasping the Network, working towards change  2 Becoming Prince, governing the process of a Revolution  3. Epimelesthai sautou! Foucault meets Chomsky  4. AgriCulture  5. The shift form ‘bad people’ to ‘bad structures’  The transition in practice: Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, Bali.  1. The road towards an Eco Neighbourhood  2. Forming the group  3. The local economy  4. The design of the Neighbourhood  5. An organic development process  6. Permaculture  7. Water  The transition in practice: the local peoples’ point of view

The transition in theory Working towards a more fair, equal society in order to truly feed the world seems to be the answer. But how to go there – and what a ‘better society’ in the first place? I stumbled upon a very interesting debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, about human nature and how to work towards the ideal society.clix Foucault: “If we want right away to define the profile and the formula of our future society, without criticizing all the forms of political power that are exerted in our society, there is a risk that they reconstitute themselves.”41 Foucault believes that reality is composed of several ‘wholes’, whose base is formed by unconscious structures. When you would change the elements alone, relationships and the underlying structures will remain the same, will reconstitute themselves.clx In the debate, Foucault moreover emphasises that it is dangerous to shape a future with ‘society’s episteme ratio’, of this time, without realizing which powers are currently shaping that very same Comment [pdv2]: i.p.v. ‘ratio’ zou je een term zoals ‘logic/structure of operation; episteme, thereby defining what is possible and what not, what is good and what not, which of zoals Foucault zou zeggen epistemic structure; the structures of though by which structures should be kept and which rejected etc. we apprehend reality

Chomsky agrees at this point: “There are two intellectual tasks: one, to try to create the vision of a future just society. Another task is to understand very clearly the nature of power and oppression and terror and destruction in our own society. And that certainly includes the institutions you [Foucault] mentioned, as well as the central institutions of industrialised society, namely the economic commercial and financial institutions, in particular in the coming period, the great multinational corporations. Those are the basic institutions of

41 Michael Foucault, quoted from ‘Menselijke natuur en Ideale Maatschappij’, 1971 Technische Hogeschool, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 34

oppression and coercion and autocratic rule that appear to be neutral - after all they say that they’re subject to the democracy of the market place.”42 Nevertheless, according to Chomsky, we should also understand the concept of human nature: “Still I think it would be a great shame to lose or put aside entirely the more abstract and philosophical task of trying to draw the connections between a concept of human nature that gives us full scope freedom and dignity and creativity and other fundamental human characteristics and relates that some notion of social structure in which those properties could be realised in which meaningful human life could take place. And in fact if we are thinking of social transformation or social revolution, that would be absurd of course to draw out in detail the point that we are hoping to reach. Still, we should know something about where we think we’re going and such a theory may tell it to us.”43 According to Chomsky, there is some intrinsic, universal nature that we should see in terms of certain capacities to develop certain mental traits. “I think we can go further than this and begin to discover universal aspects of these mental traits which are determined by human nature. I think we can find this in the area of morality.”44 Foucault argues that the concept of human nature, however, is a very dangerous concept to use, since there is a risk that society leads itself in error when trying to define a concept that has not been given in actual society the rights and possibilities which allow it to realize itself. A certain number of ideas, e.g. about the concept of human nature, were formed in a specific time by a certain number of individuals who are themselves directly or indirectly, a product of their society. Mao Zedong, for example, distinguished bourgeois human nature and a proletarian human nature – for him it wasn’t the same thing. Chomsky agrees that our concept of human nature is indeed limited, partially socially conditioned and constrained by our own character defects and the defects and limitations of the intellectual culture in which we exist. “Yet at the same time it’s of critical importance that we have some direction, that we know what impossible goals we are trying to achieve, if we hope to achieve some of the possible goals. And that means that we have to be bold enough to speculate and create social theories on the basis of partial knowledge, while remaining very open to the strong possibility, in fact overwhelming probability, that at least in some respects we’re very far off the mark.” 45

1. Grasping the Network, working towards change. Personally, I agree with both Foucault and Chomsky. Foucault is constantly emphasising the danger of creating a concept, like ‘a good society’ or ‘human nature’, with the ratiodiscourse Comment [pdv3]: Language? Discourse? i.p.v. ratio … of this time, which is – often unconsciously – influenced by many factors which automatically create certain norms, values and beliefs (good vs. bad, possible vs. impossible, etc.). Therefore, I thus strongly agree with Foucault that it is very important to understand – or at least realise there are - underlying processes that shape beliefs in society. However,

42 Noam Chomsky, quoted from ‘Menselijke natuur en Ideale Maatschappij’, 1971 Technische Hogeschool, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 43 Noam Chomsky, 1971Ibid. 44 Noam Chomsky, 1998. On Human Nature. Noam Chomsky interviewed by Kate Soper. Red Pepper, August 1998. (Online: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm) 45 Chomsky, 1971, Ibid. 35

Chomsky argues that, although this is certainly the case, we do need to have some kind of direction in order to achieve those ‘impossible’ goals for an ideal society, that utopian world we are looking for.

I am very much aware that many of our thoughts are created – or at least highly influenced - by ‘the dynamic network’ we live in, via the media, politics, the economy, religion, prevailing ideas in society, friends, family, teachers, the University - even the weather, the environment, the amount of sleep we have and the food we eat. Even though both natural science, as well as social science are so often trying to explain and thereby portraying and creating life by working on certain topics, models, equations, figures, and other representations, this oversimplification ignores the fact that everything – everything – is interconnected and dynamic and should thus also been seen and presented this way. We have to understand that we live in a ‘Dynamic Network’, consisting of dynamic actors and actants (or bodies/matter), who have dynamic interrelations, which they themselves partly create via language (including laws and discourses), behaviour, creations in general etc. However, seeing everything as one does not mean we can therefore not analyse certain structures or processes within this network – even though we have to see them as dynamic and transformative. These processes can best be seen as dynamic assemblages. Comment [pdv4]: Okay … Comment [HE5]: Ik sla hier een beetje door he…; ) First, I believe it is of crucial importance to understand that the dynamic network (in other words: all elements and networks or structures within) acts in a very unpredictable way precisely because everything is interconnected and thus impossible to predict. We never truly know how something or someone will develop and which effect this will have on the dynamic network and its elements and structures. The second important thing to realise, is that – although actors are introducing certain ideas, languages, techniques, institutions etc. into the network, thereby shaping the interconnected structures – these ideas, discourses, techniques and institutions can – and often do in fact - behave not only unpredictably, but also self-enhancing and self-reproducing in the dynamic network. One can observe within the dynamic network so called ‘unique assemblages’, as Deleuze calls it. The assemblage itself and its component pieces have different configurations of interests, unique lines of flight, and move with different speeds, intensities and forces. In other words, there is not per se someone – a big ‘evil’ boss or ‘evil’ politician – who is pushing the dynamic, interconnected structures of the network towards a certain goal.

‘Outcomes of planned social interventions can end up coming together into powerful constellations of control that were never intended and in some cases never even recognized, but are all the more effective for being ‘subjectless.’’clxi

The prison Although we should not conceive actors or entities as ‘powerful’ subjects per se, there do seem to be certain driving forces, certain powers within the network which are directed towards growth, self-enhancement, self-reproduction – regardless of the effects on the interconnected, dynamic network. Michael Foucault illustrates this with the example of the

prison, an institution that enters society all over Europe in the 17th and 18th century, which set itself as task of preventing mendicancy and idleness as the great source of all disorders.clxii Before these institutions were erected, certain measurements were already undertaken by the state to get rid of the unemployed, namely arresting of beggars and forcing them to work in the sewers of Paris, ordering poor scholars, peasants driven from their farms and sick people to leave the city, ordering beggars of Paris to be whipped in the public square, branded on the shoulder and driven from the city to keep them from returning. But the newly established institutions were to make sure not to drive people away via torture, but instead to confine them: the unemployed, the idle and the vagabonds must now be punished according to law and placed in houses of correction. From this moment on, a mechanism of self-reproducing, self-enhancing power of this house of correction, the prison, started to pervade society more and more – a mechanism of power which, according to Foucault, is working to

‘incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them.’clxiii

In this way, the prison became a part an all-encompassing sovereign institution in modern society, including military institutions, hospitals, factories, security technologies, security services, media, education about becoming a jailer, science regarding law, psychology, treatment of ‘criminals’, criminology, terrorism, architectural design of prisons etc., but also related language (discourses) as well as ideas about the prison were formed. This is not only visible in Europe, where Michel Foucault was conducting his research upon, we also saw this happening in Indonesia: army schools were set up, a military elite was created, psychological techniques of torture were taught, technology was introduced (e.g. by Philips) for the military dictatorship to communicate, prisons and labour camps were established, laws were created, a million dollar economy was built around it, discourses were created about the prisoners, even movies were made that had to make people believe the story how communists were slaughtering parents of innocent children. In other words a complete industry was – and still is – built around it, which is completely directed towards self-enhancement, self- reproduction, the growth of the institution. And the institution is growing, even though this might not serve its claimed goal, namely the reduction of crime. In fact, it is often claimed that prisons enhance crime, since it is the ‘meeting point’ for criminals, who can extend their networks there and in this way optimise and enhance crime. Moreover, the concept of a prison ignores the fact that crime in the first place is not a negative act of a human being – rather it is the result of a unequal society, and of the creation of crime by law. Third, you could even argue that prison is there mainly for the confinement of those actors who are working against the sovereign power – whether this is the state, the corporation, the financial institution or a combination of them. This was certainly the case during the post 1965 era in Indonesia, where people opposing the regime were tortured, killed or sent to labour camps – partly as personal punishment, partly as a ‘warning’ to others with similar ideals critical of the regime. All in all, the institution is still working as behaving self-enhancing and self- reproducing. This is only possible by working , which is achieved through the whole social

body, as well aswhile simultaneously also acting upon the whole social body. In other words, the social body is both its fuel and target.

‘What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weigh on us as a force that says ‘no’, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body.’clxiv

The corporation Comparable to the prison, is the example of ‘the corporation’, which is nowadays almost perceived to be the equivalent of ‘evilness’. This self-reproductive, self-enhancive, unpredictable dynamic evolution of the corporation is beautifully illustrated, in the Canadian documentary film ‘The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power’, by law professor Joel Bakan of the University of British Colombiaclxv. Whereas the documentary makers are trying to show how ‘the corporation’, as being a legal person, should be diagnosed as a psychopath according to the personality diagnostic checklist, I find it especially interesting to see how the corporation was ‘born’ and how it evolved over time. The modern corporation has grown out of the industrial age, as a form of business ownership, as a group of individuals working together to serve a varieties of objectives and thereby the public good (free of government direction like the Dutch VOC or the English EIC). Later, corporate lawyers went to court and demanded the corporation to become a legal person, under the 14d amendment of the United States, adopted in 1868, which was originally written to protect newly freed slaves. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed to fight for the rights of people, yet 288 of the 307 cases brought to court between 1890 and 1910 under this 14d amendment were brought by corporations, not by slaves. clxvi. From this moment on, the corporation gained the legal rights of a person, despite it not being a person, despite its lack of moral consciousness – it is purely designed to sustain itself – that is to gain as much profit as possible. Marius Emberland (2006) describes how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was drafted in a way which protects human rights within a broadly capitalist economy:clxvii in order to safeguard the ‘the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms’,clxviii the aim of the Council of Europe is to ‘achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.’clxix With the corporation’s additional financial resources, it may often be in a better position to protect their rights under human rights law, as compared to humans themselves. For example, Moe Parr, the owner of a seed cleaning business for seed saving, was sued by Monsanto in for ‘inducing farmers to break the patent law’. In 2008, Moe Parr settles with Monsanto, because he could no longer pay his legal bills, while he was not doing anything illegal.clxx Similar stories can be found in Indonesia, where seed saving farmers are thrown in jail or seed saving workshops at IDEP are forced to be stopped on orders of the police.clxxi While the capitalist free market pervaded society more and more, corporations have three strategies to make profit for further growth: first, products and services are created as cheap as possible, by exploiting the workers and nature, by externalising costs.

Second, those products or services have to bring in the highest profit possible, which is achieved by creating desires with the consumers, by linking their true desires to products or services and by using all kinds of psychologically techniques in advertisement.clxxii As Zizek explains: ‘In your practice [of consuming commodities] you follow an illusion of which you are not conscious.’clxxiii

Third, the corporation as a system has to be maintained: it has to stay on the market by keeping close ties to the government, research institutions, financial institutions, innovating itself to keep consumers consuming its products and maintain the internal structure of the organisation, e.g. the regulation of its employees. As Karl Marx explains, commodities are not there to satisfy our needs, they are there only to be bought and sold as part of the capitalist economy, which is based on making profit out of the exploitation of people and nature. From the moment a corporation is seen by law as a legal person, it started evolving in a dynamic, unpredictable, self-enhancing and self-reproductive way within the network, becoming more and more a dominant structure in the globalising world, especially due to international Free Trade Agreements. This can also be seen in the recent history of Indonesia, when corporations started mining Indonesia’s natural wealth (copper, nickel, hardwood, rubber and oil), opening up new markets, and employing the elite while exploiting others as cheap labour both in the rural areasclxxiv or in the cities’ sweatshops, where workers often get paid the minimum wage of 1 dollar a day and sometimes having to work shifts of 35 hours with just a few hours as a break. clxxv Especially biotechnology corporations have been subverting a wide range of institutions and have led the transition, to some degree, towards a modernist agricultural system characterised by a vertically integrated market economy of food, mainly though the Green Revolution.clxxvi The former Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono didn’t even see himself as a president anymore – he prefers to call himself a marketing director of a company. During the opening of the APEC CEO Summit in Nusa Dua, Bali, in October 2013, he invited the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEOs to come and invest even more in Indonesia:

“As the marketing director of Indonesia Inc., a company in the form of a state, I’m inviting all of you to increase business and investment opportunities in Indonesia,” – President of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, 2013clxxvii

Creation of knowledge Yet another example is the creation of knowledge. According to Arce and Long (1987), knowledge is not simply unravelling the truth out there, rather, “a body of knowledge emerges out of a complex process involving a number of social, situational, cultural and institutional factors.”clxxviii This can be very clearly seen in Indonesia. As mentioned in chapter two, Guy Pauker obtained knowledge on ‘the reality out there’ in Indonesia which could then be used by the US for engineering events, producing stories, in short: changing or manipulating ‘the reality out there’. Later on, the official history of Indonesia was a knowledge that was not at all coherent to what happened in reality – in fact, it was a violation of reality. Books were written, movies were made, history was written and even museums

were created where knowledge was presented, claiming that Indonesia was saved from dangerous communists. This truth pervaded society so deep, that still many people see this knowledge as truth clxxix – even those who actually witnessed the events somehow transformed this knowledge into the false, but ‘official’ knowledge.clxxx Moreover, we need to take into account which institutions are the main drivers in shaping knowledge, since knowledge creation isn’t simply unravelling the truth out there:

‘There is a battle “for truth”, or at least “around truth” – it being understood once again that by truth I don’t mean “the ensemble of truths which are to be discovered and accepted,” but rather “the ensemble of rules according to which the true and the false are separated and specific effects of power attached to the true,” it being understood also that it’s a matter not of a battle “on behalf’ of truth, but a battle about the status of truth and the economic and political role it plays (…) “Truth” is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements. “Truth” is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extends it. A “regime” of truth. This regime is not merely ideological or superstructural; it was the condition of the formation and development of capitalism. (…) The problem is not changing people’s consciousness – or what’s in their heads – but the political, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth.’clxxxi

These institutions, corporations and the creation of knowledge are all examples of structures, or ‘assembages’ in the dynamic network which are constantly influencing – or in fact partly creating – peoples’ ideas, beliefs and desires. These then consequently also evolve unpredictably, self-enhancing and self-reproducing in the dynamic network, through people’s language, thoughts, acts (especially consumption and the job one takes) and creations in general (e.g. technologies). Through processes of the globalizing world, ‘capital not only brings together all the earth under its command, but also creates, invests, and exploits social life in its entirety.’clxxxii Gilles Deleuze, reflecting on Michel Foucault’s notion of the dispositif (the material, social, affective, and cognitive mechanisms or apparatuses of the production of subjectivity), explains: “We belong to the dispositifs and act within them.” What is important is “not what we are, but rather what we are in the process of becoming – that is the Other, our becoming-other.”clxxxiii

2. Becoming Prince, governing the process of a Revolution In their book Commonwealth, Hardt and Negri describe the notion of Becoming Prince as ‘the process of the multitude learning the art of self-rule and inventing lasting democratic forms of social organization’clxxxiv while reclaiming the commons. The challenge of a transition, however, is that it is not enough to simply overthrow the sovereign powers, the capital, the free market economy etc. since the formation of the multitude is not yet achieved. Overthrowing the ruling powers in this situation would only result in the system re- establishing itself, leaving essentially untouched the very power relations which form the

basis for the functioning of the state or any institution, corporation or other structure within the network. That democratic society that has to take over after the revolution is not yet established since ‘we are all entangled and complicit in the identities, hierarchies, and corruptions of the current forms of power. Revolution requires not merely emancipation, as we said earlier, but liberation; not just an event of destruction, but also a long and sustained process of transformation, creating a new humanity.’clxxxv

We certainly need to create a new humanity – but creating a new humanity within this dynamic network full of desire-creating structures as well as oppressive institutions like the army and the prison, brings up question marks as well, regarding the feasibility of this transformation. As long as those desire-creations are in contact with us, we will continue consuming, and thus continue ‘fuelling’ the corporations and institutions, their power, their creation of desires and discourses that make us consume even more. By consuming, our potential freedom is taken away in rapid speed: directly via those corporations and institutions privatizing our land, food, seeds, water, air, knowledge etc. and indirectly by those corporations destroying the commons – e.g. degradation of soil due to intensive agricultureclxxxvi. Destruction of the commons, like the ecosystem in the soil, takes away the peoples’ agency to use this common. It forces people to either invest money in chemicals and seeds, or invest in a soil restoration project, which requires often years of time and money for the input (restoring the humus layer and the ecosystem), money for the knowledge (you need a course or a professional who knows about soil restoration), and for provision of your own food, water, shelter etc. during the time of restoration when the land is not able to provide you with enough resources. The latter being one of the major complaints of the farmers in Indonesia: it takes at least 3 years to restore the currently contaminated soil – that means 3 years of a very low income, since crops can hardly grow on a contaminated soil in a natural way without added chemicals. It almost seems a downwards spiral. We cannot continue like this, but in starting a revolutionary process, we seem to be forced to walk on a thin line between the danger of ineffectiveness and disorder (a system that restores itself, or a democracy without knowing proper leaders or goals to work towards) on the one side and that of hierarchy and authority (a ruling dictatorship with suppression and shock therapy via the army) on the other side.

