[Diggers350] Article on current land reform movement in Indonesia

[Ram Selva]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:15:54 +0000, ilyan wrote:
> What is this?   Is Ram out to totally discredit the Diggers list.?

Is the Diggers List so vulnerable?

Has this list got pre-set values that I'm not aware of and that I've 
touched unknowingly?

Please read inline below for an explanation.

> The only reason to attack Elenor Roosevelt was that she hated
> Fascists and racial segregataion.   We expect attacks on her from the
> Nazi ilk and from racist bogots.

A long term US president's wife would have had more insight than to go 
meddling with universal matters... when there was enough racism in the 
US to put right first!

No one is disputing the Nazis did wrong stuff.
In fact the US is where the Nazis currently operate out of, at will.

The reason to pull up Eleanor:
Husband develops the atomic bomb with Nazi technology  - well drops the 
damn things!! and Mrs goes 'human rights' almost straight away!
Surely its a set up. These people are not worth wasting time on.

If there is an attack its on the state of the coined words 'human 
rights' being  beyond reclamation.

I'd always go further to attack the spoilt people or outright agents of 
the Western hegemony who keep messing up attempts to 'save the planet' 
to only destroy it more.

For ongoing serious abuse of 'human rights' please refer to the 
predicament of the ongoing 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council 
(UNHRC) in Geneva where the US has made a re-entry, after exactly a 
decade of abstention from all concerns of Human Rights.

After being one of the key players in pulling down the previous UN 
Human Rights Commission, project Obama has entered the UNHRC wich was 
formed in 2005/2006, only a year so ago (after actively working with 
Israel to pull the UNHRC apart because of Goldstone Commission) and os 
currently proceeding to hijack the whole agenda of human rights once 
more.

Dwelling a bit more in to specifics:
UNHRC has a new promising mechanism termed Universal Periodic Review 
which was drafted in quite openly by wide participation by those who 
probably really care.
Unfortunately such crucial time and efforts go to waste as they are 
forced to work under pre-set concepts that are founded on ill advised 
and inaccurate principles.
Players such as US and EU and increasingly China and Russia are able to 
discredit the UPR through proxies.
They do this for the sake of selfish trade and quick profits from 
natural resources.
The weak foundations of Human Rights is the cause of such wasted 
efforts.

The UNHRC which comes under the OCHR(.org) works alongside special 
interest on food, land, adequate housing, renewable energy, protecting 
biodiversity etc. but they all end up being sideshows!

A loosely associated UN mechanism ...sorry set up ...in The Hague even 
tries humans for crimes under Cosmopolitan Law (ICC) but most destroyers 
of the planet never come under the spotlight - because the way Human 
Rights was defined.

Human Rights has been manipulated so it has nothing to do with saving 
the planet / earth - thats for Captain America!


> If what Ram is saying is that there are no human rights only human
> duties he should say so, and advocate reducing the human population 
> to
> what the Earth can support sustainably.

?

All I can say is please put the emphasis on humans on a back-burner.

Lets question whats being fed to us and our children as knowledge by 
those humans who misbehave.

> Those agents of Satan, the
> Sage of Omaha and Gates, are putting up 'charity' millions to 
> maintain
> the growth in the human population that will ensure pollution will
> destroy Earth's ability to support Life.
>
> It probably is too late for any of that already.    Manmade CO2 has
> warmed the Earth enough to start Methane being released from bogs and
> seabeds.    Methane is much  more efficient as a greenhouse gas and
> will feed back to greater releases to cause tempertures to increase 
> to
> levels at which crops fail.
>
> The population growth rate that indian economists boast will make
> them economic world leaders will put them well ahead in the race to
> the extinction of EarthLife.

Economics isn't an Indian thing.
Given Indian economists are dogs and they know nothing better than 
watching Bollywood ...US or the EU still consumes more than India or 
China... and definitely breed the economists in India.


> *Even if the Lord's Resistance Army was able to wipe out 90% of the
> human population tomorrow the changes already underway might have
> already determined Mass Extinction of Life on  Earth.*

LRA moves with African Oil.Its almost as if they prospect for oil.

LRA's origins and purpose is well disputed. There is no way the LRA is 
such a threat.

A better example would be to say 'even if western socialites messed up 
again and again and wiped out 90% ...' - a more likely prospect.


> Read "The High Frontier" but it might be too later for that,

That looks like a fiction.


