SEPARATISM AND STATE COHESION IN EASTERN INDONESIA by Chris Lundry A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 2 May 2009 SEPARATISM AND STATE COHESION IN EASTERN INDONESIA by Chris Lundry has been approved April 2009 Graduate Supervisory Committee: Sheldon Simon, Chair James Rush Michael Mitchell ACCEPTED BY THE GRADUATE COLLEGE NOTE: PAGE NUMBERS IN THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THE DISSERTATION MAY DIFFER FROM THE ORIGINAL. (Please include a reference to "www.papuaweb.org version" in citations of this dissertation) 3 ABSTRACT Separatism has plagued Indonesia since its independence. This dissertation examines four cases of separatism in Indonesia, including the South Moluccas, West Papua, and East Timor, as well as one case where separatism did not emerge, Sumba. It describes sovereignty in Indonesia since its inception, considering ideological challenges including communist, Islamist, and federalist, and concludes that sovereignty in Indonesia was tenuous prior to the New Order period (1965-1998). Using case study methodology, each case is examined to determine the predominant factors that led to separatism, including the role of elites, poverty, the method of incorporation, religion and culture, and political participation. It then examines Sumba in the context of these variables to determine why a separatist movement did not emerge in that region, despite a juridical basis for separatism. Political participation, social continuity, and the role of the elites prove to be the deciding factors in the emergence of separatism. This dissertation also examines the factors that led to the defeat of separatists in the South Moluccas, the persistence in West Papua, and the success in East Timor and concludes that the causes of the emergence of separatism are not the same as the causes of the persistence of separatism. This dissertation makes four significant contributions to the field. The first is through a detailed case-study approach comparing three regions that have undergone serious separatist movements in the state of Indonesia as well as a ‘negative case.’ The second contribution is the differentiation between the causes of the emergence of separatism and the causes of the persistence of separatism. The third contribution this 4 dissertation makes is toward a better understanding of the relationship between nationalism and separatism. Finally, when taken together, these three elements combine to challenge predominant theories of separatist conflict that emphasize one causal factor over others, including, for example, poverty, ethnicity or religion. It also raises doubts about the applicability of theories of anti-state violence in states that are beginning the consolidation process, or as they incorporate territory after the consolidation process has been long under way, as in the cases of West Papua and East Timor. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is the result of many years of work, and as a result the list of people who deserve acknowledgement is long. I must begin, however, by acknowledging a man who had a tremendous impact on my life, both personally and academically, without whom I would not have begun studying Indonesia and East Timor, and subsequently would not be writing these words. Daniel S. Lev at the University of Washington was my professor, mentor, and friend, but certainly it was his friendship that mattered most. Dan was a rigorous and tenacious scholar. He provided a clear example of an academic immersed in his calling, and was a model for me in his engagement with both American and Indonesian academics. He agreed to serve on my dissertation committee and would have made ample contributions, but he passed away in February 2006. I miss Dan tremendously; I hope this work would make him proud, despite what I am sure are its numerous shortcomings. At Arizona State University, I was pleased to find a home in the Program for Southeast Asian Studies (PSEAS), prior to its demise in 2006. Foremost among these friends is James Rush, a historian who came to play the same roles as Dan Lev – professor, mentor and friend. Jim entrusted me with teaching PSEAS courses before I had taken my comprehensive exams, and has supported me in myriad other ways. Professor Sheldon Simon has similarly provided me with support, encouragement, and guidance, both in my home department of Political Science and within the context of Southeast Asia. Professor Michael Mitchell, as the third member of my committee, continually downplayed his role during the writing and research process of this dissertation, but I believe he contributed significantly, especially with regard to my study of the role of 6 elites. I am pleased to have been able to work with all three, and am honored they were willing to oversee this project. Within my home department, Professor Patrick Kenney, as Department Chair, was someone who supported me throughout this process. I would be remiss if I were not to mention those behind the scenes, whose help proved invaluable: Pattie Rothstein, Thu Nguyen, Jeriann McIlvoy, and Sheryl Durlak. From the PSEAS, there were several directors who helped me in numerous ways, including Karen Adams, James Eder, and Ruth Yabes. They and other affiliated faculty including Christopher Duncan, Thomas Hudak, Hjorleifur Jonsson, Thuy-Kim Pham Le, Merlyna Lim, Pamela McElwee, Juliane Schober, Prakorn Siriprakob, Ted Solis, Nora Taylor, and Mark Woodward, provided a stimulating environment, advice and encouragement, and friendship. I owe special recognition to Peter Suwarno, my Indonesian language professor. Beyond his patience as I tackled the language (and despite my continued mistakes), Peter has been a good friend and a lively partner for discussions of Indonesian politics. My Indonesian friends and colleagues are numerous and deserving of much credit as well. Theofransus Litaay, Achmad Gunaryo, Stefanus, Dani and Siliwoeloe Djoeromana, Martin Ndoen, Ferry Nusahara, Ina Hunga Restianti, and the faculty associated with the Pusat Studi Kawasan Timur Indonesia at Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana in Salatiga have all aided in this project and made my most recent stay in Indonesia a pleasure. I also want to thank my sources, some of whom went to some lengths to provide me information at a significant risk. Although this dissertation is not meant to be a recipe for peace in Indonesia and its various zones in conflict, I hope that 7 peace will not be long in coming as Indonesia progresses toward consolidating its nascent democracy. Research and language training in Indonesia was supported by a Blakemore Freeman Fellowship and a Fulbright Fellowship. The staffs at both organizations were tremendously helpful, but I would especially like to thank Cornelia Paliama at AMINEF in Jakarta for her assistance. While writing, I was supported by the Departments of History, Global Studies, and Interdisciplinary Studies at Arizona State University, as well as a Graduate College Dissertation Completion Fellowship. My friends and family have also provided me love and support during this time. I would like to thank my brothers and sister who all help kept me motivated, as well as my father Jerry and mother Coral. Most of all I would like to thank my wife, Meg. She gave up what she was doing to live with me in Indonesia for a year-and-a-half while I conducted my research, and supported and helped me there. She has also been tremendously patient and understanding through the entire writing process, offering encouragement, advice and love. I look forward to the next step of our life together, and everything else that may follow. 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 The Model........................................................................................8 Methodology..................................................................................10 Case Literature...............................................................................14 Why Separatism? ...........................................................................26 2 SOVEREIGNTY AND STATE CONSOLIDATION IN EARLY INDONESIA: RESISTANCE AND REBELLION.......................30 Indonesian Sovereignty in Practice................................................34 The Late Colonial Period and the Birth of Modern Nationalism.......................................................................39 The Soekarno Era: Revolution, Independence and Early Threats to Consolidation ..........................................44 Madiun ...........................................................................................44 Early Consolidation .......................................................................48 Darul Islam.....................................................................................56 PRRI/Permesta...............................................................................61 Soekarno’s Last Years ...................................................................73 G30S and the Imposition of the New Order ..................................78 The Post-Suharto Era .....................................................................84 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................88 9 CHAPTER Page 3 DOOR DE EEUWEN (T)ROUW? THE DEFEAT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE SOUTH MOLUCCAS ....................................................90 Brief History ..................................................................................94