According to Hardt and Negri, the problem is that ‘human nature as it is now is far from perfect.’clxxxvii Chomsky, and advocate of ‘human nature’ (‘it is impossible to coherently argue that an intrinsic, universal human nature does not exist’clxxxviii) argues that it is here we can find morality: “We can begin to see human nature in terms of certain capacities to develop certain mental traits. I think we can go further than this and begin to discover universal aspects of these mental traits which are determined by human nature. I think we can find this in the area of morality.” clxxxix The problem is thus not per se that our human nature is far from perfect – we are simply disconnected from it, because of the influence of that dynamic network, which is now dominated by certain structures that only work towards its own continuation - often economic growth, achieved through a capitalist mode of exploitation. Whatever there might be in the way of a natural tendency towards selfish and aggressive behaviour is reinforced by the capitalist market society.cxc The destructive 41

structures in the network seemed to have developed a protection against its own destruction: taking away the opportunities to start alternative lifestyles, e.g. by privatizing land or making the land unsuitable for free-market-independent production, while creating desires via marketing in order to keep the consumers consuming. “Marketing is manipulation and deceit. It tries to turn people into something they aren't - individuals focused solely on themselves, maximising their consumption of goods that they don't need.”46 In short: those who can take away the power of the system are unable to stop fuelling its motor, while those who want to stop fuelling the motor, cannot find a way to ‘step out’ of the destroying structure and start a new structure in the network. Even though we might feel stuck, in this dynamic network with destroying structures, full of feedback-loops which ensure its continuation, it is important to have started with that ‘first intellectual task’ – trying to understand the nature of power and oppression and terror and destruction in our own society, including especially economic, commercial and financial institutions. The second task is yet ahead: to generate a process of change and not just explain again and again a process or social actions in a very intellectual form.

3. Epimelesthai sautou! Foucault meets Chomsky Chomsky emphasizes that we need to be bold enough to create social theories on the basis of partial knowledge. And this is when the inspiring thoughts of pak Roberto seemed to speak to my ‘human nature’:

“These local cultures, values, are things that should not ever be separated. Because there is ‘culture’ in the word ‘agriculture’, and most of our cultures are based on our relation with the mother nature. In agriculture, we are the agrarian country, tradition is the key.”47

Despite his warnings about the influence that the ‘dynamic network’ unconsciously can have on our episteme and thereby our creations of concepts, Foucault held a series of lectures in 1983 – roughly a year before his death – where he seems to meet with the line of ideas of Chomsky, namely a study on the Culture of the Self, a kind of way to grasp some sort of ‘human nature’. The way to go there, according to Foucault, is via the ancient Greek precept ‘epimelesthai sautou’, meaning to ‘to be concerned, take care of the Self ’cxci The first philosophical elaboration on epimelesthai sautou is found in Plato’s Alcibiades I. There, Socrates and Alcibiades seem to struggle over the same question that Foucault and Chomsky were trying to tackle in their debate: we have to know our true Self in order to work towards an ideal society, but how can we know our true Self? Here it is where the problem arises. Socrates: ‘But if we have no self-knowledge and no wisdom, can we ever know our own good and evil?’cxcii How can we possibly ever know our Self, our ‘human nature’ – if that exists in the first place. Nevertheless, not knowing the Self is disastrous. Socrates argues we will then be ignorant, we will fall into errors, we will fail both in public and private capacity.

46 Noam Chomsky, 1998. On Human Nature. Noam Chomsky interviewed by Kate Soper. Red Pepper, August 1998. (Online: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm) 47 Pak Roberto Hutabarat, a 42 year old SRI specialist from Java, who lives in Bali since 1991. Interview at Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, Bali at 3rd January 2014 42

SOCRATES: For if a man, my dear Alcibiades, has the power to do what he likes, but has no understanding, what is likely to be the result, either to him as an individual or to the state—for example, if he be sick and is able to do what he likes, not having the mind of a physician—having moreover tyrannical power, and no one daring to reprove him, what will happen to him? Will he not be likely to have his constitution ruined? cxciii

Socrates wonders, if the eye wants to know the eye, it can look in another eye, serving as a mirror to see itself; so if the soul is ever to know herself, ‘must she not look at the soul, and especially at that part of the soul in which her virtue resides?’cxciv In 127d of the Alcibiades we find the first appearance of the phrase epimelesthai sautou, to be concerned, take care of the Self, which is something much more serious than simply paying attention to one’s Self. It is paying attention through a real activity; it is used to in reference of the medical term to signify the fact of caring, the activity of a king to take care of his citizens, and the activity of a farmer tending his fields, his cattle, and his house. Knowing the Self, in order to take care of the body, take care of the society, take care of agriculture. If we want to be ‘bold enough to speculate and create social theories on the basis of partial knowledge’, then we must start with analysing the Self. And here, Foucault seems to meet Chomsky:

‘We have hardly any remnant of the idea in our society, that the principal work of art which one has to take care of, the main area to which one must apply aesthetic values, is oneself, one's life, one's existence.’cxcv - Michel Foucault (1984: 362)

Although we can never fully understand human nature, because of the nature/nurture influences on us, we can try to come close to it as much as possible – something which can be done via epimelesthai sautou. On the question whether the understanding of human nature can give us a kind of objective understanding of the conditions of human flourishing, Noam Chomsky replies that he is ‘not willing to go that far.’48 The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.), however, was willing to do so. He spoke of the importance of analysing the Self in order to find happiness in his school in Athens, called The Garden. Epicurus was convinced that happiness is the most important goal in life. It is the state of being we all work towards. He insists on the collective nature of happiness, emphasizing it is public, not private. And – in line with the abovementioned philosophers – Epicurus argues that in order to reach this happiness, we need to take daily time to analyse our life in order to truly understand what makes us happy. He argues this to be one of the main rules for social and personal conduct and for the art of life. It is extremely important for the very reason why Foucault continuously emphasised the danger of creating a concept, like ‘a good society’ or ‘human nature’, with the epistemic frame of a certain time. That episteme ratio is namely – often Comment [pdv6]: Foucault gebruikte de term ‘episteme’ unconsciously – influenced by many factors of the dynamic network we live in that will automatically create certain norms, values, desires and beliefs and thereby shape the concept we are trying to create. Happiness is therefore a rather tricky concept to define. Due to the Comment [pdv7]: or ‘discourses by which we think’ unconscious influence of the dynamic network – and especially the media, which is linksing Comment [HE8]: discourses by which happiness to the product in every possible way – we, humans, simply don’t know anymore we think shape the concept of human nature how to define, and ultimately reach, happiness. The solution to tackle this fundamental or ideal society..

48 Noam Chomsky, 1998. Ibid. 43

problem, is to take time, daily, to analyse one’s life, one’s Self. In this way, we can try to diminish the unconscious effect of the dynamic network on our episteme ratio, and Comment [pdv9]: thinking understand the needs and true desires of the Self, which is – according to Epicurus – to avoid pain and increase happiness. Our anxieties and worries quickly diminish, if we give ourselves time to think them through.

“We must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.” - Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceuscxcvi

Hardt and Negri also see happiness as an important tool for governing the process of a revolution. It is therefore not by accident that their book Commonwealth ends with the emphasis on the importance of happiness, which they see as the ultimate collective good.

“The multitude must govern itself in order to create a durable state of happiness (and thus rather than “public” we would call it “common happiness”). Happiness is not a state of satisfaction that quells activity but rather a spur to desire, a mechanism for increasing and amplifying what we want and what we can do (…) Happiness is the process of developing our capacities of democratic decision making and training ourselves in self-rule.”cxcvii

4. AgriCulture Finding a way to true happiness of our Self, might offer a strong tool for governing the pocess of a successful revolution. According to Epicurus, the best place to practice ‘epimelesthai sautou’, is in a peaceful place where the mind can calm down – preferably in nature, since nature does not judge or create false desires like the media is doing – instead, she makes you feel the harmony with Life:

“Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature.”cxcviii

Epicurus rejected the hypostatized Reason of Plato as the norm of truth and looked instead to Nature as furnishing the norm. By the word ‘nature’, the biologist Aristotle, meant the creative force in animate life. In practice, this meaning was narrowed by Epicurus to signify ‘human nature’.cxcix By the promptings of nature alone, apart from reason, every living creature, the moment it is born, seeks happiness as if food and avoids pain as if poison. Consistent with this thought is the practice of referring to happiness as ‘the end of Nature’. Therefore, Epicurus wrote, “[Human] Nature is not to be coerced.”49 It must be assumed that “Human Nature by sheer force of circumstances was taught a multitude of lessons of all sorts and compelled to put them into practice, though reason subsequently contributed refinements and additions to these recommendations of hers.”50 Moreover, the word ‘Nature’ for Epicurus

49 Epicurus, as quoted in ‘Epicurus & his philosophy’. By Norman Wentworth De Witt. 1954, Second Printing 1964. Pp 222. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. (online: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=6C3C2E2BC59B50C03E012D42F4F23B93) 50 Epicurus, as quoted in ‘Epicurus & his philosophy’. 1964. Pp 129. Ibid. 44

has also taken on an ethical connotation: nature is not merely a creative force of life, but she also seems to be benevolent and provident. This holds true for Nature, as well as Human Nature. Nevertheless, Epicurus emphasises the importance of distinguishing human desires as “natural and necessary, natural but not necessary and neither natural nor necessary.”

Analysing your life then becomes not only a tool to find your Self and your happiness, but it also ensures to keep you (close) at that state of being so that no person or structure can create illusions in you and drive you away from your happiness. Simply understanding your Self and the way to reach your happiness is not enough – we also need to act upon it. According to Epicurus there are two more ingredients for this ultimate collective good: besides 1) an analysed life, we also need 2) friends around us. When Epicurus came to Athens at 306 BC, at the age of 35, he bought a large house just outside the city – a place which he called The Garden. There, he invited a group of friends to come live with him. The place was big enough for everyone to have their own, private space, yet also contained some common rooms, where the friends could come together and share simple meals or have conversations. In order to get true happiness out of friendship, Epicurus argued, friends have to be permanent companions. The third ingredient for happiness is 3) freedom. In order to achieve freedom, Epicurus and his friends decided to leave Athens all together. For them, to be free meant to be financially independent, economically self-sufficient. Outside of Athens, the group started a sort of commune. “We must free ourselves from the prison of everyday life and politics”cc, Epicurus wrote. The life was simple, they were happy with their freedom, their self-sufficiency.

Thinking about a commune, often brings up rejection: it doesn’t work, we don’t want to ‘go back’, and we don’t believe in returning to some sort of imagined original, natural condition. But before we judge this as naïve or ‘going backward’, we have to realise that also this idea is most likely one that is created by the structures in the dynamic network. Boaventura de Sousa Comment [pdv10]: Het lijkt alsof je je hier tegenspreekt. Is deze ‘positieve utopia’ Santos claims that this idea of rejection is in fact a discourse actively created by modern ook een discourse, het resultaat van een society, which says that alternatives are impossible and naïve. The ‘possibility of alternatives network of power and knowledge? cci Comment [HE11]: Ik begrijp je niet is discredited precisely for being utopian, idealistic, and unrealistic.’ The conservative helemaal denk ik.. de ‘conservative utopia’ utopia, namely free market economy, is currently all around us. This makes it rather difficult (zoals Boaventura de vrije markt noemt’) maakt actief een discourse over een for us to visualise and think about a critical utopia, an alternative way of life. ‘What ‘alternative utopia’ (een alternative leefwijze), namelijk een die zegt dat het distinguishes conservative utopias such as the market from critical utopias is the fact that they onmogelijk is. De Alternative Utopia is een gevolg van epimelestai satou, idealen, identify themselves with present-day reality and discover their utopian dimension in the filosofie etc. – een discourse voortgekomen radicalisation or complete fulfilment of the present’ ccii Again, it is very important to als tegenreactie op het network van power and knowledge. understand knowledge in the way Foucault describes it and not take those statements of truth Kan je de kritiek misschien uitleggen, want for granted. Once again, we need to see the battle around truth – it being understood as the ik begrijp niet precies waar je op wijst. ensemble of rules according to which the true and the false are separated and specific effects of power attached to the true.

‘Neoliberal globalisation is presided over by technico-scientific knowledge, and owes this hegemony to the credible way in which it discredits all rival knowledge, by suggesting that they are not comparable, as to efficiency and coherence, to the scientific nature of market laws. That is why the practices circulating in the WSF have their origin in very distinct epistemological assumptions (what counts as knowledge) 45

and ontological universes (what is means to be human)cciii (…) The concepts of rationality and efficiency presiding over hegemonic technico-scientific knowledge are too restrictive. They cannot capture the richness and diversity of the social experience of the world, and especially that they discriminate against practices of resistance and production of counter-hegemonic alternatives.’cciv

Keeping this in mind, let us be bold enough to formulate new social theories for governing a process of revolution. Living in a farming commune-way-of-life indeed provides us time to analyse our Self in nature, work and live together with friends, and be free – or at least more free – from the free market consumer society. But is there something more in this work, in agriculture? I’d like to repeat the words of pak Roberto:

Is it in Agriculture, where nature and culture meet, that we can find the Culture of the Self, the ‘human nature’? While talking to the farmers, they speak of ‘happiness’ and ‘peace’ and ‘empathy’, which they claim to have somehow diminished after 1965 with the introduction of the Green Revolution, the enhancement of the free market economy and the corporate take- over of Indonesia. Could pak Roberto be right – is there some kind of ‘human nature’ which cannot be defined per se, but can nonetheless be felt through our connection with agriculture?