Ram

> On 17/03/2012 14:16, Ram Selva wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One of the issue is the definition of Human Rights has been so badly
>> tarnished right from inception.
>>
>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948 with
>> segregation in Alabama and apartheir in South Africa and what not,
>> spearheaded by a socialite idiot, Elanor Roosevelt.
>>
>> The European nonsense (ie, contrained by the continental land mass - 
>> I
>> never understood how the borders of Europe are defined in the first
>> place), ECHR, that followed soon after is nothing better.
>>
>> Having written that ... yes I agree that land is a key right.
>>
>> Maybe we need to include bees and birds and flowers including humans
>> and come up with the new definition -- Natural Rights (?)
>>
>> Ram
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:41:56 -0700, Colin Donoghue wrote:
>> > Why can't people say the crucial words: *Land is a Human Right?*
>> > Many
>> > people, like the Indonesians highlighted in this article, 
>> understand
>> > the
>> > importance of land for justice and freedom, yet they don't hit on 
>> or
>> > promote the crucial truth that can actually make that a reality:
>> > claiming
>> > your fair share of cost/tax-free land as your birthright. I don't
>> > recall
>> > ever hearing anyone in this group saying it either... what gives?
>> > Clarity
>> > and speficity are crucial for positive change to occur; I hope 
>> those
>> > 5
>> > words become a more commonly heard phrase, otherwise it will
>> > basically just
>> > be more of the same (i.e. empire).
>> > -------------------------------
>> > "Fighting for land"
>> > (article with photos here:
>> > http://boilingspot.blogspot.com/2012/03/fighting-for-land.html)
>> >
>> > Rural social movements have a rich history in Indonesia, and they
>> > have
>> > recorded significant achievements in recent years
>> > Dianto Bachriadi | Inside Indonesia | 18 January 2012
>> >
>> > Jakarta, 1953: DN Aidit, one of the young and rising stars of the
>> > Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) launches his analysis of 
>> Indonesian
>> > agrarian society. He says agrarian revolution must be the essence 
>> of
>> > the
>> > people’s ‘democratic revolution’ in Indonesia. At the fifth party
>> > congress
>> > a year later, the PKI adopts Aidit’s analysis as the core of it 
>> new
>> > agrarian program. The program calls on the party to build mass 
>> power
>> > in
>> > rural areas, and to make the struggle for land reform central to 
>> its
>> > appeal, using the slogan ‘land to the peasants’.
>> >
>> > Twelve years later, Aidit is dead and the PKI is in tatters. A 
>> wave
>> > of
>> > killing has swept through rural parts of Indonesia, with the 
>> military
>> > and
>> > its allies targeting many of the cadres and activists who had been 
>> at
>> > the
>> > forefront of the PKI’s struggle for land reform. The New Order 
>> regime
>> > which
>> > comes to power, with the military at its core, sets in train a 
>> series
>> > of
>> > policies that aim to depoliticise the countryside, permanently
>> > eliminate
>> > the left, and proscribe independent organisation of the peasantry.
>> >
>> > Yet the repression of 1965-66, despite the intentions of Suharto 
>> and
>> > his
>> > comrades, did not negate the centrality of agrarian problems to
>> > Indonesian
>> > political life. Nor did it stamp out for all time rural social
>> > movements.
>> > The core problems that Aidit identified in his analysis in 1953 –
>> > such as
>> > landlessness and stark inequality in rural areas – have continued 
>> to
>> > characterise much of rural Indonesia to the present day. As the 
>> New
>> > Order
>> > regime consolidated, it added new problems by opening up land to
>> > commercial
>> > agriculture and other business interests, displacing entire rural
>> > communities. As the years and decades passed, and despite great
>> > repression,
>> > new movements of poor and dispossessed farmers erupted in many 
>> rural
>> > parts
>> > of Indonesia.
>> >
>> > Rural mobilisation accelerated further after the collapse of the 
>> New
>> > Order
>> > in 1998. Around the country, peasants occupied land that had been
>> > taken
>> > from them – or from their parents – over the preceding thirty 
>> years.
>> > Peasant unions and other rural social movement organisations 
>> gained
>> > thousands of members. Even though they are now fragmented and
>> > localised in
>> > their orientation, these groups have succeeded in once more 
>> putting
>> > the
>> > idea of agrarian reform onto the national political agenda. 
>> Aidit’s
>> > dream
>> > of agrarian revolution has not been realised, and perhaps it never
>> > will,
>> > but rural social movements are back as part of the Indonesian
>> > political
>> > landscape, and as part of the Indonesian left.
