Indonesia’s Agrarian Movement: Anti-Capitalism at a Crossroads by Tuong Vu Department of Political Science, University of Oregon Introduction1 The contemporary agrarian movement in Indonesia began in the last decade of the New Order regime (1966-1998). Several land disputes turned into violent clashes when farmers protested against low compensation and the heavy-handed methods used by state agents to expropriate lands for development projects (Afiff et al. 2005; Lucas and Warren 2003, 2000; Aditjondro 1998). Part of this wave of conflicts involved contests over rights to natural resources (Afiff and Lowe 2007; Warren 1998a, 1998b). In many cases, farmers’ causes were endorsed by student groups and urban non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although early protests were suppressed, they set the scene for a vigorous movement to emerge after Suharto resigned in 1998. Within a few years, the movement succeeded in pressuring the Parliament to pass a decision on agrarian reform and on the management of natural resources. Farmers’ unions have also organized numerous protests against rice imports, trade agreements and international financial organizations. After a decade of fast growth, the movement is now at a critical stage. Despite numerous protests and greater access to politicians under Reformasi (reformation period or post- 1998 era), the agrarian movement has not generated sufficient political support among elites for its goal of land redistribution. The Parliament decision remains to be fleshed out in specific laws and regulations. The government has gradually restored the power of the 1 Indonesian Bureau of Logistics (Badan Urusan Logistik; BULOG), partly in response to popular protests, but rice imports keep arriving.2 In 2003 Indonesia was the world’s largest rice importer, much to the indignation of farmers’ groups. Activists from urban NGOs and their collaborating academics have produced most of the literature about the agrarian movement in Indonesia (e.g. Fauzi 2003; Wiradi 2000). While valuable, these accounts tend to reflect the view of a few groups rather than the entire movement; thus, for instance, radical groups are discussed but do not receive in- depth treatment. Besides the fact that urban NGOs are more accessible, the greater coverage given to them in the literature sometimes reflects analysts’ interests in themes of greater interest to a Western audience such as environmental protection, civil society and democratic transition. In part because they are recent, anti-globalization discourses and activities have received less attention than longstanding land and environmental protests. There is similarly a bias in favor of ongoing activities centered on today’s activists with insufficient attention to historical and structural factors. Agrarian unrest is not a new phenomenon in Indonesia. The first decade after independence (1949) saw a spontaneous movement by landless farmers to squat on plantation lands. In the 1960s, the Communist Party of Indonesia (Partai Komunis Indonesia; PKI) led farmers in a violent campaign to claim lands that legally belonged to them according to the Basic Agrarian Law (Undang-Undang Pokok Agraria; UUPA) promulgated in 1960.3 Simmering conflicts led to massive violence during 1965-1966, when a coup brought General Suharto to power. In this event, the military coordinated a 2 campaign that killed or imprisoned hundreds of thousands of farmers belonging to communist groups. What role does this history play in the current agrarian movement? Does the rise of today’s movement owe only to developments in the 1980s, or do its genealogies go back further? This chapter builds on existing accounts but takes a step back to aim at two related goals. First, I hope to provide a fuller overview of the agrarian movement in Indonesia, especially its often overlooked anti-capitalist discourse. Second, through the study of movement discourses, I hope to offer a different perspective about the origins of the movement. Existing accounts have analyzed this movement within the context of an emergent civil society or democratizing trends (Uhlin 1995; Eldridge 1995; Aspinall 2004; Nomura 2007). They have paid insufficient attention to the ideological roots of this movement. As I argue below, there is a close affinity between the discourses of agrarian activists today and those of the broader anti-capitalist movement that dated back to colonial times. Anti-capitalism is defined here both as a theme in the political discourse and as (originally) a counter-hegemonic movement that dates back to the colonial period. Anti- capitalism differs from anti-globalization: globalization is of recent use in Indonesia and is not consistently opposed by activists as capitalism is. After three decades of rapid capitalist development under Suharto, anti-capitalism remains surprisingly robust and relevant. I argue that this particular perspective illuminates many aspects of the current movement heretofore obscured. 