“I think organic/traditional practice is love between living beings, not only the living, but all elements of universe - which then lead to the living.”52

“The main idea of organic/traditional way of farming is the harmony between us and nature, how we work with it in the way that fits our roles and capacity. It means we don’t need to change things, it has its own rule/system (…) the key is that we have to open our mind and heart, be sensitive to the harmony”53

HAPPINESS Pak Sunarka: “Sometimes people forgot, their goal is happiness. They got money, and they stopped, they came to see it as their goal, so that they forgot their main goal: happiness.”54

Pak Wayan Sudira: We have to be self-conscious. However, for me the past is far much better than now, when there was no modernity. Everything was easier back then, not as complicated as now, we were so close with nature, happiness and peace was so easy to reach. We can also

51 Pak Roberto Hutabarat, a 42 year old SRI specialist from Java, who lives in Bali since 1991. Interview at Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, Bali at 3rd January 2014 52 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 53 Pak Sunarka, 2013a. Ibid. 54 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 46

still do it now, because happiness depends on how we perceive things. But still, now, there is less security, how can we feel at peace? And if it’s hard to feel at peace, then to reach happiness we need more efforts. It means that we have to create our own happiness inside us, apart from whatever conditions outside us. What is the best way so that we won’t fall for temptation, we have to be careful on our perception, bad or good depends on us, satisfaction depends on us, happiness depends on us..”55

Pak Sunarka explained that [people changed to conventional ways of agriculture] because their principle and way of thinking have changed to be money oriented, that everything can be solved by money. It’s not like that… money is indeed important, but it’s not the most important thing. People search for happiness, not welfare. Happiness can be endless, while welfare has its edge, that it’s why we have to realise our limits. We have to oblige the nature. (…) The most important thing is to be grateful - I mean, what I have now, it’s not mine.(…) And to talk about challenges, there are still too few people who are aware that our life is not for ourselves.(…) If all people realise how to think like this, at least the Tri Hita Karana principle - our relationship with others, nature, and god - can be achieved. Then it will be ideal happiness. The balance of life. I often wondered ‘what am I searching?’ sometimes, I create images, pictures, I wonder sometimes to myself and realise ‘what am I searching is within me, I already have it’. It means that heart, my heart, is what I was looking for… the key is to be sincere, it was an incredible lesson (…)This sincerity will emit aura, positive energy, so it will repels any negative energy from outside. 56

FRIENDSHIP Pak Wayan Sudira: Now everything has to be bought. If we are alone, we won’t be able to afford that, and so with selling our crops. If we sell individually we will be weak. We have to be together, supporting each other. Too bad that now the gotong royong (sense of togetherness) has been eroded by money. However we should not quit, we can’t lose our gotong royong. Pak Sunarka explains: “Life will be useful if others can feel the use of our life in their life.”57

FEELING AT PEACE AND FREE THROUGH SELF-SUFFICIENCY Pak Wayan Sudira: In the past, I feel far more secure, there was no tourism, not this much, not many buildings, vehicles, and money was not a goal, its better in the past. Now, day and night, is noisy, busy road, everything needs money, how can I feel peace? There is no peace, the economy now is weird, our life pattern depends on the economy, materialistic, to follow the era, most of the people are having difficulties, because we need to buy everything. In the 58 past, is really different, happy, secure, peaceful. Comment [pdv12]: Je baseert je heel sterk op het werk van Pak, wie is hij? Heb je hem in voorgaande hoofdstukken geintroduceerd? Comment [HE13]: Ja, zie introductie CH 3..

55 Pak Wayan Sudira, 2013. Ibid. 56 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 57 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 58 Pak Wayan Sudira, 2013. Ibid. 47

5. The shift from ‘bad people’ to ‘bad structures’ In a perfect world, would not need rules, prisons, locks or borders. I believe that people are not intrinsically good or bad – we are just people. “There is no good or bad, it all depends on how we see it. Sometimes we see things bad, good - no, it’s just different”59 No judgement to be made that you took a good or a bad choice – in fact, the concept of ‘choice’ does not exist. We always do what we think we want most. Either we want money, good marks at university, promotion at our work, being liked by others, or maybe we want drugs because we feel the need to escape from our everyday life, we turn aggressive because we feel frustration due to suppression, we listen to our (true or created) desires because they are strong. The concept of choice, it is an illusion. If people behave ‘bad’, it is not them who are bad, it is the network, the structures in the network who are not functioning in a way positive for society, who are not in harmony with life. Those structures are the ones who create our ideas, our behaviour, or our rules and laws claiming to know the truth, what is good and what is not. Therefore the prison doesn’t work. But then you can blame everything on it, many people will respond. Yes. And I think we should.

‘The stores are filled with bandages for the wounds of Empire (…) Traumatized by disconnection and abuse, the people of Empire now hold visions that are unhinged and insane. Born and raised in captivity, we’re now so institutionalised that few of us can even see the prison bars (…) But humans have a history of living much more in touch with the natural world, with the planet, much more sustainable, much more spiritual, much more communal – that’s who we are.’60

If you want to change behaviour of people, you shouldn’t target the people but target their environment, their connections. “In ongoing feedback between the structure of the environment and the construal of the self within that environment, both the physical world and the self are successively and reciprocally transformed as new practices emerge and inform the shaping of the landscape.”ccv The trick, then, is not to destroy indestructible structures, but instead to work towards a transformation of a structure, a new assemblage in the network that corresponds more to our ‘human nature’ and that will grow organically via happiness and creativity. If consumption is the motor of the free market economy, take away Comment [pdv14]: Chomsky zou het hier volledige mee eens zijn. its fuel: peoples’ desire to consume. Since the assemblages of the free market economy create their own fuel, taking it away can thus only be done by connecting humans with another kind of ‘fuel’, namely our true happiness. If there is culture in the word agriculture, happiness might indeed be found by connecting people again to food production, to the resources they use, to the commune way of life that is part of agriCulture. Is it not there where people can find those three ingredients for happiness: friends, freedom through self-sufficiency and peace for analysing their Self. Living in harmony with our Self and our planet. What if that is what we are looking for, but we simply cannot see it, since we’re born and raised in captivity, and we’re so institutionalised that few of us can even see the prison bars? Note that working

59 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 60 Chellis Glendinning, 2007. Quoted from Documentary What a Way to Go. Life at the end of Empire. Vision Quest Pictures 48

towards this way of life is not the same as ‘going backwards to some imaginary origin’. Indeed, people have always been dynamic in their culture, practices, ideas and creations. Human nature is not static. “Change, it’s absolute, and that is the sign of life. If we don’t change, we don’t live. Look at the stone, it doesn’t change itself, because it has no life.”61 Likewise, agriCulture is not static, it is dynamic – but it is a state of being in harmony with the Self and with nature, which we are part of. Harmony is when the rhythms of change support each other. “What is important, is how we optimise the changes for life. It means that everything has its positive side, don’t focus on the negative one, because the positive is what we are looking for, and the negative is just support, a lesson for us to reach the positive.”62

Connecting people again with the Self (Socrates, Foucault and Chomsky), to find Happiness (Epicurus) that will serve as a tool to start and guide the process of a revolution (Hardt and Negri) and as a motor to let this structure grow in a self-reproducing and self-enhancing way in the network – it all starts by bringing in practice those alternative ways of living, instead of rejecting them according to the discourse of current society (Boaventura de Sousa Santos).

61 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 62 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 49

The transition in practice: Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, Bali.

‘Why are we born free and end up enslaved?’ – Noam Chomsky63

The challenge we face nowadays, is that we cannot simply go to the rural areas and start a self-sufficient life with friends, while daily relaxing under a tree, analysing our life. Also, achieving freedom through self-sufficiency is a big challenge. Most farmers I spoke to would prefer to achieve more freedom and become independent from the companies where they have to buy chemical fertilizer, chemical pesticides, and patented seeds. Besides dependency, farmers clearly see the impact of the chemicals on their health and on nature. Pak Ketut: “I’d rather produce safe food, than make more money. I don’t want to endanger the future generation.”64

In the past, before the Green Revolution, the soil was very healthy. It was “just like porridge, because of all the composts. When it’s airy, then it’s good.”65 Traditional cultivation practices were good for soil recovery and pest management. “Land preparation took two months, because we need to compost in our field, and wait until the soil is really fertile. After we harvested the rice, then we dried the land and plant other plants.”66 The introduction of Green Revolution technology (hybrid plants with short growth cycle, chemical fertilizers and pesticides etc.) caused many adverse effects, such as soil degradation, micronutrient deficiencies caused by the rapid and continues removal of micronutrients by the new varieties and environmental pollution through the leaching of excess nutrients. Ibu Kartini noticed the worms dying, which are a crucial element of the soil ecosystem.67 Some farmers even report big losses because of this: “Now we use too much chemicals, if we see physically the plants look good, green, but the fruit is bad… in the past I could get 150kgs from my land, but now, even I used chemicals I only got 80kgs”68 Moreover, as mentioned before, the chemicals had a severe impact on the farmers health.69

Nowadays, farmers would like to change practices, but they address major obstacles to change practices from conventional food production with chemicals towards traditional food production without chemical input. They see converting the land to a chemical-free soil as almost impossible, since the applied chemicals have exhausted the soil for many years. Pak Nyoman Rudita doesn’t see joining an organic program – e.g. from the government or from IDEP Foundation - as an option. First of all, he explains that his land is too far away from cattle, which he needs for organic fertilizer. Second, when planting traditional varieties of rice, you have to plant other varieties of crops after the rice harvest, like cassava. However, he is not able to sell this cassava, since these crops have lost quality, making it impossible to

63 Noam Chomsky, 1998. Ibid. 64 Pak Ketut, 2013. Ibid. 65 Pak Sunarka, 2013a. Ibid. 66 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 67 Ibu Kartini, 2013. Ibid. 68 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 69 Ibu Sayu. Interview at IDEP Foundation, Bali at 13th December 2013. 50

store or sell on time. “For example, after I harvested paddy, then I plant cassava. And this cassava is very bad: if I don’t consume it or sell it within a week, it became rotten. I think may be it has something to do with the chemicals that I have been using all these times, because it was not like this before BIMAS. Also for corn. In the past, I was able to store the corn up to 4-5 months before dried it, but now it rots very fast. I think the soil condition is not good anymore - too much chemicals...”70

Recovering the soil is also not an option for him, since it will take him years. “I don’t think it’s possible. It’s too difficult, unless if I stop using chemicals for like 5 years, that might work… Actually the chemicals are really bad, bad for the quality, but what can I do?! The government told us to use it, to improve our productivity. Indeed the productivity increased, but then the side effect is destructive and now it’s almost impossible for me to stop using chemicals. If I stop using that, then my land will be sterile, because the soil is addicted to the chemicals. So if I stop, I won’t produce..” 71

Besides this major challenge of soil recovery, the farmers are now used to the practice of using the chemicals. Pak Nyoman Rudita: Now people are much more far away with nature than before. All they do is being drunk, talk nonsense. Now less people care about nature. I am sad to see this happening… and also in farming. People don’t care that much anymore about the nature - but I don’t mean we don’t care, because in the past the government told us to use chemicals, and now we realise that it’s not good for the soil, for the animals, even for us… but we are too dependent now. If we stop using chemicals then our plants will not grow. It’s too complicated. We have to know every sources for materials that we use, for what, but now what I do, I have cows, I use the manure for my drylands, not in the rice field… but before BIMAS, I used to search for leaves and grass to be used as compost in the rice field, and the rice was stronger and better than now. But now everything is easier, we don’t have to search for leaves, we just need to go to the input store, buy the fertiliser, and put it in our field, it’s easy…It’s also influenced by our surroundings, our environment, and this modern time.72

Another big challenge is that the farmers’ successors have low or even no knowledge at all about traditional way of farming without chemicals. Most Balinese youth that I spoke to, wouldn’t like to live in the city or tourist area. Putu Ale: “I prefer the village, its calm, not stressful, relaxed. In the cities, it’s hot, crowded, traffic jam, noisy..” 73 Putu Ale, 22 years old, was tempted by the city life, but then quit his job as a massager in Ubud after a year and turned back to his village. His friend, Bejo (25), also prefers the village over the city, especially also because of the mind-set of the people, the strong bond and community feeling: “that is also the reason why I prefer to live in the village, because most of the people still have that kind way of thinking, we have strong beliefs, we help each other, we have close relations with others.” 74 Bejo adds: “The air is clean, a lot of close friends - in the city it’s always busy, noisy, hard to make friends.” 75 Their friend Kopral (15) however, dreams about the city life. After his graduation, he wants to move to the city, because life is easy and you can get anything you want. “From what I’ve seen in commercials, its beautiful, modern

70 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid, 71 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid, 72 Pak Nyoman Rudita, 2013. Ibid. 73 Putu Ale, 2014. FGD with Putu Ale, Bejo and Kopral; Banjar Jahang, buahan Kaja, Payangan, Gianyar, Bali. 74 Bejo, 2014. FGD with Putu Ale, Bejo and Kopral; Banjar Jahang, buahan Kaja, Payangan, Gianyar, Bali. 75 Bejo, 2014. Ibid. 51

buildings, lots of lights, its modern, many cars..”76 Bejo replies: “Yeah I understand, for those who have not experienced the city life, it must be tempting. It’s beautiful in the beginning, but after a while you get bored, that’s why I came back here.” 77 Desires are created about city life amongst the youth, especially via television and commercials, but it is certainly not true that all youth therefor doesn’t want to live in a village anymore. But farming, however, is a whole other topic. Putu Ale: “No, it will be embarrassing to be a farmer while I’m still young, and my background is tourism.” 78 Moreover, he is not able to farm, since the built up knowledge on farming, that was passed on from generation to generation for thousands of years, didn’t reach him. He namely went to tourism school. “ I don’t know anything about agriculture, not to mention serious farming”79

For the youth, however, it is challenging to regain the land, since the agricultural land is getting more and more scarce and expensive. The Balinese need money to send their children to tourism school, and so they sell the land. Bejo explains: “People from big cities such as Jakarta, the company owners, entrepreneurs - many of them bought land and turned it into hotels, and nowadays many foreigners doing the same thing. I think the regulation is not strict enough, it should be limited. If this keeps going on, where should the Balinese go then? In the future if all of our land got sold to the outsiders… it’s scary.”80

According to the farmers, it would take between three to five years to convert the current soil into a healthy soil again, with a healthy soil ecosystem. But in those three to five years, the yield will be very low, since plants can hardly receive minerals from the soil. How can farmers bridge this gap of income of three to five years? And even if this income can be bridged, how will their successors regain the traditional knowledge again? And how will they get access to expensive land? The answers might be found in a modern version of Epicurus’ community, a kind of assemblage of traditional agriCulture and modern sustainable designs and livelihoods: the Eco Neighbourhood. Comment [pdv15]: Goede inleiding voor wat er komt … 1. The road towards an Eco Neighbourhood Petra Schneider (44) is a project leader and sustainability designer with over 20 years of experience in project development in Indonesia, including projects from the UN, USAID and AusAID. She is born in Toronto, Canada, and lives in Bali for 26 years now and is W.N.I (Warga Negara Indonesia, Indonesian citizen). In 1998, around the time of the economic crisis in Indonesia, Petra wanted to help Bali, support the few NGOs which had very small resources and she therefore wanted to introduce permaculture in Bali, a “A little injection of a whole new way of thinking that would have its own way of life. (…) Permaculture is like a really strong critical thinking tool. It’s about really looking around, ‘what have I got? What’s Comment [pdv16]: Heb je al uitgelegd wat permaculture is? here? And how can I work with my environment to make a better situation?’ It’s a lot about Comment [HE17]: Dat komt later.. how you design and plan and think about things.”81 Petra invited Robin Francis – the ‘grandmother of permaculture’ - from Australia to come over to Bali and help them to set up a one-month permaculture course. Approximately 220 people from all over Indonesia applied

76 Kopral, 2014. FGD with Putu Ale, Bejo and Kopral; Banjar Jahang, buahan Kaja, Payangan, Gianyar, Bali. 77 Bejo, 2014. Ibid. 78 Putu Ale, 2014. Ibid. 79 Putu Ale, 2014. Ibid. 80 Bejo, 2014. Ibid. 81 Petra Schneider, 2014a. First interview at her house in Bali, Indonesia at 19th January, 2014 52

for the course. Out of these 200 people, they had to choose 30 people. “We managed to choose like the directors, the main activists from around Indonesia from all provinces.”82 Robin explained to the participants how permaculture is organised internationally. It’s a network and there’s no hierarchy, no top-down project. This ‘Training the Trainers’ in Permaculture Design offered people the understanding and tools to assist their local communities to provide food, shelter, energy and other needs in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way. Moreover it went to the heart of the problem: not just dealing with a polluted soil and a shift towards an agro-ecological type of agriculture, but also trying to achieve a real shift of thinking and empowering the people. At the end of the project, the participants insisted to continue bringing more permaculture information to Indonesia, since most of the information at that time was not in Indonesian language. That was the beginning, ‘the seed’, of IDEP. The IDEP Foundation was started by Petra in 1999 in Bali, Indonesia, in order to facilitate NGO programs in many areas in Indonesia. The vision is ‘safe and sustainable lives through understanding our interconnectedness with nature.’ccvi At that time there were just a few NGOs, most of them focussed on farmers’ rights or land rights and all working isolated from each other.