>> > A tradition of rural radicalism
>> >
>> > When the PKI made its shift toward the countryside in the 
>> mid-1950s,
>> > it
>> > faced an uphill struggle. In 1953, less than seven per cent of
>> > peasants
>> > were organised. The PKI and its affiliate, BTI (Indonesian 
>> Peasants
>> > Front),
>> > began their work with moderate actions to help peasants improve 
>> their
>> > livelihood and social and cultural life. Many poor farmers were
>> > attracted
>> > by these programs, and by the party’s vision of social justice.
>> > Others were
>> > driven into the arms of the party by the severity of rural poverty
>> > and
>> > inequalities in land ownership and control. Both the PKI and BTI 
>> grew
>> > rapidly in rural areas. In 1955, BTI declared its membership had
>> > reached 3
>> > million and the PKI was placed fourth in the 1955 general 
>> election,
>> > with
>> > much of its vote garnered in the countryside.
>> >
>> > When a new share-tenancy law and the basic agrarian law were
>> > promulgated in
>> > 1960, the left gained another opportunity for rural mobilisation.
>> > These
>> > laws provided the PKI and BTI with a legal basis to escalate their
>> > demands
>> > for the destruction of feudalism. The BTI called for ‘land to the
>> > tiller’,
>> > and it campaigned for tenant farmers to receive a fairer share of 
>> the
>> > crops
>> > they produced (it wanted a 60:40 ratio in favour of tenants, or 
>> least
>> > 50:50, in contrast to the the traditional 20:80 or 25:75 division 
>> in
>> > favour
>> > of landowners). By 1962 BTI had around 5 million members.
>> >
>> > When landowners and their allies in local governments resisted 
>> both
>> > the new
>> > share tenancy regulations and the land reform program, rural
>> > radicalisation
>> > was the result. The PKI launched a campaign targeting the ‘seven
>> > village
>> > devils’ (such figures as ‘wicked landlords’ and ‘blood-sucking
>> > money-lenders’) and the BTI tried to lead a campaign of land
>> > occupations by
>> > poor farmers, the so-called ‘unilateral actions’ (aksi sepihak).
>> >
>> > But many of their opponents in the countryside were affiliated to
>> > other big
>> > political parties, including the PNI (Indonesian National Party) 
>> and
>> > NU
>> > (Awakening of the Islamic Scholars, a traditionalist Islamic
>> > organisation).
>> > The rural campaign thus compromised the PKI’s national-level
>> > ‘political
>> > front’ as part of its commitment to President Sukarno’s ‘Guided
>> > Democracy’
>> > regime, and the party called off its campaign.
>> >
>> > This was the background to the anti-communist massacres of 
>> 1965-66.
>> > Rural
>> > radicalisation prompted the PKI’s opponents to convert class-based
>> > conflict
>> > into religious-based confrontation: sympathisers of the left’s
>> > agrarian
>> > revolution were condemned as ‘atheist’ – a deadly political
>> > stigmatisation.
>> > These rural anti-communists provided many of the shock troops who 
>> in
>> > 1965-66 carried out the killings of PKI and BTI supporters, in
>> > cooperation
>> > with the army. The New Order came to power. Mass-based rural
>> > mobilisation
>> > for radical social change suddenly ended.
>> > Resisting developmentalism
>> >
>> > But the New Order did not permanently end rural upheaval. Its 
>> support
>> > for
>> > commercially-oriented ‘development projects’ caused massive land
>> > dispossessions across the archipelago. Thousands of rural people
>> > experienced brutal evictions from their land and sole source of
>> > livelihood.
>> > Often, they received terribly unfair compensation for their 
>> losses.
>> > Serious
>> > human rights abuses abounded.
>> >
>> > The regime’s repressive political control over rural life did not
>> > stop
>> > resistance by the victims of these policies. Beginning in the 
>> 1970s,
>> > land
>> > conflicts began to erupt, as local communities resisted
>> > dispossession. The
>> > conflict database compiled by the agrarian advocacy organisation 
>> KPA
>> > (Consortium for Agrarian Reform) recorded more than 1,750 such 
>> land
>> > conflicts during the New Order period. Komnas HAM (National
>> > Commission for
>> > Human Rights) has reported that since its establishment in 1993 
>> land
>> > conflicts have constituted the single largest category of 
>> complaints
>> > it has
>> > received.
>> >
>> > Political repression in rural areas, and the absence of press 
>> freedom
>> > and
>> > of independent peasant organisations, stacked the cards against 
>> local
>> > protests against land evictions. Many of them would have flared 
>> and
>> > died
>> > without leaving a lasting legacy, were it not for the fact that, 
>> from
>> > the
>> > 1970s, critical urban-based middle class activists became anchors 
>> and
>> > organisers for rural protest movements. Such activists articulated
>> > local