3 Indonesia’s Agrarian Movement’s Shape and Scale Since 1998, Indonesia has seen the births of hundreds of farmers’ unions. The largest national network of farmers’ unions is the Indonesian Federation of Farmers’ Unions (Federasi Serikat Petani Indonesia; FSPI). Acting jointly with these unions are numerous local and national NGOs, the best known being perhaps the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria; KPA) which was founded in the mid-1990s and now has about 200 member organizations. On environmental and natural resources issues, the largest NGO is the Indonesian Forum on Environment (Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia; WALHI), also founded very early, over 25 years ago (Di Gregorio 2006). Farmers have received sustained support from NGOs working on human rights and legal aid, especially during the early and difficult years when the political environment was repressive. Most Indonesian NGOs are urban-based and enjoy extensive transnational links to Western organizations (Uhlin 1995: 167-84; Eldridge 1995, 2007). Most receive substantial funding from foreign donors. But the links go beyond the West. The Secretary General of FSPI, Henry Saragih, is also the Regional Coordinator of La Via Campesina (International Farmers’ Movement), whose International Operative Secretariat is based in Jakarta (see also Kuhonta’s chapter, this edition). Saragih sometimes leads protests around the world against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and was recently named by the British newspaper The Guardian as one of the 50 people who could change the 4 fate of the planet, together with figures like former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and German Prime Minister Angela Merkel. Substantively, the agrarian movement in Indonesia involves struggles over three key issues, including land rights, natural resources and trade policy. The issue that has generated the most visible resistance, in the form of violence, and the most literature is no doubt land rights. There have been thousands of disputes involving farmers, state agencies, state plantations and private developers throughout Java alone (for cases in West Java, see Afiff et al. 2005). In 2007 alone, according to a count by the Indonesian Peasant Union (Serikat Petani Indonesia; SPI), there were 76 new or ongoing agrarian conflicts. Even before the fall of Suharto, farmers had occupied thousands of hectares of plantation lands. In the eight years since 1998, according to the West Javanese branch of the Association of Plantation Corporations, 2,660 hectares or 12 per cent of total plantation areas in Garut district, West Java, were “plundered” by farmers (Fauzi 2007). A well- studied case involved Cieceng village in Garut district, where landless farmers occupied and divided among themselves 200 hectares of land leased to a state plantation company. This took place after villagers learned from farmers’ union leaders that the lease had expired in 1997 (Afiff et al. 2005: 19-20).4 In response, the state-owned plantation company trucked in hundreds of thugs to try to evict farmers, and the ensuing clash led to many houses and trucks burned. Nationwide, farmers’ movements to seize land have 5 triggered a counter-movement by affected parties: according to the SPI, nearly 200,000 hectares were seized from farmers and conflicts led to eight deaths in 2007. Parallel to farmers’ resistance in the shape of organized protests and spontaneous actions are NGOs’ attempts to push for legislative changes. Because the Basic Agrarian Law UUPA of 1960 was never repealed but simply ignored under President Suharto, activists demand that it now be implemented. The agrarian movement was split over this issue. Some activists from urban-based NGOs, especially those in the KPA, were willing to work with bureaucrats and elected officials to gain support for agrarian reform even if the Communist-associated UUPA was to be put aside and replaced with new laws (Fauzi 1999: 272-6). Other activists, mostly leftist academics and leaders of farmers’ unions under the FSPI, rejected any changes to the UUPA (Bey 2002). The efforts of the first camp resulted in the Parliament decision in 2001 (People’s Consultative Assembly Decree No. IX/2001 or TAP MPR No. IX/2001) that promised agrarian reform but that failed to mention the UUPA. The second camp, which protested the decision on the day it was passed, viewed this legislation as serving only NGOs’ interests, not those of farmers (Lucas and Warren 2003: 116-22). The differences in outlooks and strategies between the KPA and FSPI, the two leading groups in the movement, are sometimes portrayed as coming from their social bases: KPA’s members are mostly urban NGOs whereas FSPI’s are mostly farmers’ unions (ibid.: 116-20). Yet both share many members, and KPA leaders have denied that the differences are significant (Fauzi and Bachriadi 2006: 11-3). 6 The struggle over natural resources overlaps that over land but involves primarily communities of outer islands who rely on both forest resources and (often swidden) agriculture. For this reason, the cause was sponsored first by NGOs working on environmental issues such as WALHI (Moniaga 2007). Essentially the struggle centers on claims based on customary rights to land or resource uses. Disputes over land and natural resources between indigenous communities and state agents go back to colonial times, but took shape as a national movement only in the 1990s with the help of NGOs which frame the issue as the rights of indigenous communities (“masyarakat adat”). Since the concept of “indigenous communities” was first approved by the NGOs involved in 1993, there have been two national congresses in 1999 and 2003 that gathered representatives from numerous such communities to display solidarity, formulate vision, coordinate action and consolidate the movement (ibid.). The movement has achieved some success. In a dispute over a government plan to build a hydro-electric power station in the Lore Lindung area of Central Sulawesi, local protests and NGO pressure led to its cancellation (Sangaji 2007: 327-8). Since the mid-1990s, NGOs have assisted many communities to map the territories that their customary rights cover (Peluso 2003). These efforts have allowed these communities to challenge the state or its agents when there were disputes. An example is the dispute concerning the Lore Lindung National Park where a local community called Katu was allowed to use some land in the Park based on their arguments of indigenous rights (ibid. 328-30). Farmers’ protests under the banner of “indigenous rights” in Sosa, North Sumatra similarly forced a state plantation company to offer fairer compensation for their lands (Afiff and Lowe 2007: 85-8). 