Then the ‘Bali bomb’ happened in 2002, where over 200 people were killed. “We sort of Comment [pdv18]: Dit stuk is heel interessant expected that Red Cross or anything could come and take care of it, but they didn’t. It was 83 Comment [HE19]: Het verhaal gaat nog really up to the people to take care of it.” The team of IDEP decided to help, although this veel verder, maar hoort niet thuis in deze thesis. Er is een heel debat gaande over die was very traumatizing for the group. “We were just normal people, we’d never seen anything bom, zie: ‘FOOL ME TWICE’ like this. I mean, we were on the ground and you know the morgue was like this deep soup of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYJrT4 5woqc bodies disintegrating.”84 Nevertheless, they were able to set up a community disaster management system, based on their experiences during that time. They also started to get more funding, since both funding as well as the amount of NGOs exploded after the Bali bomb. Besides emergency response work, Petra decided to get back to permaculture, which they started implementing in East Timor and Aceh. “We learned that permaculture – again - plays a really big role in healing, community development, food security, capacity building, empowerment, critical thinking. It had just so many multiple impacts, it’s really to list.”85 It was then that Petra realised that the Shock Doctrine can also work in a positive way. She had tried to do permaculture projects in Bali and Java, and people never responded very enthusiastic. “You know, there was already a system, the system was more reluctant to change.”86 But in Aceh and East Timor, there was total chaos, there was no system and thus the people were willing to try it. “So the principle [the shock doctrine] is just a principle, it’s not necessarily a negative principle. It’s just the greedy guys are quick!”87

But soon after, she faced another lesson that would shape her direction in life. “The lesson of

82 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 83 Petra Schneider. 2014a, Ibid. 84 Petra Schneider. 2014a, Ibid. 85 Petra Schneider. 2014a, Ibid. 86 Petra Schneider. 2014a, Ibid. 87 Petra Schneider. 2014a, Ibid. 53

how screwed up the whole Humanitarian world is, what a mess that is.”88 Petra saw grants coming and going, and so the NGOs and their impact. Sustainability was nowhere to find. “When a disaster happens, all these bules (foreigners) show up and they do not speak Indonesian properly and they have really good intentions, but the dialogue isn't there.”89 Petra emphasises that there are a lot of good NGOs around, “but not the majority.”90 Quite a lot of NGOs tend to have a rather arrogant attitude towards the people: “‘Would you like some help?' - not even would you like some help, but 'you're so lucky we are here!’”91 Nevertheless, the problem is not so much the NGOs per se, according to Petra. The real fundamental problem is the grant-based work. “The problem with grand-based work is, you know, a lot of hidden agenda's in almost all grants at this point in time.”92 In order to receive a grant, NGOs have to write a proposal with expectation about what they’re supposed to deliver in a specific – often very short - time frame with a specific sum of money. Then, at the end of the project, they are faced with a dilemma: if they want the project to continue, they have to write a story of success in order to receive more money - something, which is unfortunately hardly ever the case, since it is practically impossible to plan out a project in detail beforehand and achieve real change in those short timeframes. “So then you have this kind of modus operandi within NGOs, especially the international NGOs where - and really I've seen it - what goes in that rapport and what actually happens on the ground it's like oil and water, really! Seriously, and it's shocking.”93 Petra became more and more unhappy with the whole NGO approach, combined with the fact that the impact of the projects was very slow due to the power of the governmental structures and the strong marketing around products like Roundup (Monsanto).

Meanwhile, the effects of tourism pervaded Balinese society more and more. “Their culture, their nature, their resources, their smiles are being sold for dollars by people who are not Balinese, and the money is leaving Bali. There's something so fundamentally, massively wrong with that. It's really, really deep what's wrong with that. That the money is being made of the beauty of the heart and spirit of the people, but it's having no benefit for the people - it's actually the opposite. So there's an organic trickle-down effect of that into psychology, into the mental wellbeing and the spiritual well-being of the people!”94 It was time for a radical change. Petra decided to get friends together, “people who basically tried to do what’s explained in the Naomi Klein book, where she talks about the solution: get out of the system as much as possible and start to build small economies, local economies.”95 That was the very beginning of Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood (TPEN), a ‘consciously evolving model community’ of 1.5 hectare at Br. Sumampan, Kemenuh, Sukawati, Gianyar, Bali, comprising 20 self-contained private plots.

88 Petra Schneider. 2014a, Ibid. 89 Petra Schneider, 2014b. Second interview at her house in Bali, Indonesia at 9th February 2014. 90 Petra Schneider, 2014b, Ibid. 91 Petra Schneider, 2014b, Ibid. 92 Petra Schneider, 2014b, Ibid. 93 Petra Schneider, 2014b, Ibid. 94 Petra Schneider, 2014b, Ibid. 95 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 54

Petra sees the Neighbourhood as an experiment:

“Is it actually possible to live in a way that if a lot of us lived like that, we can really fix the system? So we’re looking at the physical things in terms of consumption, natural resources, how we build, how we design, how we deal with water, how we deal with pollution. We consume every day and how to make that a positive impact. We’re looking at culture and, you know, mental, emotional, physical, health. We’re looking at division of resources in a way that it’s more social, in the sense that we have people in our group that have a lot of money, we have people in our group that have no money, and we managed to build it together (…) I actually believe that a real change, real future is going to come from a combination from a high level, international level, lobbying and just continuing the fight. But the fight alone won’t fix it, we also need a solution. So if we win then what? If they stop this, then how do we eat? So we need to look also at the practical ground. So Taman Petanu is bringing that more simple, basic lifestyle option to the table as well as the advocacy and public educations. That’s Taman Petanu.”96

96 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 55

2. Forming the group First the group had to determine their identity: is it going to be an eco-village, a commune, a villa-development for expats? "Some of our group had already lived in a commune-kind of group, where everything is shared, and they said it didn’t work, it didn’t last very long."97 Therefore they all agreed to be a neighbourhood, where people share things, but not everything, in order to give everyone their personal space. "Not too hippy. Like, really normal."98

Then, the group came together to create a constitution – the foundation blocks of the neighbourhood - by discussing a wide range of topics: What happens if you sell your house, or rent it? What happens if someone does something really bad, like rape someone? Or things like what happens if your dog kills my cat? "We found really great answers to pretty much all of those questions so far."99 Indeed, a system of conflict resolution is often very important in communities.ccvii

Third, the group came together to discuss the organization. "So we’ve agreed on a neighbourhood, but still, we do have group decisions we have to make about, for example, this constitution in the Neighbourhood. It’s going to be adapted, adjusted; there will come more lessons and the situation changes."100 When people join the neighbourhood, they choose a group where they want to join: first, there is the hand-group, which deals with land-related issues, like the eco-farm, the landscape, energy- and water supply, conservation issues etc. Second, there is the heart-group which deals which social issues, like community outreach, ceremonies, events, volunteers, transport etc. Last, there is the mind-group, which deals with physical infrastructure, like the buildings. From each of these groups there needs to be at least one representative in what is called the coordination council. "So then there’s a kind of a central body that deals with the legality, the finance, the accountability, the transparency of the neighbourhood.”101 People who’d like to join the neighbourhood have to go through an application procedure. “A lot of time and energy is gone into where we are now, so we don’t want to go backwards too much.”102 The newcomer has to describe him/herself and this is sent to all members of Petanu. “And then all the members have to agree. Interestingly there were quite a few people of which the members have said no.”103 People who want to build a house in order to sub-rent it, for example, or people who were ‘too extreme’ in their ideals.

3. The local economy The neighbourhood is completely self-financed. The costs per Are (100 m2) for private holdings are IDR 144.020.250 (€ 10.021,78) for the land plus IDR 216.030.375 (€15.032.68) for the facilities is in total IDR 360.050.625 (€25.054,46). The design and construction of the

97 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 98 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 99 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 100 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 101 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 102 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 103 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 56

private plots is the owner’s responsibility and are not included in these costs. During the time I visited the construction site, there were Indonesian workers, mainly from Java, building the houses for the plot owners. Some of them lived in temporary huts at the construction site of the neighbourhood.

Besides the abovementioned costs, each TPEN plot pays a proportionate amount of monthly maintenance fees, which is IDR 638.252 (€ 44,41) per Are (100m2). The neighbourhood has written a solid financial plan, based on the money that comes in from people joining the neighbourhood. The amount, depends on the person. “We have special discount for Indonesian people, because we encourage Indonesian people to join the neighbourhood.”104 On the other hand, people with a lot of money, are usually very generous and quite enthusiastic in supporting the group. “It’s quite a weird economy, it’s very socialist, it’s great!”105

The neighbourhood is also finding creative ways to save money, with their transportation programme, for example. First, it was analysed to see what kind of transport the neighbourhood members would need and how often they want to use it. Then, a programme was made where the neighbourhood - as a group - would collectively own eight different kinds of vehicles. By sharing this ‘flee of vehicles’ with the group, Petra calculated, the members pay 25% less, compared to owning their own car and they would have the luxury of having access to many different kind of vehicles. “And if only half the people in the neighbourhood would join the programme, and would pay 25% less then what they pay now, just to have a car, they would have access to all of these vehicles and the system generates a net profit of half a million dollars every ten years.”106 Moreover, this will have a positive effect on the environment, since you can chose the most suitable vehicle (e.g. a motor bike instead of your car when you just want to go and see a friend) and so you pollute less. But when Petra first presented these data to the group, people were in fact afraid, rather than enthusiastic. “The members they were like ‘what?! You mean I don’t have my own car anymore?! But what if I have to go to the market, maybe I need to go out at night?! I want to go on vacation for ten days!’”107 Petra asked the group ‘who needs which vehicle and when’ for different activities. She mapped it, and it turned out that those eight different vehicles would be more than sufficient for the transportation requirements of the group. “Wow, half a million bucks, and pay less than I pay now! And that was the moment when I got it! I got how we’re being taken advantage of by the system. The lie that we have been told is that you need your car, I need my car and that makes me safe, it’s mine. And we’re paying a lot for that in terms of stress and resources and money.”108 Owning things exclusively by yourself is not per se a security – in fact, it often turns out to be an insecurity, driven by fears and desires, created by the free market.

104 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 105 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 106 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 107 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 108 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 57

4. The design of the Neighbourhood Taman Petanu has been designed until the last detail, to make it both environmentally as well as economically sustainable over time. “But of course it does mean a bigger investment in the beginning. But the reality is not everyone can afford that in the beginning. So I think it’s important to know that Taman Petanu has been super super super designed until the last detail, but it doesn’t have to be like that. The main point is that group of 100 people.”109 Many studies found that the magic number for a sustainable group is around 150 people.ccviii “Get a group together that has a similar vision and give them a combination of things they can share and privacy so they don’t feel too much controlled. And I think it can work – definitely. In that group together there’s enough minds, enough hearts, enough ear, enough eyes to address the unique needs of that group.”110 The design depends on the needs of the group, the lifestyle and goals, but also the location. In Taman Petanu, for example, the majority of the group are expats who need to work at home, which means they need good quality internet. “That’s important for us, so ok we pay a little bit more for that. So each group is unique.”111

The Eco Neighbourhood exists out of 20 plots, of which 19 are currently sold (February 2015). The currently confirmed neighbourhood’s members have backgrounds in environmental sustainability, development work, social outreach and communication education. Confirmed nationalities represented are: Australia, Canada, Germany, England, Indonesia (Bali, Java, Sumatra), India, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Singapore, Timor Leste and USA. Eighteen per cent of all residents is full Indonesian (all grandparents are of Indonesian descent), 34% is Part Indonesian (see table 1).

109 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 110 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 111 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid. 58

Table 1 Ethnicity, age, gender, relation to Indonesia, and information about intended residency of the confirmed residents of Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood Bali. (Source: TPEN, 2015) Confirmed residents of Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood Bali Residents (Febr. 2015)

Total number confirmed residents 44 (100%)

Ethnicity Indonesian 8 (18%)

Part Indonesian 15 (34%)

Non Indonesian 21 (48%)

Age Under 18 14 (32%)

Young adult 13 (30%)

Middle aged 16 (36%)

Retiree 1 (2%)

Gender Male 18 (41%)

Female 24 (59%)

Relationship to Indonesia Grew up in Indonesia 20 (45%)

10+ years in Indonesia 6 (14%)

A few years in Indonesia 15 (34%)

Never lived in Indonesia 3 (7%)

Intended Residency at Taman Full time 23 (52%) Petanu Part time transitioning to full 12 (27%) time

Part time or vacation home 9 (20%)

The facilities present at the neighbourhood are clearly directed towards expats; they include:

 Electricity main lines to neighbourhood area  Telephone and internet main lines to neighbourhood  Common area Permaculture gardens landscaping  Common area pool and relax area  Children's Playground and outdoor sports area  Amphitheatre, BBQ & outdoor gathering area  Workshop / gathering space (below cafe)  Neighbourhood fire fighting equipment  Small reception and security area

Taking into account the costs to join the TPEN, as well as the design of the Neighbourhood, with luxurious facilities, one can conclude that the members of the TPEN are thus relatively rich people according to Indonesian standards; average Balinese citizens could never afford to join. Nevertheless, the Eco Neighbourhood is meant to serve as a consciously evolving model community, inspiring the local people, while serving as a general example of which people from all over the world can copy ideas.

Setting up a commune way of living together, like the Eco Neighbourhood, involves a very important choice one has to make: are you going to work towards a community that tries to become completely independent of the free market economy, embracing the philosophy of ‘Do It Yourself’ – with the high risk of failure due to quarrels and high pressure on ‘surviving’ – or are you going to work towards a highly organised, ‘modern’ and thus expensive community – with the risk of becoming a kind of ‘expat villa park’ with an (unconscious) rise of a profit making mind-set?

The neighbourhood, for example, used relatively expensive infrastructure in the design. They chose to do so, since these materials can last for at least 25 years. The selection of the materials is, to the greatest degree possible, selected according to the Indonesian Green Building Council’s GREENSHIP Guide, which provides guidance for sustainable building materials.ccix However, the choice for sustainability in this case also results in increased inequity, since it all adds to the costs. While walking on a thin line in between the destruction of that gotong royong (sense of togetherness) and the destruction of the ideals, the best way to go, might be to find the balance between the two extremes. Although, for me, something feels really wrong with building a ‘villa park’ that the local people cannot afford, this might be just that balance, that first step to make change possible. Petra now realised a Neighbourhood with people that have money to invest in the local community – something that would most likely not have been the case if Petra would have chosen for a community that would fully reject the free market economy and embrace a total ‘Do It Yourself’ mentality. Pak Roberto explains: “[Ordinary Balinese people] can copy not our building [since that’s too expensive], but our idea: how to make organic compost, how to make a nursery [for rice], how to make permaculture integrative, from the fish pond to the organic garden, rice paddy, SRI [System of Rice Intensification] - that’s to copy, not the infrastructure.”112

112 Pak Roberto Hutabarat, a 42 year old SRI specialist from Java, who lives in Bali since 1991. Interview at Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, Bali at 3rd January 2014 60

Figure 6 Site Master Plan of Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood. Source: tamanpetanu.com, 2014.

5. An organic development process. Petra worked a lot with the Balinese government in the past, and she realised that the government actually really wants solutions, but they’re just pussing (confused) how to deal with all the challenges, all the data, and then there’s the corruption. “The Bali province has the ‘Bali Clean and Green’ roadmap that they want to manifest and nothing is really happening. It’s because there’s not enough real stuff on the ground. There’s a lot of talk and there’s a lot of ‘green washing’, which makes everything really confusing.”113 With the eco neighbourhood, Petra wants to show some ‘hard core statistics’ to the government about really concrete solutions regarding water use, energy use, the impact on organic farming etc. “It would be so useful for them to have a living model. I’m sure that it’ll be a good thing.”114 All the design steps are documented and made available for free on the website as much as possible, so people can copy ideas, chose the parts they like. “Later we’ll do trainings, workshops and teach about this stuff.”115 Petra is even thinking about setting up some university courses, like sustainable architecture. “Again I really want it to get mainstream, not considered as something weird - just normal.”116 In this way, she tries to offer practical solutions to both the government, research institutes, like-minded people and last but not least: the local people in Bali.