>> > concerns about land expropriation and rural human rights 
>> violations
>> > to
>> > national audiences, and they linked land protests to wider 
>> political
>> > contention against the New Order regime.
>> >
>> > Thus, in the mid to late 1970s university student councils spoke 
>> out
>> > against the brutality of forced land transfers. In the 1980s and
>> > 1990s,
>> > activists from NGOs and informal student groups organised 
>> themselves
>> > into
>> > action committees to campaign on numerous individual land 
>> conflicts
>> > around
>> > the country. Such groups in effect stood in for the absent peasant
>> > organisations and political parties that might otherwise have
>> > defended
>> > farmers’ land rights.
>> >
>> > Then, in the 1990s, some youth activists with a leftist political
>> > orientation – though without links to the old communist movement 
>> of
>> > the
>> > 1960s – tried to revive the left movement in rural areas. They 
>> tried
>> > to
>> > transform local instances of peasant resistance against land loss
>> > into
>> > autonomous local peasant organisations. These activists developed 
>> new
>> > programs of political education for rural activists, and tried to
>> > push the
>> > orientation of peasant struggles beyond immediate goals of 
>> reclaiming
>> > lost
>> > land or gaining fair compensation. Many young leftists tried to
>> > position
>> > the peasants and rural masses once more as the pillar (soko guru) 
>> of
>> > radical social change in Indonesia and they revived the idea of
>> > agrarian
>> > reform (pembaruan agrarian) as the central goal for rural social
>> > movements.
>> >
>> > At the start of the 1990s, SPJB (The West Java Peasant’s Union) 
>> was
>> > formed,
>> > the first autonomous peasant union in the post-1965 authoritarian
>> > era. It
>> > was a coalition of urban-based activists and local peasant leaders 
>> in
>> > land
>> > conflict cases. The goal was that it would be a step in building a
>> > national
>> > peasant union. Next, a network of student and NGO activists 
>> centered
>> > around
>> > a string of cities stretching from North Sumatra to Central Java
>> > (Asahan-Bandar Lampung-Bandung-Yogyakarta) formed several others
>> > local
>> > peasant unions. These included the Independent Peasant Union of
>> > Central
>> > Java (SPMJT), the Lampung Peasant Union (PITL), and the North 
>> Sumatra
>> > Peasant Union (SPSU).
>> >
>> > This network, along with other student groups, NGOs and some 
>> leaders
>> > of
>> > local peasant groups committed to develop the embryo of 
>> independent
>> > peasants’ organisation at the national level. In Lembang, West 
>> Java
>> > in 1993
>> > they declared the foundation of the Indonesian Peasant 
>> Organisation.
>> > In the
>> > same year in Central Java, some other radical left activists 
>> formed
>> > STN
>> > (The National Peasants Union) as part of their attempt to form a
>> > broad
>> > radical movement centered around their left political party, the 
>> PRD
>> > (People’s Democratic Party).
>> > Scaling up
>> >
>> > In short, despite sustained repression, violence and arrests, over
>> > the long
>> > term the New Order failed to prevent the re-emergence of movements
>> > that
>> > challenged its supremacy, including in rural areas. By the 
>> mid-1990s,
>> > not
>> > only were embryonic peasant unions emerging, but a new national
>> > coalition,
>> > the KPA (Consortium for Agrarian Reform) was formed (in 1994) with
>> > its
>> > central goal being the promotion of the long-neglected idea of
>> > agrarian
>> > reform.
>> >
>> >
>> > When Suharto fell in 1998, formal restrictions on independent
>> > organisation
>> > ended and social movements of all types expanded rapidly. Effort 
>> to
>> > build
>> > national peasant organisations accelerated. The key initiative was
>> > taken by
>> > SPSU activists from North Sumatra and, in mid-1998, just a few 
>> weeks
>> > after
>> > Suharto resigned, a Federation of Indonesian Peasant Unions (FSPI)
>> > was
>> > formed. Within the next few years several other peasant 
>> organisations
>> > –
>> > such as API (Indonesian Famers Alliance), AGRA (Alliance of 
>> Movements
>> > for
>> > Agrarian Reform) and PETANI Mandiri (Self-Reliant Indonesian 
>> Peasant
>> > and
>> > Fisherfolks’ Movement) – were formed, and claimed a national
>> > presence.
>> >
>> > However, these efforts did not consolidate a movement at the 
>> national
>> > level
>> > because the dynamics of peasant mobilisation were instead leading
>> > toward
>> > localisation. Moreover, these ‘national’ organisations competed 
>> with
>> > each
>> > other to claim the title of ‘representative of the Indonesian
>> > peasants’.
>> > Many local unions did not affiliate to just one national
>> > organisation.
>> > Instead, double or triple memberships were common, as a kind of
>> > strategy