7 Similar to the UUPA issue that split agrarian reform activists into two camps, the “masyarakat adat” (indigenous communities) movement is controversial. The adat (tradition or custom) concept is criticized for being “overly idealistic and does not adequately reflect empirical realities”, and for assuming characteristics of adat groups to be static (Sangaji 2007: 321). It is often difficult for activists to find communities that are completely distinct from other groups. There is also considerable social stratification within each community, and guaranteeing adat rights does not ensure equality. In areas with large migrant populations, adat-based struggles often pit one community (“indigenous”) against another (settlers) (Li 2007: 356-9; also compare with Dressler, this edition). Finally, local elites have sought to manipulate the movement to their own political ends (ibid. 359-65). Violent communal conflicts among ethnic Dayaks, Malays and Madurese in Kalimantan were caused or exacerbated by urban Dayak elites who manipulated landless Dayak resentment to advance their political interests (van Klinken 2006; Davidson 2008). Besides land and indigenous rights, protests against free trade are another major activity of farmers’ groups in Indonesia but have received less attention from analysts. Four kinds of activity can be discerned. First are actions to protest specific government decisions or legislations such as the import of rice or the 2007 Bill on Foreign Investment. Second are rallies to commemorate certain dates which represent nationalistic symbols such as the Day of National Awakening (January 28, 1908) and the Africa-Asia Conference in Bandung in 1955. These events are linked to activists’ demands for agrarian reform or 8 food sovereignty. Third, movement leaders organize conferences scheduled to occur at the same time as major events held by international organizations such as the FAO and the WTO, whether in Indonesia or abroad. The organizers and participants in these events do not seek access to those international organizations. Rather, these parallel conferences are to raise public concerns about issues important to farmers and to present alternatives to official policies. The events, especially the demonstrations, are also to display popular support for the causes embraced by protesters. Fourth and finally, some organizations are active abroad, participating in protests to strengthen international solidarity with the worldwide anti-globalization movement. The FSPI has played a central role in most activities. In April 2005, it helped found the umbrella group Gerakan Rakyat Lawan Nekolim (People’s Movement to Oppose Neo- colonialism and Neo-imperialism or Gerak Lawan).5 Other members of this group include WALHI, Aliansi Buruh Mengugat (Alliance of Critical Workers), Koalisi Anti Utang (Anti-Debt Coalition), Front Perjuangan Pemuda Indonesia (Youth Front for Struggle), Lingkar Studi-Aksi untuk Demokrasi Indonesia (Academic-Activist Circle for Democracy), Komite Mahasiswa Anti-Imperialisme (Student Committee against Imperialism), Kesatuan Aksi Mahasiswa LAKSI 31(United Action for LAKSI 31), and Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Indonesia (Legal Aid and Human Rights Association). Not all NGOs and farmers’ unions have joined Gerak Lawan. The KPA, which is active on land issues, has rarely participated in anti-trade activities. 9 To recap, the agrarian movement in Indonesia has experienced considerable growth and transformation since 1998. It is increasingly diversified, both in organization and in the issues of struggle. Existing accounts have focused mostly on land disputes and protests involving natural resources. Anti-trade activities are more recent and have not yet been analyzed. Missing from the literature are not only these activities, but also the discourses of the movement.6 What are the worldviews of activists? What concepts, images and arguments do they use in their struggles and different forms of resistance? Agrarian Movement Discourses7 Discourses constitute a major part of any social movement. Consisting of words, arguments, images and symbols, discourses not only express movement visions, goals and strategies, but also serve to connect members and facilitate communication with others. This section will analyze the anti-capitalist ideology that is deeply held and broadly shared among most agrarian activists in Indonesia. This ideology is expressed in their deep hostilities to capitalism and to the pillars of the global “capitalist system.” Targets of their harsh and frequent denunciations include global trade, foreign investment, capitalist countries and the international organizations dominated by them. Some activists have more nuanced views than others, but they all share basic assumptions about capitalism. Activists invariably view capitalism as an unjust socio-economic system. Wiradi, an early advocate of agrarian reform and a senior advisor to the KPA, writes that the capitalist 10