“Change like this probably will have a very organic development process. So in terms of the influence on local communities, I’d say that the first level of influence comes from this group of a hundred people. Like ‘ok, we want to buy local’. So then you have a spin-out from that group on all these economic livelihood opportunities around the group. So our dream – if we can get it together with the Eco farm and the Living Classroom – is the Living Classroom is a sort of locational trade centre.”117 It is the area of the neighbourhood that connects it to the local people. Women from neighbouring communities can come to the Living Classroom to learn how to add value to products, e.g. how to make organic jam, soap, tahoe (tofu) and tempe, chutneys, coconut oil, how to join a seed bank – those sort of things, with economic incentive. The idea is then that Taman Petanu makes agreements. Petra explains: “We can say to them: ‘if you make this soap, natural, based on this training, we promise we will buy it from you, and at a good price.’”118 Petra is even willing to give some capital, to help start up that little business.

Besides the Living Classroom, there’s the Eco Farm. The 5100 m2 area of land is owned by a Balinese family from the local community, Pak Bek and his son Nyoman Eva, with whom the Eco Neighbourhood has an agreement: they contribute the land, Taman Petanu contributes the ilmoe (knowledge). “We work together, and when we start making profit, we split. So we’re partners, it’s not a free thing. It’s not this NGO approach which doesn’t work, I’ve learned that. It’s like, we’re samasama, membangun sesuatu (together building something), and

113 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 114 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 115 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 116 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 117 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 118 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 62

hopefully that can change the attitude and also make people more proud because they own it. They are just working on what used to be their land – it’s still their land, it’s their farm.”119 The memorandum of understanding between the land owner and the neighbourhood includes the clause that the external partners (Taman Petanu) guaranteed the farmer a certain amount of money per year, which is equivalent of what they’re making during chemical rice farming. So it’s not the farmer, but Taman Petanu that takes the risk. The hope is that with the SRI method and organic ways of farming, the land will give more profit – which will be shared with the farmer. “And that’s when they [the farmers] start to believe [in the possibility of change].”120 Comment [pdv20]: Dit stuk is heel interessant …

Roberto strongly believes in these kinds of cooperatives: “Most people think that business is capitalism, while through cooperative we can make socialist form of business, in which all members of the cooperative feel the impact of the business, as a family.”121 This is in fact law number 33 of the Indonesian Constitution, constructed by Tan Malaka Sjahrir (PKI activist, executed by the Indonesian army in 1949) and Mohammad ‘Bung’ Hatta (first Vice President of Soekarno). Roberto explains: “One of the points is that Indonesian economy is based on asas kekeluargaan (family value), but most people use this law in a wrong way. They just make their own family wealthy, like Soeharto family did (…) The real meaning of asas kekeluargaan is that we have to see - whoever, wherever, whatever their tribe, religion, belief is - people are, as long as they are Indonesian, our family, and every resource in Indonesia has to be prioritised for our citizens, our family.”122 The Eco Farm will provide the neighbourhood’s members with regular supply of organic food (fruits, vegetables, herbs, flowers, aquaculture, meat, eggs, coconuts and mushrooms), while supporting the local economy, the spread of organic practices in the area and moreover, it will be an experiment and demonstration of how to best rehabilitate the soil!

119 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 120 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 121 Pak Roberto Hutabarat, 2014. Ibid. 122 Pak Roberto Hutabarat, 2014. Ibid. 63

Figure 7 Construction of the Amphitheatre by the Indonesian workers.

Figure 8 Design of the temple with Ratu Pedanda, a Balinese High Priest.

6. Permaculture Permaculture is one of the key concepts of Taman Petanu. “Great changes are taking place. These are not as result of any one group or teaching, but as a result of millions of people defining one or more ways in which they can conserve energy, aid local self-reliance, or provide for themselves (…) We must all try to increase our skills, to model trials, and to pass on the results.”ccx These lines are quoted from Bill Mollison’s book Permaculture - A Designers’ Manual. Permaculture (permanent agriculture) is the ‘conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way (…) The philosophy behind permaculture is one of working with, rather than against, nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless action; of looking at systems in all their functions, rather than asking only one yield of them; and of allowing systems to demonstrate their own evolutions.’ccxi

In a way, both the practices as well as the philosophy of permaculture are quite similar to that of Balinese practices and philosophy before the introduction of the Green Revolution, which is exactly why it has such great potential in Bali. For Petra, permaculture is about empowering that, and motivating the people by showing permaculture is in fact a big movement, taking place all over the world. “There's no boss, it grows organically in terms of its institution, and the strength of it is because of that.”123 This empowerment of the people is especially important in post-conflict areas, like Indonesia: “Balinese feel the same [sad about the current destruction of Bali and willing to make a change], but they are too innocent, they don’t dare to speak their mind, they don’t dare to resist… This mentality is strongly related to what happened in 1965, (…) most changes in Bali started because of 1965 event.”124 Empowering people is the essential challenge. “Of course there's the challenge 'the soil is bad, the chemicals etc', but if you don't fix the essence, the rest of it is kind of band aids, right? So we wanted to get to the heart of the problem.”125 Taman Petanu is looking how to integrate permaculture principles into the neighbourhood: a combination of learning from nature and Balinese traditions and combine this with new ideas of passive design, e.g. the architecture of a house in such a way that it doesn't need air-conditioning. One important aspect here is thus the traditional knowledge. Like Pak Sunarka explained: “Our ancestors had the knowledge, we only need to rediscover it.”126

7. Water Managing water is one of the main challenges in the design of the neighbourhood. According to Petra, the water table in Bali dropped 55 meters in the past ten years. "A combination of the development and the [conventional] agriculture."127 Development includes facilities for tourists, like hotels, which use a lot of water. “Every hotel has a swimming pool, while the

123 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 124 Pak Roberto Hutabarat, 2014. Ibid. 125 Petra Schneider, 2014b, Ibid. 126 Pak Sunarka 2013a. Ibid. 127 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 65

locals are screaming for water. Now is rainy season, there is water, but if its summer, the locals wait for water the whole night, just to fill their containers for bathing and cooking, while in hotels and villas, they are partying all day and night… destroyed, Bali is destroyed.”128 Meanwhile the introduced conventional agriculture reduces the groundwater level as well, due to the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which have a negative impact on the soil life, making the soil very compact and thereby decrease the capacity to store water. Petra predicts Bali is going to have a big water crisis soon and therefore she is looking into various techniques that would be easy to produce and use in Indonesia as well. A rainwater harvesting system for example, which is rare in Bali. "People do rainwater harvesting in eastern Indonesia, but the system is very bad and it makes sickness."129 Still standing water is namely a potential place where mosquitoes lay their eggs, and it can thus create an outbreak of vector borne diseases, like dengue or malaria. But with a proper design this can be prevented. Rainwater is the cleanest water that will enter the site of the neighbourhood. Using it for the neighbourhood needs will moreover low and reduce the storm water saturation of the high clay content soil.ccxii Another topic is the use of waste water. Most houses in Bali now have a sceptic tank where all the waste water goes. "Every ten years it fills up and a truck comes and pumps it and dumps it in the river. So that creates a big, big, big mess! So we’re looking at that waste water - it's actually full of nutrients and resources. You know, one of the reasons the [paddy]fields aren’t productive is we’re throwing away all those nutrients!"130 When properly managed, the waste water can rehabilitate the soil and serve as nutrient source for the food you eat. Taman Petanu is looking how to recuperate the grey water and the urine and use it for the gardens, how to recuperate kitchen water and use it for worm farming etc.ccxiii

But reusing waste water is one thing - reducing the amount of waste water is another important topic at the design of the neighbourhood. There are a lot of different types of toilets (e.g. the urine diversion toilet) and showers which can drastically reduce the amount of water used (but still enough to push everything through the pipes!). They are comparing different prototypes and see whether it would be possible to make local production in Indonesia possible. "So we’re looking for some big impacts. And you know, I’m a geek and I’ve done the research and if half of Bali implemented the technologies that we’re doing in Taman Petanu, we would solve this water table problem for the island. And I feel really strongly about that. It’s just stupid. It’s not like, we’re stuck, there’s nothing we can do, we have no choice..no! But we have to finish this 'living lab' and prove the cost and train people how to do it."131

128 Pak Roberto Hutabarat, 2014. Ibid. 129 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 130 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 131 Petra Schneider, 2014a, Ibid 66

The Transition in practice: the local peoples’ point of view With the Neighbourhood, and especially the Eco Farm as a cooperative, Petra hopes to make a spin-off to other surrounding farmers as well. If the neighbourhood really wants to be off the grid in terms of food consumption, three and a half hectare of well-designed land is needed to feed 100 people in total, according to Petra’s calculations. But what is the opinion of the surrounding local people to this plan of cooperation? During my visits at the Eco Neighbourhood, I asked the workers there. They didn’t really know anything about the plans of the Eco Neighbourhood, and saw it mostly as a ‘buleh’ (foreigners) project’.

Two friends - Blanka from Spain and Patrick from Java, both living in Bali – have recently conducted some interviews for me with local people living next to the Eco Village in Sumampan banjar, (Kemenuh village, Sukawati, Gianyar, Bali; see Fig. 11). Kemenuh is one village, separated by 8 banjars. Three of these 8 banjars, namely Medahan, Sumampan, and Batisepe, together form the Adat. So the rice fields at the Sumampan are in fact from those three banjars. In the past, the Kemenuh village was famous for wood carving. Now, even the young people don’t want to learn this anymore, they want to move out of the village to earn ‘quick money’. Almost all people working here in the rice fields are old people - no teenagers “They won’t even touch the ground.”132 Pak Wayan explains that maybe one per cent of the teenagers – those who are not going to school (anymore) - work in the rice field.

First of all, it turned out that eight out of twelve people interviewed, had no idea about any plans about potential future cooperation with the eco neighbourhood. The other four people interviewed were:

Pak Wayan (33). “Now, the world has changed. Some people kill the cultures – they change the rice fields with the villa or resort. Working at hotels is getting quick money. We even import things, like wheat!”133 He would like to cooperate with the eco-village, since he strongly agrees that rice fields should be turned into organic/traditional rice fields again. He thinks that this transition, however, can be quite difficult since people want change instantly. “My opinion about this project is that it’s going to be hard. But if you really have a strong heart, 50/50 then. You know, everything has changed now.” He explains that people of the banjars in general don’t really care about the eco village. Only if it turns out that with methods of the eco village there will be more yield, or more money to be gained, the people are willing to copy the methods or cooperate with the neighbourhood. “I think the cooperation is good – even for the rice field right now. Farmers currently sell the rice in the local market. Even the government imports rice in case there is a hard season (strong rain or too much heat that will kill the rice).” 134

Pak Juono (55) from Java, living in Semapan Kemenuh since 2000, is very enthusiastic about this potential cooperation, since he believes this can support the poor people to have a job and a better and more fair economy. Moreover, a project like this can help to shift

132 Pak Wayan. Interview at Semapan Kemunuh village at 22nd December 2014 133 Pak Wayan, 2014. Ibid. 134 Pak Wayan, 2014. Ibid. 67

towards a more healthy way of rice production, both for the nature and the farmers. Nevertheless, he is suspicious towards the neighbourhood as well – ‘in case it’s a villa residence, I wouldn’t trust them.’135 Ibu Siti Fatima (32) from Java, living in Semapan Kemenuh since 2009 and working as a babysitter for a Balinese family in that same village. Ibu Siti would like to cooperate with the eco neighbourhood, although she as well, is quite suspicious of this buleh (foreigner) project. Last, Pak Nyoman Rawa (40; see Fig.10) would like to cooperate with the eco neighbourhood – however he wants to first discuss this further in detail with his parents, since they take all the decisions.

135 Pak Juono. Interview at Semapan Kemunuh village at 22nd December 2014. 68

Figure 9 Rice fields next to Eco Neighbourhood

Figure 10 Pak Nyoman Rawa.

Figure 11 Kemanuh village, with location of the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood indicated with a red dot. (Source: google maps, 2014)

Chapter 5. Conclusion and Discussion

 Moving forward in the debate: ‘How to feed the world?’  Moving forward in practice: the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood  Moving forward in science: Research Institutes

Moving forward in the debate: ‘How to feed the world?’ Currently, almost every study, project or policy related to food production starts with the firm statement that we need to feed an increasing number of people in the coming years. How are we going to feed the world? It is not the first time in history that concerns were raised regarding worldwide food security. The question of ‘How to feed the World’ was already addressed in 1946 – one year after winning WWII. This question turned out not to be coming from America’s ‘warm heart’ responding to mass starvation – rather is turned out to be the first step of a method used to gain control over a resource-rich country. America was prepared to transfer its ‘imponderable resources in technical knowledge’, especially agricultural technology, to hungry countries around the world and ‘foster capital investment’ in cooperation with business, private capital, agriculture and labour in order to ‘increase industrial activity in other nations’. Moreover, the US would ‘carry out our plans for reducing the barriers to world trade and increasing its volume.’ccxiv

After creating the reality of ‘a famine of half the world’ in the West, the second step was a USA-backed Shock Doctrine in Indonesia in 1965, where approximately 2 million people were tortured and killed. Leaving the country in shock, a pro-American military dictatorship took over, allowing the corporate take-over of Indonesia and its transformation of its economy into a free-market economy. After control was gained over Indonesia’s government and economy, the third step was to gain control over its food production and its people. This was achieved by the USA by using food as a weapon. First, before the coup d'état in 1965, food was used as weapon via so called Agro Power, regulating food aid to ‘reward friends’ (those who carry out the wanted policies) or ‘punish enemies’ (those who do not carry out the wanted policies). Later, the concept of ‘food as weapon’ was carried out in another way. Instead of directing the government via rewards and punishments with food, the aim was now to gain control over the people, by gaining control over the complete food production. The Green Revolution was pushed through, sometimes forced upon the farmers with the help of the army.ccxv Patented new hybrid varieties (so called ‘High Yielding Varieties’ or High Responsive Varieties), chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides and other Western technologies were pushed through as to make the food system completely dependent on the companies providing these resources as well as the demands of the free market economy.

The impact of the USA control of Indonesia’s government, its economy and its food production has had – and still has - enormous impacts on the country. In terms of food sovereignty, where I have focussed on in this thesis, farmers mainly address issues like a loss

of diversity in their diet, a loss of quality of food, especially storing capabilities of rice, the access to seeds, the created illusion of the increased yield thanks to the Green Revolution HYVs, health problems and poisoning due to the introduced chemicals, the loss of soil quality due to the chemicals, and the dependency on the free market economy.

It is important to realise that the three steps of the USA taking over control, have not been applied in Indonesia alone. Since the WWII the USA is implementing this strategy in countries all over the world, especially Latin America and Asiaccxvi as well as in Europe after World War II – maybe the biggest crisis in history - where pro-American policies were pushed through via the 18 billion USA dollar Marshall Plan. These policies include the removal of trade barriers, the set-up of institutions that coordinate the economy (a political reconstruction of Western Europe by the USA), the modernization of European industry, including the shift from charcoal to USA dominated oilccxvii and – last but not least - the modernization of agriculture: the shift from family farming towards big industrial farms, directed towards the demands of the free market. History is written by the winners, and that does not only hold true for Indonesia – mind you!

‘Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change.’ – Milton Freedman

For Indonesia ‘how to feed the world’ was not really a question - rather it was part of a method of USA control where ‘the weapon is food.’ And this weapon was a lethal one: it required the massacre of 2 million Indonesian people. Since the corporate take-over, every food crisis – note the word crisis - is covered in the media with statements that more food is needed due to a growing world population and that solutions can only be provided by those with Food Power: the Agribusiness, the biotech companies, the Development agencies of the West – all ignoring the fact that there is already enough food to feed 14 billion people.ccxviii Let me repeat: there is no food shortage. So before we jump into which technologies, policies or projects can feed the world, let us first take a step back and learn from this version of history. Remember the 2 million deaths, all the terrible torture, the history written by the winners and the involvement of the West. All this suffering just to gain control. It is only immoral structures who can demand such a sacrifice.

Structures, assemblages in the dynamic network we all live in, we are all influenced by – every single day. Assemblages which are moreover self-enhancive, self-reproductive, achieving growth by its own, by acting upon us, creating desires to consume, creating structures called ‘companies’ or ‘universities’ or ‘prisons’ or ‘armies’ or ‘foundations’ etc. with many roles we have to play to assure its existence and growth. It’s shaping us in such a way that we fuel it without realising this. ‘Born and raised in captivity, we’re now so institutionalised that few of us can even see the prison bars.’136

Stepping out of its influence via epimelesthai sautou, to be concerned, take care of the Self.

136 Chellis Glendinning, 2007. Quoted from Documentary What a Way to Go. Life at the end of Empire. Vision Quest Pictures 72

Connect more to nature, to agro-ecological agriculture which is in harmony with nature and with our Self. Not building on rational error after error, getting lost in desires, created by assemblages that are using this as their fuel in order to be self-reproducing, self-enhancing. Not fuelling that which is addicting us to poison ourselves and our planet. We need to not listen to, but instead observe that discourse of society. It’s time to find back our Human Nature, not with the interpreting Ratio, but Nature as teacher. We need to find alternative fuels for alternative assemblages to modern day life: Happiness, Creativity and Love.

‘If people who eat, shape the present, then by reorganising their consumption habits, they can build a new future (…) Strengthening peoples self-organization around food, lies at the centre of a healthier, greener community’137 – Steven Sherwood

Moving forward in practice: the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood According to the farmers in Bali, Indonesia, it would take between three to five years to convert the current soil into a healthy soil ecosystem again, where a diverse range of food crops can be planted again. But in those three to five years, the yield will be very low, since plants can hardly receive minerals from the degraded soil. How can farmers bridge this gap of income of three to five years? And even if this income can be bridged, how will their successors regain the traditional knowledge again? And how will they get access to expensive land? The answers might be found in a modern version of Epicurus’ community, a kind of assemblage of traditional agriCulture and modern sustainable designs and livelihoods in practice: the Eco Neighbourhood.

However, setting up a commune way of living together, like the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, involves one very important choice one has to make: are you going to work towards a community that tries to become completely independent of the free market economy, embracing the philosophy of ‘Do It Yourself’ – with the high risk of total failure due to quarrels and high pressure on ‘surviving’ccxix – or are you going to work towards a highly organised, ‘modern’ and thus expensive community – with the risk of becoming a kind of ‘expat villa park’ with an (unconscious) rise of a profit making mind-set? It is a major challenge for the community members to keep equity and democracy as core values, while making the assemblage viable. Ted Trainer, for example, argues that “there is no possibility of technical fix strategies cutting resource use sufficiently to solve the problems while anything like a consumer-capitalist society continues.” This means that we would have to work for transition to some kind of ““Simpler Way”, in which we live very frugally and self- sufficiently, in economies that are mostly small and have highly localised, self-sufficient and cooperative ways under social control (i.e., not determined by market forces or profit), and without any economic growth. None of these structural changes is possible without huge and radical value change.” ccxx

137 Steven Sherwood, 2012. (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry3tqAPVlpI&feature=player_embedded#t=40) 73

The Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood, however, choses a strategy not to radically break with capitalist consumer society, but rather to gradually transform their reality, their assemblage towards a sustainable one, based on agro-ecological food production methods and equity. Fotopoulos (2006) argues that the process to work towards a more sustainable society “involves not the creation of eco-villages (mainly outside the main society) but, instead, the creation of local ‘inclusive democracies in action’ which would gradually move resources out of the capitalist market economy and create new political, economic and ecological institutions to replace the present ones.” Although I agree the solution most likely to work is a gradual move of resources outside the capitalist market, I disagree that eco-villages could not be part of the solution, since they are not outside the main society per se. Taman Petanu is in fact inside society and it works towards a transformation, hoping to provide alternatives based on ‘seeing is believing’ for the farmers as well as hard statistical data for the government to implement in their Bali Green and Clean program and in this way shape government policy.

I think that a huge and radical value change proposed by Ted Trainer is very hard to achieve and moreover not necessary per se. As long as an alternative way of life is working – whether it embraces a ‘hard-core’ cut from capitalist society, or rather embraces ‘organic growth’ towards more sustainability, like Taman Petanu – it can and will influence other people, it will provide proof that this way of life is a reality and it will provide people opportunities to ‘tune into’ another assemblage in the network – one that will provide space to discover true happiness and create compassion and interconnectedness from within.ccxxi One important aspect to do so, is to keep connection with present day society. Petra is doing that by making the perception of the project not ‘too weird’, not too different from the free market society. Therefore, Taman Petanu is called an ‘Eco-Neighbourhood’ instead of ‘Eco-Community’ and its members should not be too extreme in their ideals: “They were like ‘I’m vegan, and I don’t want my children to ever be near a TV.’ And we were like ‘no’.”138 Although I personally think it’s not at all unwise to keep your children – and yourself – away from television, and moreover, that there’s nothing wrong with veganism, indeed society often perceives and labels this as extreme. It might moreover strengthen the image of the eco- village to be ‘membered by drug addicts, hippie squatters et.al.’ccxxii, who are embracing ‘new age rubbish’ccxxiii. This will make society – that should be your target group - turn its back on a project that could potentially offer very valuable skills, knowledge and empowerment to facilitate the process of transition. This is quite often a big problem with eco-villages, like Quindalup, a rural land sharing collective in Victoria, Australia: “Whilst the members, through their collective self-identity, believed themselves to be ‘changing society’, the very society they were attempting to change was ignoring them.”ccxxiv But even besides the ‘loss’ of your target group, one can even explore potentials of mutual benefit. The eco-village could, for example, provide knowledge, skills, workshops or organic products to the ‘target group’ in exchange for financial input. Another way where I see potential for mutual benefit is to offer a place of peace, care, warmth and ‘gezelligheid’ for elderly people. In exchange they can provide the eco-village with financial input as a way to improve the project, the

138 Petra Schneider, 2014a. Ibid. 74

experiment. All of this can only be done when the connection is kept strong between the pioneers and their target group.

Another important aspect of the Eco Neighbourhood, is that it’s not tied to donors, like many NGOs. ‘Our ability to make things happen is not solely dependent on the will of a headquarters or a donor’s whim, but moreover the coherency of one’s own example as well as relationships and the ability to creatively mobilize human and social resources.’139 – Steven Sherwood about his development project at family-level. “If there is one thing that we in development need to keep in mind, it is that change starts small and grows and diversifies in all kinds of unexpected, unpredictable ways. In other words, development cannot be intentionally fixed or even managed. Ultimately, it must be brought forth through practice, taking us back to the importance of the household.’ 140 Development, in this way, is taken a step further, it is a Development 3.0, where innovation at family- and community-level is embedded in peoples’ daily interactions and practices. “The crux of Development 3.0 is to approach rural development as something that ultimately emerges from locally distributed and resolved social processes, however tricky and messy, rather than as something that can be fixed. Then, one subsequent institutional challenge becomes the re-thinking of science, policy and professionalized development vis-à-vis the undeniable self-organisation of continuities and change.”141 If current assemblages are unsustainable, it is prudent to look to those who are pioneering sustainable living practices worldwide, including ecotowns like Auroville in South Indiaccxxv and the Federation of Damanhur in Italyccxxvi, small rural ecovillages like Gaia Asociación in Argentinaccxxvii, Huehuecoyotl in Mexicoccxxviii and Free and Real in Greececcxxix, permaculture design sites such as IDEP in Baliccxxx, Crystal Waters in Australiaccxxxi, Brook End in the UK,ccxxxii Plukrijp in Belgiumccxxxiii and so many more initiatives.ccxxxiv ccxxxv All these pioneers should be supported by exploring their potentials: the community that tries to become completely independent of the free market economy, embracing the philosophy of ‘Do It Yourself’, the highly organised, ‘modern’, capital intensive community, and everything in between in order to work towards increased food security, more collective happiness and a healthier planet.

All in all, the eco-neighbourhood in Bali could offer a four possible solutions: first, it can facilitate change for the farmers who currently feel unable to convert towards agro-ecological practices, e.g. via the Eco Farm, the Living Classroom and by agreements, like the one of Taman Petanu with farmer Pak Bek, where land is restored with organic practices at the risk of the Eco Neighbourhood. A point of critique here though, is that the local people living close to the Eco Neighbourhood – the ‘target group’- were not all informed yet about the plans for cooperation. It would have been better to have conducted more research on their

139 Steven Sherwood, 2013. Is it time to stop ‘capacity-building’? Agricultures network. (online: http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/resources/extra/dev30#.Uue84Olz25I.twitter) 140 Steven Sherwood, 2013. Ibid. 141 Sherwood, S., Leeuwis, C., Crane, T., 2012. Development 3.0: Development practice in transition. Farming Matters, December 2012. (Online: http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/from-desertification-to-vibrant- communities/development-3.0-development-practice-in-transition) 75

views of cooperating with an Eco Neighbourhood. On the other hand, the Eco Neighbouhood is still under development, and farmers did mention that they’d like to cooperate, in case it works. In other words: before cooperation, the Eco Neighbourhood has to first prove itself. Second, TPEN can offer a solution by reconnecting its members with nature and a commune way of life, thereby also changing their reality and transforming created desires into a desire of reaching true happiness in a time where modern life creates feelings of isolation, depression and disconnectedness.ccxxxvi In other words, the fuel of capitalism could possibly be taken away, and replaced by feelings of happiness, love, compassion etc. which will all serve as a ‘fuel’ for an assemblage that involves a truly sustainable, respectful way of life. Third, the Eco Neighbourhood can show ‘hard-core statistics’ to the government, regarding water use, energy use and the impact of organic farming (and thus also making money out of that). Hopefully, this will inspire the government to transform their policies and projects. Fourth, by farmers changing their farming practices, consumers changing their consumerism and desires, and (possibly even) the government changing the policies and projects, these transformations will automatically lead to a restoration of the degraded soil ecosystem and a healthier planet in general. In short, these four solutions could be a kind of organic development process to govern the revolution. Right now, it is time to see how it develops and hope the best for it, since – compared to other eco-villages/ commune ways of life – I think Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood has a great potential.

If our will and determination is inside us, then success is an absolute thing, just need to wait for the time, sooner or later142 - Pak Sunarka.

Moving forward in science: Research Institutes The start of this thesis actually grew out of a frustration of the way Biology often was, and still is, taught. I felt how research was driven not towards the needs of farmers or the needs of communities, but rather towards topics that were so in depth and so technical, that only corporations could use this kind of science. In fact, I was invited to join a presentation of Martin Kropf on the 2nd December 2014, where he presented the ‘Strategic Plan’ for the university: the direction of the university for the coming years. When we asked about the topic of research & funding, it was stated that this was not an issue on this agenda, and the university simply follows the market – that’s how it goes. ‘Better financial models’ were Comment [pdv21]: Indeed !!! niet voor niets noemen sommigen WUR de presented where chairgroups will get money according to the size of the chairgroup. This Campina universiteit might sound fair, but there’s one big problem with this model: every chairgroup can potentially expand by having more teachers and thus get more funding. However, teachers are obliged to be involved in research as well, otherwise they are not allowed to teach. In other words: expanding your chairgroup means you need more money available for research. This automatically means that chairgroups which are more funded (by corporations) can grow more easily than chairgroups that are not so attractive for corporate investments. Also, chairgroups will now direct their research towards the needs – and demands! - of their funders, in order to obtain money and grow. And this will then also be the direction of the

142 Pak Sunarka, 2013b. Ibid. 76

education of this chairgroup, since Martin Kropf wants education to ‘keep the relation with ccxxxvii research’ . Comment [pdv22]: En dit is zeker geen fundamenteel onderzoek

And then there is this: a recent research of the Groene Amsterdammer showed that more than 80% of the approximately 5800 professors in the Netherlands has a side job, and one third of those is not mentioned, while this is obligatory.ccxxxviii There is nothing wrong with professors having side jobs per se, but it should be transparent at all times. If not, it might lead to a degradation in the quality of scientific education due to two points: First, teachers can then become strongly one-sided about the topic they teach (e.g. which energy is most sustainable, or how we should feed the world), and second, they can start conducting research which does not at all belongs on a university, e.g. working towards the crunchiness of rusk on the Wageningen University – a university with the slogan to ‘improve the quality of life’. Although I admit that rusk is improving my life quality in the morning, the university should be ashamed for putting professors to work on crunchiness of rusk, while people all over the world are malnourished because their land and livelihood is taken away from them by the corporate industry. Comment [pdv23]: Volledig mee eens

And these professors are not the only ones with an ambiguous agenda, so was Dr. Ir. Aalt Dijkhuizen, chairman of the Executive Board of Wageningen University from 2002 until 2014, after his career as the Managing Director of the Business Group Agri Northern Europe, Nutreco. He is an advocate for high-tech approaches in the agri-food sector in the Netherlands. “We need innovative knowledge to feed the increasing world population.”143 Currently, he introduced the Aalt Dijkhuizen Fund for the talents of this university. “In 2050 we need to feed 9 billion people. This needs to be done in a healthy and sustainable way, without causing harm to the climate, nature, or the environment. That is the challenge for which answers are sought in Wageningen and in the Dutch agri-food sector (…) With this fund, I want to give some of these talents access to the newest knowledge and technologies abroad. Knowledge that they will bring back to the Netherlands, on which we can build our research, and eventually use to strengthen the Dutch sector.”144 Mind you: Aalt Dijkhuizen provides money, not to find any good solution for feeding the world, no, he provides money to eventually strengthen the Dutch agri-food sector.

No I’m not saying that all professors are bad, and that we should abolish the university, its research and education – absolutely not! The point I want to make is that the university is going more and more towards the corporate needs, and not towards the needs of the people or the planet per se. In order to make natural science truly work towards an improved quality of life, it should and must cooperate with social science in order to see what the (potential) impact is of current scientific innovations. Second, it needs and must cooperate with social science to understand the needs of the planet and not the needs of the corporate industry. Martin Kropf stated in his powerpoint ‘Education 3’ of the Strategic Plan that education should keep (strong) relations with researchccxxxix. But if this university truly wants to work

143 Dr. Ir. Aalt Dijkhuizen, 2014. (online: http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Benefactors/Areas-to-support/The- funds-of-the-Wageningen-University-Fund/Contribute-to-talent/Dr.-ir.-Aalt-Dijkhuizen-Fonds.htm) 144 Dr. Ir. Aalt Dijkhuizen, 2014. Ibid. 77

on quality of life, education should reconnect not to corporate-sponsored research, but to the intrinsic needs of a healthy society, of nature, of our planet. And for this, natural science needs social science to cooperate with and to be educated by what is already in its name: nature. Comment [pdv24]: Mooi gezegd

References i Doestoyevsky., 1868. The Idiot. ii Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, 2009.Commonwealth. Cambridge, Massachusetts. iii Alberto Arce. Communication via mail, 10/17/2012 iv Documentary Antonio Negri: A Revolt that Never Ends (online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7u63oVfPPs) v Naomi Klein, 2009. Documentary Shock doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Directed by Michael Winterbottom (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kWMY6G7qpE) vi The Corporation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw vii B. F. Skinner, 1948. Walden Two.Pp8. Macmillan Paperback Edition 1962. viii Zygmunt Bauman, 2004. Wasted Lives.Modernity and its Outcasts.Polity Press, Cambridge. ix Converging Forces in Food Systems: How to Feed 8 Billion People by 2025 and Protect the Planet’s Natural Resources – Global Panel, Part 1. University of California, Berkeley 04/09/2013 (online: http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Converging-Forces-in-Food-Systems-How-to-Feed-8-Billion-People-by-2025-and- Protect-the-Planets-Natural-Resources-Global-Panel-Part-1-25622) x Anuradha Mittal, 2013. Quoted from Converging Forces in Food Systems: How to Feed 8 Billion People by 2025 and Protect the Planet’s Natural Resources – Global Panel, Part 1. University of California, Berkeley 04/09/2013 (online: http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Converging-Forces-in-Food-Systems-How-to-Feed-8-Billion- People-by-2025-and-Protect-the-Planets-Natural-Resources-Global-Panel-Part-1-25622) xi Jonathan Shrier, 2013. Quoted from Converging Forces in Food Systems: How to Feed 8 Billion People by 2025 and Protect the Planet’s Natural Resources – Global Panel, Part 1. University of California, Berkeley 04/09/2013 (online: http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Converging-Forces-in-Food-Systems-How-to-Feed-8-Billion- People-by-2025-and-Protect-the-Planets-Natural-Resources-Global-Panel-Part-1-25622)

CHAPTER 1. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS xii Anuradha Mittal, 2013. Ibid. xiii RNW archive, 2010. A black page in Dutch history. (online: http://www.rnw.org/archive/black-page- dutch-history) xiv Interview with Members of group activist group ‘Taman 65’, Denpasar Bali on 4th December 2013. xv Baliguide, 2014. (online: http://www.baliguide.com/geography.html) xvi Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1987. Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translation by Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. (Originally published as Mille Plateaux, volume 2 of Capitalisme et Schizophrenic © 1980 by Les Editions de Minuit, Paris). xvii DeLanda, M., Protevi J., and Thanem, T., 2004. Deleuzian Interrogations: A conversation with Manuel DeLand, John Protevi and Torkild Thanem. Tamara Journal for Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 3:4, p 65 – 88 (2005) (http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/journal/index.php/tamara/article/viewFile/234/pdf_63) xviii Pak Sunarka, 2013a. First interview at his house in Banjar Selah, Buahan Village, Payangan District, Gianyar Regency, Bali, Indonesia at 19 November 2013. xix Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1987. Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translation by Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. (Originally published as Mille Plateaux, volume 2 of Capitalisme et Schizophrenic © 1980 by Les Editions de Minuit, Paris). xx DeLanda, M., 2006. New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Library of Congress Cataloging. xxi Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1987. Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translation by Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. (Originally published as Mille Plateaux, volume 2 of Capitalisme et Schizophrenic © 1980 by Les Editions de Minuit, Paris). xxii Sellar, B., 2009. Assemblage theory, occupational science, and the complexity of human agency.

CHAPTER 2. GOING BACK IN HISTORY: ‘HOW TO FEED THE WORLD’ IN THE 1940s xxiii Truman, 1946. 87-Radio Appeal to the Nation for Food Conservation to Relieve Hunger Abroad. April 19, 1946. (online: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/viewpapers.php?pid=1529\) xxiv Former President of the United States Harry S, 1949. Document 19 – Inaugural Address. January 20, 1949. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13282#axzz2itHEtW4p)

xxv Attachment to the Memorandum to the President [Truman] of February 16, 1950. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950 Volume I, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Document 270 (online: http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950v01/d270) xxvi Miscamble, W.D, 1992. George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947- 1950.Princeton University Press. (http://books.google.co.id/books?id=rxFHpYix3BsC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=kennan+indonesia&source= bl&ots=fDPpqZ14AP&sig=sKgXQ-SUTilOTbek_nrRwr- CZ1I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IZ9sUv75KsH9rAfu_oDwDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kennan%20indonesia&f=f alse) xxvii Noam Chomsky, 1993. Year 501. The conquest continues. South End Press, Boston. xxviii United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1958-1960. Indonesia (1958- 1960) (online: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS- idx?type=header&id=FRUS.FRUS195860v17) xxix Hadiz, V.R. and Dhakidae, D., 2004. Social Science and Power in Indonesia. Equinox Publishing (Asia) Pte. Ltd & Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. (online: http://books.google.nl/books?id=WM3_ulRJFlkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI&redir_esc= y#v=onepage&q&f=false) xxx Interview with Sunarka (53year old), 19th November 2013 at Banjar Selah, BuahanKajaVillage, Payangan District, Gianyar Regency, Bali, Indonesia. (Transcription pp 13). xxxi Easter, 2005.‘Keep the Indonesian Pot Boiling’: Western Covert Intervention in Indonesia, October 1965 – March 1966. Cold War History Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 55-73. xxxii BoE, OV 85/4, copy of official English translation of the President’s speech, 26 August 1959. (see White, 2012) xxxiii Pauker, G.J., 1968. Political Consequences of Rural Development Programs in Indonesia.The RAND Corporation, California. (online: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3864.pdf) xxxiv Blum, W., 2004. Indonesia, 1957-1958: War and Pornography. Ch14 in Killing Hope.U.S. Military and C.I.A. interventions since World War II. (Online: http://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/indonesia) xxxv Pauker, G.J., 1964. Communist Prospects in Indonesia. Pp26. Memorandum RM-4135-PR November 1964 (online: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2005/RM4135.pdf) xxxvi Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to Secretary of State Dulles. Washington, January 2, 1958. Pp 2.Foreign Relations, 1958-1960, Volume XVII. (online: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS- idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS195860v17.p0028&id=FRUS.FRUS195860v17&isize=M ) xxxvii Nicholas J. White, 2012. Surviving Sukarno: British Business in Post-Colonial Indonesia, 1950-1967. Modern Asian Studies, 46, pp. 1277-1315. (online: www.h-net.org/~diplo/journals/JW-Q4-2012-J-Z.pdf) xxxviii Budiawan, 2006. Seeing the Communist past through the lens of a CIA consultant: Guy J. Pauker on the Indonesian Communist Party before and after the ‘Affair’, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 7:4, 650-662, DOI: 10.1080/14649370600983238 xxxix RAND Corporation website, www.rand.org xl Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to Secretary of State Dulles. Washington, January 2, 1958. Foreign Relations, 1958-1960, Volume XVII, Indonesia, Document 1 (online: http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v17/d1) xli Klein, N. 2007.The Shock Doctrine.The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.Metropolitan Books, New York. ISBN: 978-1-4299-1948-7 xlii Ransom, D., 1975. Ford Country: Building an Elite for Indonesia. (online: http://www.namebase.org/campus/indo.html) xliii Simpson, B., 2009. Indonesia’s “Accelerated Modernization” and the Global Discourse of Development, 1960-1975. Diplomatic History, Vol. 33, Issue 3, pages 467-486, June 2009. (online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00781.x/abstract) xliv Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to Secretary of State Dulles. Washington, January 2, 1958. Foreign Relations, 1958-1960, Volume XVII, Indonesia, Document 1 (online: http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v17/d1) xlv Document 170. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to Secretary of State Dulles. Washington, January 9, 1959. Subject: Additional Military Assistance to the Indonesian Army. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Indonesia, Vulume XVII, Document 170. (online: http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v17/d170#fn2) xlvi Simpson, B., 2009. Indonesia’s “Accelerated Modernization” and the Global Discourse of Development,

1960-1975. Diplomatic History, Vol. 33, Issue 3, pages 467-486, June 2009. (online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00781.x/abstract) xlvii Brands, H.W., 1989.The Limits of Manipulation: How the US didn’t topple Sukarno’, 790.The Journal of American History xlviii Blum, W., 2004. Indonesia, 1957-1958: War and Pornography. Ch14 in Killing Hope.U.S. Military and C.I.A. interventions since World War II.(Online: http://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/indonesia) xlix Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume 1 -- The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, Black Rose Books, 1979. l Major Joseph Blair, instructor, US Army School of the Americas from 1986-89.Quoted from: John Pilger, 2007. The War On Democracy (online: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy) li Simpson, B., 2009. Indonesia’s “Accelerated Modernization” and the Global Discourse of Development, 1960- 1975. Diplomatic History, Vol. 33, Issue 3, pages 467-486, June 2009. (online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00781.x/abstract) lii Budiawan, 2006.Seeing the Communist past through the lens of a CIA consultant: Guy J. Pauker on the Indonesian Communist Party before and after the ‘1965 Affair’.Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Volume 7, number 4, 2006. liii Budiawan, 2006.Seeing the Communist past through the lens of a CIA consultant: Guy J. Pauker on the Indonesian Communist Party before and after the ‘1965 Affair’.Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Volume 7, number 4, 2006. liv United States Department of State.LaFantasie, Glenn W., Editor Foreign relations of the United States, 1958- 1960. Indonesia. Volume XVII. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958-1960 (online: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=header&id=FRUS.FRUS195860v17) lv Scott, P. D., 1985. The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno 1965-67, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Summer, 1985), pp. 239-264 lvi Nicholas J. White, 2012. Surviving Sukarno: British Business in Post-Colonial Indonesia, 1950-1967. Modern Asian Studies, 46, pp. 1277-1315. (online: www.h-net.org/~diplo/journals/JW-Q4-2012-J-Z.pdf) lvii Peter Dale Scott, 1990. ‘How I came to Jakarta’. Agni, 31(31):297-304 lviii The Globalization Tapes. C. Cynn and J. Oppenheimer (Vision Machine Film Project), Godi (IUF Indonesia), Karman (The Independent Plantation Workers’ Union of Sumatra). (online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo2OOIMkYOE) lix Scott, 1985. The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Summer, 1985), pp. 239-264 lx The Act of Killing, 2013. Documentary film by Joshua Oppenheimer. lxi Mark Curtis, 2012. US and British Complicity in Indonesia 1965.Lifting the Curtain on the Coup of October 1st 1965 – Suing for the Justice.(online: https://serbasejarah.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/menguak-tabir- peristiwa-1-oktober-1965-bagian_4.pdf) lxii Easter, 2005.‘Keep the Indonesian Pot Boiling’: Western Covert Intervention in Indonesia, October 1965 – March 1966. Cold War History Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 55-73. lxiii McGregor, K.E, 2009. Case Study: The Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966. Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. (online: http://www.massviolence.org/The-Indonesian-Killings-of-1965- 1966?cs=print#outil_sommaire_2) lxiv Hadiz, V.R. and Dhakidae, D., 2004. Ibid. lxv The Globalization Tapes. C. Cynn and J. Oppenheimer (Vision Machine Film Project), Godi (IUF Indonesia), Karman (The Independent Plantation Workers’ Union of Sumatra). (online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo2OOIMkYOE) lxvi Pramoedya Ananta Toer, 1992. Quoted from Documentary ‘Pramoedya Ananta Toer’, IKON 1992 (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4FrmkqTWKk) lxvii Taman 65, 2013. Interview with the group Taman 65 on 4th December 2013 in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia lxviiiTime magazine.‘Silent Settlement’, 17 December 1965, p. 29 ff. lxix Chomsky, N., 2011. How the world works. Penguin Books, England. lxx Thatcher, 2008. Quoted from ‘Our Model Dictator’, by John Pilger. The Guardian, 28th January, 2008. (online: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jan/28/indonesia.world) lxxi Thatcher, 1985.Press Conference in Indonesia. See: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106020 lxxii John Pilger, 2008. Suharto, the model killer, and his friends in high places. The Guardian. (online: http://johnpilger.com/articles/suharto-the-model-killer-and-his-friends-in-high-places) lxxiii Mark Curtis, 2012. US and British Complicity in Indonesia 1965.Lifting the Curtain on the Coup of October 1st 1965 – Suing for the Justice.(online: https://serbasejarah.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/menguak-tabir- peristiwa-1-oktober-1965-bagian_4.pdf)

lxxiv Van der Kroef, J. M. Indonesian Communism since the 1965 Coup. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Spring, 1970), pp. 34-60. (online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2753833.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true) lxxv Neal Ascherson, "55,000 Held Without Trial in Indonesia," The Observer, London (March 18,1973). lxxvi Joshua Oppenheimer. The Act of Killing, 2013. Documentary film lxxvii Anwar Congo, quoted from The Act of Killing, 2013. Documentary film by Joshua Oppenheimer. lxxviii Pengkhianatan G30 S PKI (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZegssgBnEQ) lxxix UCLA, 2015. Ibid. lxxx Rieffel, A., 1967. The BIMAS Program for Self-Sufficiency in Rice-Production. Indonesia, Volume 8 (October 1969), 103-133. (online: http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS?service=Repository&version=1.0&verb=Disseminate&view=body&content- type=pdf_1&handle=seap.indo/1107140091#) lxxxi Conversation with Pak WayanSudira (+60years old).Tuesday, 31st December 2013, Ubud. lxxxii Chomsky and Herman, 1973. Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propagenda. (online: http://www.chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm#sec4) lxxxiii Pauker, G.J., 1968. Pp 20.Political Consequences of Rural Development Programs in Indonesia. The RAND Corporation, California. (online: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3864.pdf) lxxxiv Kadane, K., 1990. Ex-agents say CIA compiled death lists for Indonesians. After 25 years, Americans speak of their role in exterminating Communist Party. States News Service, San Fransisco Examiner. lxxxv Klein, N., 2007. Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan Books. lxxxvi Friedman, 1975.Letter to General Pinochet on Our Return from Chile and His Reply.(online: http://wwww.naomiklein.org/files/resources/pdfs/friedman-pinochet-letters.pdf) lxxxvii Klein, N., 2009. The Shock Doctrine – Documentary.(online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kWMY6G7qpE) lxxxviii Arnold Harberger, University of Chicago economics professor, 1998. Quoted in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Naomi Klein, 2007. lxxxix Free To Choose television series, volume 2 - The Tyranny of Control, 1990. (online: http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/broadcasts/freetochoose/detail_ftc1990.php?page=2) xcNixon, R. M., 1967 ‘’Asia After Vietnam,’’ Foreign Affairs, October 1967, p.111 (online: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23927/richard-m-nixon/asia-after-viet-nam ) xci John Pilger, 2001. The New Rulers Of The World. Carlton Television production for ITV. Director: Alan Lowery. Producer: John Pilger. Associate Producers: Chris Martin and LaurelleKeough. (Online: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world) xcii Pak Roberto Hutabarat, interview Thursday, 3rd January 2014, Bali. xciii John Pilger, 2001. The New Rulers Of The World. Carlton Television production for ITV. Director: Alan Lowery. Producer: John Pilger. Associate Producers: Chris Martin and LaurelleKeough. (Online: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world) xciv John Pilger, 2001. The New Rulers Of The World. Carlton Television production for ITV. Director: Alan Lowery. Producer: John Pilger. Associate Producers: Chris Martin and LaurelleKeough. (Online: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world) xcvRansom, D., 1975. Ford Country: Building an Elite for Indonesia. (online: http://www.namebase.org/campus/indo.html) xcvi Pauker, G.J., 1968. Pp 12. Political Consequences of Rural Development Programs in Indonesia. The RAND Corporation, California. (online: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3864.pdf) xcvii The Globalization Tapes. C. Cynn and J. Oppenheimer (Vision Machine Film Project), Godi (IUF Indonesia), Karman (The Independent Plantation Workers’ Union of Sumatra). (online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo2OOIMkYOE) xcviii Foucault, M., 1976. Quoted from the Foucault Reader. An introduction to Foucault’s thought, 1991, pp259. Penguin Books xcix Earl Butz. Quoted in The Guardian, January 4, 1976. c Rieffel, A., 1967. The BIMAS Program for Self-Sufficiency in Rice-Production. Indonesia, Volume 8 (October 1969), 103-133. (online: http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS?service=Repository&version=1.0&verb=Disseminate&view=body&content- type=pdf_1&handle=seap.indo/1107140091#) ci Rieffel, A., 1967. Pp113. Ibid. cii Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins, 1982.Food First. London: Abacus, 1982, p114. ciii William S. Gaud, 1968. The Green Revolution: Accomplishments and Apprehensions. (online: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/borlaug-green.html)

civ William S. Gaud, 1968. The Green Revolution: Accomplishments and Apprehensions. (online: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/borlaug-green.html) cv Fuglie, K. O., 2010. Sources of growth in Indonesian agriculture.J Prod Anal (2010) 33:225-240. DOI 10.1007/s11123-009-0150-x cvi Fernando A. Bernardo (2007). "Chs. 6–8". Centennial Panorama: Pictorial History of UPLB. Los Baños, Laguna: University of the Philippines Los Baños Alumni Association. pp. 75–122. ISBN 978-971-547-252-4.) cvii Rieffel, A., 1967. Ibid. cviii UCLA, 2015. Engineering. Gadjah Mada Project Djogjakarta, Indonesia. (online: http://www.engineer.ucla.edu/explore/history/major-research-highlights/gadjah-mada-project- djogjakarta-indonesia) cix USAID, Development Assistance and Institution Building. The IPB/US University Experience. pp4. (online: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnabe735.pdf) cx Beers, H.W., 1971. An American Experience in Indonesia. The University of Kentucky Affliation with the Agricultural University at Bogor. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813151199 cxi USAID, Development Assistance and Institution Building. The IPB/US University Experience. pp4. (online: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnabe735.pdf) cxii Hadiz, V.R. and Dhakidae, D., 2004. Ibid. cxiii William S. Gaud, 1968. The Green Revolution: Accomplishments and Apprehensions. (online: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/borlaug-green.html) cxiv Pauker, G.J., 1968. Political Consequences of Rural Development Programs in Indonesia. The RAND Corporation, California. (online: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3864.pdf) cxv Pauker, G.J., 1968. Pp 15.Political Consequences of Rural Development Programs in Indonesia. The RAND Corporation, California. (online: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3864.pdf) cxvi Budiawan, 2006.Seeing the Communist past through the lens of a CIA consultant: Guy J. Pauker on the Indonesian Communist Party before and after the ‘1965 Affair’.Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Volume 7, number 4, 2006. cxvii Ransom, D., 1975. Ford Country: Building an Elite for Indonesia.(online: http://www.namebase.org/campus/indo.html) cxviii Fuglie KO, Piggott RR. (2006) Indonesia: coping with economic and political instability cxix Ransom, D., 1975. Ford Country: Building an Elite for Indonesia. (online: http://www.namebase.org/campus/indo.html) cxx Lansing, S. Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Yersey, 1991. cxxi Pauker, G.J., 1968. Political Consequences of Rural Development Programs in Indonesia. The RAND Corporation, California. (online: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3864.pdf) cxxii Foucault, M., 1976. Quoted from the Foucault Reader. An introduction to Foucault’s thought, 1991, pp259. Penguin Books cxxiii Foucault, M., Foucault, M., 1976. Quoted from the Foucault Reader. An introduction to Foucault’s thought, 1991, pp261. Penguin Books cxxiv Rose, N. 2007. The politics of life itself. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

CHAPTER 3. THE IMPACT ON THE PEOPLES’LIFE cxxv Ibu Kartini, 23rd September, 2013 at Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali. cxxvi Conway, G. R. and McCauley, D. S., 1983. Intensifying tropical agriculture: the Indonesian experience. Nature vol. 302, 288-9. (online: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v302/n5906/pdf/302288a0.pdf) cxxvii EPA Factsheet on Endrin. (online: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/endrin.pdf) cxxviii Interview Ketut (48) and Nyoman (60). Des ataman Bali, Banjar Dadya. cxxix Vandana Shiva, 1991. The violence of the green revolution. Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics. Zed Books Ltd, London. cxxx IRRI. Rice research and capacity building, Indonesia. (online: http://irri.org/our-work/locations/indonesia) cxxxi Declaration of Nyéléni, Sélingué, Mali. 27 February 2007. (online: http://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article290) cxxxii IRRI website. Rice breeding creates billion-dollar impact (online: http://irri.org/our-impact/reducing- poverty/rice-breeding-creates-billion-dollar-impact) cxxxiiiIRRI website. Rice research and capacity building. (online: http://irri.org/our-work/locations/indonesia) cxxxiv USDA, 2012. Commodity Intelligence Report. Indonesia: Stagnating Rice Production Ensures Continued Need for Imports. (online: http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2012/03/Indonesia_rice_Mar2012/) cxxxv John Pilger, 2001. The New Rulers Of The World. Carlton Television production for ITV. Director: Alan

Lowery. Producer: John Pilger. Associate Producers: Chris Martin and Laurelle Keough. (Online: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world) cxxxvi Vandana Shiva, 1991. The violence of the green revolution. Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics. Zed Books Ltd, London. cxxxvii Pablo Tittonell, 2013. Towards ecological Intensification of world agriculture. (online: https://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/c/d/1/6b6df11e-ccf9-4e2a-9107- 41102ede5619_Inaugural%20lecture%20Pablo%20Tittonell%20Powerpoint.pdf) cxxxviii Pretty, J.N. et al., 2000. An Assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 65:2, 113-136. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00031-7 cxxxix Foley S, 1979. Rice cultivation in Bali: an energy analysis. (online: https://static.weadapt.org/placemarks/files/1022/5305e4eba08berice-cultivation-in-bali.pdf) cxl Simpson, B., 2009. Indonesia’s “Accelerated Modernization” and the Global Discourse of Development, 1960-1975. Diplomatic History, Vol. 33, Issue 3, pages 467-486, June 2009. (online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00781.x/abstract) cxli IRRI website, 2014. Rice research and capacity building (online: http://irri.org/our-work/locations/indonesia) cxlii IRRI website, 2014. Rice research and capacity building (online: http://irri.org/our-work/locations/indonesia) cxliii USDA, 2012. Commodity Intelligence Report. Indonesia: Stagnating Rice Production Ensures Continued Need for Imports. (online: http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2012/03/Indonesia_rice_Mar2012/) cxliv USDA, 2012. Commodity Intelligence Report. Indonesia: Stagnating Rice Production Ensures Continued Need for Imports. (online: http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2012/03/Indonesia_rice_Mar2012/) cxlv Khumairoh et al., 2012. Complex agro-ecosystems for food security in a changing climate. Ecol Evol. Jul 2012; 2(7): 1696–1704. (online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3434917/) cxlvi Foley, S, 1979. Rice cultivation in Bali: an energy analysis. (online: https://static.weadapt.org/placemarks/files/1022/5305e4eba08berice-cultivation-in-bali.pdf) cxlvii Dr. Earl Butz, 1976. Quoted from documentary ‘Zap!! The Weapon is Food’ by John Pilger, 1976 cxlviii Wallensteen, 1976: 278. Scarce Goods as Political Weapons: The Case of Food. Journal of Peace Research No.4, Vol. XIII/1976. cxlix Wallensteen, 1976: 278. Scarce Goods as Political Weapons: The Case of Food. Journal of Peace Research No.4, Vol. XIII/1976. cl IRRI. Rice in Indonesia. (online: http://irri.org/our-work/locations/indonesia) cli Joshua Oppenheimer, 2013. The Act of Killing. Documentary film clii Stone, G.D. and Glover, D., 2011. Genetically modified crops and the ‘food crisis’: discourse and material impacts. Development in Practice, 21:4-5, 509-516 (online: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/research/stone/Stone_Glover_2011.pdf) cliii United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2013. Wake up before it is too late: make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. (online: http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666) cliv Koning, N. and van Ittersum, M.K., 2009. Will the world have enough to eat? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:77–82. Pp77. DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.07.005 clv United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2013. Wake up before it is too late: make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. (online: http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666) clvi Trauger, A., 2014. Toward a political geography of food sovereignty: transforming territory, exchange and power in the liberal sovereign state. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2014. Vol. 41, No.6, 1131-1152. clvii Peekhauw, W., 2010. Monsanto Discovers New Social Media. International Journal of Communication 4 (2010), 955-976. (online: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/901/468) clviii United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2013. Wake up before it is too late: make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. (online: http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666)

CHAPTER 4. MOVING FORWARD: THE TRANSITION clix Debate between Foucault and Chomsky, 1971. ‘Menselijke natuur en Ideale Maatschappij. Technische Hogeschool, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. (Online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8) clx Foucault, M., 1971. Preparation video for the debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, broadcasted on 28 November 1971 (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzoOhhh4aJg). clxi Ferguson, J., The Anti-Politics Machine. “Development,” Depolitization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho.

Pp 19. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London. clxii Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (French: Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la Prison). clxiii Foucault, M. 1976. Quoted from the Foucault Reader. An introduction to Foucault’s thought, 1991, pp259. Penguin Books clxiv Foucault, M. 1976. Quoted from the Foucault Reader. An introduction to Foucault’s thought, 1991, pp 61. Penguin Books clxv The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. Written by University of British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. (online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw; website: http://www.thecorporation.com/) clxvi The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, 2003. Documentary written by University of British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. (online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw; website: http://www.thecorporation.com/) clxvii Emberland, M, 2006. The Human Rights of Companies: Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-928983-2 clxviii Statute of the Council of Europe. London, 5.V. 1949. Chapter I – Aim of the Council of Europe, Article 1 b. (online: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/001.htm) clxix Statute of the Council of Europe. London, 5.V. 1949. Chapter I – Aim of the Council of Europe, Article 1 a. (online: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/001.htm) clxx Food Inc. Documentary, 2008 by Robert Kenner. (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oq24hITFTY) clxxi Ibu Sayu. Interview at IDEP Foundation, Bali at 13th December 2013. clxxii No Logo documentary, 2003. Directed by Sut Jhally, based upon the book No Logo by Naomi Klein. (online: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/no-logo-brands-globalization-resistance/) clxxiii Zizek, S., 2011 as quoted from the documentary Marx Reloaded. Written and directed by Jason Barker. Films Noirs, Medea Film ZDF. (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4f90mK26ys) clxxiv The Globalization Tapes., 2003 by C. Cynn and J. Oppenheimer (Vision Machine Film Project), Godi (IUF Indonesia), Karman (The Independent Plantation Workers’ Union of Sumatra). (online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo2OOIMkYOE) clxxv John Pilger, 2001. The New Rulers Of The World. Carlton Television production for ITV. Director: Alan Lowery. Producer: John Pilger. Associate Producers: Chris Martin and LaurelleKeough. (Online: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world) clxxvi Paul, H. and Steinbrecher, R., 2003. Hungry Corporations. Transnational Biotech Companies Colonise the Food Chain. Zed Books, London. (see online summary: http://aardeboerconsument.nl/wp/wp- content/uploads/2008/12/hungry-corporations-short-and-longer-summary-and-project.pdf) clxxvii President of Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (from 2004-2014) during the opening of the APEC CEO Summit in Nusa Dua, Bali, as quoted from Jakarta Post, October 06, 2013. SBY invites APEC CEOs to invest in Indonesia. (Online: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/10/06/sby-invites-apec-ceos- invest-indonesia.html) clxxviii Arce, A. and Long, N., 1987. The Dynamics of knowledge interfaces between Mexican agricultural bureaucrats and peasants: A case study from Jalisco. Pp.5 Boletin de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe 43, diciembre de 1987. clxxix Conversation with Pak WayanSudira (+60years old).Tuesday, 31st December 2013, Ubud. clxxx Anwar Congo and Adi Zulkadry in the The Act of Killing, 2013. Documentary film by Joshua Oppenheimer. clxxxi Foucault, M. 1976. Quoted from the Foucault Reader. An introduction to Foucault’s thought, 1991, pp 74. Penguin Books. clxxxii Hardt, M. and Negri, A., 2009. Commonwealth. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. pp. viv. clxxxiii Deleuze, G., 1992. “What is a Dispositif?”, in Michel Foucault, Philosopher, ed. Timothy Armstrong (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 159-168. clxxxiv Hardt, M. and Negri, A., 2009. Commonwealth. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. pp. Viii clxxxv Hardt, M. and Negri, A., 2009. Ibid. pp. 361 clxxxvi Groen Goud II. A documentary by Rob van Hattum/ John D. Liu. VPRO Tegenlicht. (online: http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2011-2012/Groen-Goud.html) clxxxvii Hardt, M. and Negri, A., 2009. Ibid. pp. Viii clxxxviii Chomsky quoted from ‘On Human Nature. Noam Chomsky interviewed by Kate Soper’. Red Pepper, August 1998. (online: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm) clxxxix Chomsky quoted from ‘On Human Nature. Noam Chomsky interviewed by Kate Soper’. Red Pepper, August 1998. (online: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm) 85

cxc On Human Nature. Noam Chomsky interviewed by Kate Soper. Red Pepper, August 1998. (online: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm) cxci Foucault, 1983. The Culture of The Self. Lectures at at UC Berkeley, beginning on April 12, 1983. (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXb8c6jw0k&feature=bf_prev&list=PL54CD8D8C49EEFBB1); Foucault, Michel. “Technologies of the Self.”, edited by Luther H. Martin et al., pp 16-49. Univ. of Massachusets Press, 1988 (online: http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.technologiesofself.en.html) cxcii Plato, Albiciades I. (online: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1676/1676-h/1676-h.htm) cxciii Plato, Albiciades I. (online: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1676/1676-h/1676-h.htm) cxciv Plato, Albiciades I. (online: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1676/1676-h/1676-h.htm) cxcv Foucault, M., 1984. On the geneology of ethics: an overview of work in progress. In P. Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon), 340-372 cxcvi Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus. (Online: http://www.epicurus.net/en/menoeceus.html) cxcvii Hardt, M. and Negri, A., 2009. Ibid. pp. 377 cxcviii Lucius Torquatus explaning and defending Epicurean ethics in De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum. Marcus Tullius Cicero (online : http://www.epicurus.net/en/finibus.html) cxcix Norman Wentworth De Witt., 1954, ‘Epicurus & his philosophy’. Second Printing 1964. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. (online: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=6C3C2E2BC59B50C03E012D42F4F23B93) cc Epicurus, as quoted from documentary ‘Epicurus on Happiness – Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness’, 2000. By Alain De Botton. (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irornIAQzQY) cci Boaventura de Sousa Santos, 2013. The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-Hegemonic Globalisation (Part I). Pp236. ccii Boaventura de Sousa Santos, 2013. The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-Hegemonic Globalisation (Part I). Pp237. cciii Boaventura de Sousa Santos, 2013. The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-Hegemonic Globalisation (Part I). Pp237. cciv Boaventura de Sousa Santos, 2013. The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-Hegemonic Globalisation (Part I). Pp238. ccv Kirby, A., 2003. Pp325. Redefining social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at Ithaca: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 323-332. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00025-2 ccvi IDEP website. http://www.idepfoundation.org/aboutidep/visionandmission ccvii Furze, B., 1992. Ecologically Sustainable Rural Development and the Difficult of Social Change. Environmental Values 1 (1992): 141-55. ccviii Hill, R.A., and Dunbar, R.I.M, 2003. Social network size in humans. Human Nature, Volume14, Issue 1, pp 53-72. (online: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y#) ccix Green Building Council Indonesia. Online: http://www.gbcindonesia.org/ ccx Mollison, B.,1988. Permaculture. A Designers’ Manual. Page ix. Tagari Publications. ISBN 0908228015 ccxi Mollison, B.,1988. Permaculture. A Designers’ Manual. Page ix-x. Tagari Publications. ISBN 0908228015 ccxii Taman Petanu website, 2014. Rainwater harvesting.(online: http://www.tamanpetanu.com/development- plans/working-with-water) ccxiii Taman Petanu website, 2014. Wastewater Management at the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood. (online: http://www.tamanpetanu.com/development-plans/wastewater-management) ccxiv Former President of the United States Harry S. Truman 1949. Document 19 – Inaugural Address. January 20, 1949. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13282#axzz2itHEtW4p) ccxv Ibu Kartini, 2013. Ibid. ccxvi Naomi Klein, 2007. Documentary Shock doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. ccxvii Noam Chomsky, 2011 as quoted from Noam Chomsky on the Marshall plan and Globalization. (online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMbqL3xuCo) ccxviii Latham, J., 2015. How the Great Food War Will Be Won. Independent Science News (online: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/environment/how-the-great-food-war-will-be-won/#more- 1946) ccxix Furze, B., 1992. Ibid. ccxx Trainer, T., 2006. On eco-villages and the transition. The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol.2, No. 3. Pp1. (online: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/pdf%20files/pdf%20vol2/On%20eco- villages%20and%20the%20transition.pdf) ccxxi Kirby, A., 2003. Ibid. ccxxii Fotopoulos, T., 2006. Pp 4. Ibid. 86

ccxxiii Fotopoulos, T., 2006. Pp 3. Ibid. ccxxiv Furze, B., 1992. Ibid. ccxxv Auroville (online : http://www.auroville.org/) ccxxvi Damanhur (online: http://www.damanhur.org/) ccxxvii Gaia Asociación (online: http://www.asociaciongaia.org/) ccxxviii Huehuecoyotl (online: http://www.huehuecoyotl.net/) ccxxix Free and Real (online: http://en.telaithrion.freeandreal.org/#) ccxxx IDEP (online: http://www.idepfoundation.org/) ccxxxi Crystal Waters (online: http://crystalwaters.org.au/) ccxxxii Brook End (online: http://www.brookend.org.uk/?page_id=43) ccxxxiii Plukrijp (online: http://plukrijp.be/) ccxxxiv Global Ecovillage Network (http://gen.ecovillage.org/) ccxxxv Fellowship for Intentional Community (http://www.ic.org/) ccxxxvi Kirby, A., 2003. Ibid. ccxxxvii Strategic Plan of the Wageningen university, presented by Martin Kropf on the second of December, 2014. ccxxxviii Marcel Metze et. al., 2014. Nevenfuncties van hoogleraren leiden tot belangenverstrengeling.Ondernemende professoren.De Groene Amsterdammer. Woensdag 26 november 2014. (online: http://www.groene.nl/artikel/ondernemende-professoren) ccxxxix Strategic Plan of the Wageningen university, presented by Martin Kropf on the second of December, 2014.