>> > for local unions to multiply their links with national dynamics.
>> > Democratisation and localisation
>> >
>> > Over the long term, one of the most important developments in 
>> peasant
>> > movements has been the reappearance of a strategy of occupation of
>> > contested land. Beginning in the 1980s and accelerating 
>> dramatically
>> > after
>> > 1998, throughout Indonesia numerous peasant groups have simply 
>> taken
>> > over
>> > and started to cultivate land they claim as their own. This 
>> strategy
>> > of
>> > direct action has similarities to that of the radical peasant
>> > movements of
>> > the 1960s. Unlike in the 1960s, however, peasants rarely target 
>> land
>> > owned
>> > by landowners who are themselves part of local rural communities.
>> > Instead,
>> > they occupy vacant state land – including state-forest lands – or
>> > land that
>> > is being used by plantation companies or other commercial 
>> operators.
>> > Most
>> > of them are reclaiming land they have previously been pushed out 
>> of,
>> > but
>> > some simply take over land they claim they need as part of their
>> > economic
>> > and social rights for a decent livelihood.
>> >
>> > Land occupations flourished above all in the context of weakening
>> > state and
>> > security force power after the fall of Suharto. Many groups of
>> > farmers
>> > reclaimed land that had been denied them by the New Order. Through
>> > this
>> > strategy, many local peasant organisations became stronger. They 
>> now
>> > provided their members with control over the land they had long
>> > craved, and
>> > hence with a concrete material resource to defend. For instance,
>> > local
>> > peasant unions SPP (Pasundan Peasant Union) in West Java and STaB
>> > (Bengkulu
>> > Peasant Union) in Sumatra were each able to consolidate 
>> memberships
>> > of
>> > about 25 thousand peasant households and controlled around 20 to 
>> 30
>> > thousand hectares of land that was legally part of large 
>> plantation
>> > estates
>> > or state forest.
>> >
>> > Their successful land occupations made these local organisations 
>> more
>> > independent than previously. They now had greater bargaining power 
>> in
>> > national coalitions and networks. National leaders began to
>> > experience
>> > difficulties in controlling them. A sense of a unified national
>> > agrarian
>> > movement began to break down. Meanwhile, the implementation of
>> > decentralisation politics and the blossoming of local democracy 
>> drew
>> > these
>> > unions into local politics. Their mass memberships made them a
>> > valuable
>> > resource for mobilisation in local elections and they began to be
>> > courted
>> > by local elites.
>> >
>> > For the ordinary peasants who are part of such unions, 
>> participation
>> > in
>> > elections is above all a way to secure their control over land. 
>> They
>> > hope
>> > to back winners who will in turn recognise their claims to 
>> occupied
>> > land,
>> > even if securing formal title can be a lengthy, onerous and 
>> uncertain
>> > process. For some union organisers and leaders, local elections 
>> are a
>> > bridge for them personally to enter formal politics as candidates.
>> > Others
>> > try to become brokers in the ‘market of democracy’, selling their
>> > capacity
>> > mobilise voters to local politicians. Sometimes this engagement in
>> > local
>> > politics has led to positive consequences in terms of the security 
>> of
>> > occupied land, and access to the local budget and policy-making if
>> > the
>> > candidate wins. But in many cases it has also led to the 
>> destruction
>> > of
>> > local unions because of contention among union activists and 
>> members.
>> > A long and winding road
>> >
>> > While there has been some dramatic rural mobilisation at the local
>> > level,
>> > left-wing political parties have struggled to establish themselves 
>> at
>> > the
>> > centre or to link themselves to the new peasant unions and other
>> > rural
>> > activism. As a result, peasant movements have evolved in ways that
>> > are not
>> > connected to wider political struggles or to the contest for state
>> > power.
>> > They have developed in ways that make them localised and 
>> fragmented.
>> >
>> > Meanwhile, while local struggles to reclaim land lost in the New
>> > Order
>> > period have recorded considerable achievements, the ironic result 
>> of
>> > such
>> > successes is that many of the participants have lost their 
>> enthusiasm
>> > for
>> > yet more struggle. Many farmers simply want to be secure as they
>> > return to
>> > the agricultural production that has always been their goal, and 
>> they
>> > want
>> > to enjoy normal social life rather than engaging in perpetual
>> > political
>> > mobilisation. As a result, a gradual de-escalation of peasant
>> > movements has
>> > been occurring.
>> >
>> > Yet it has not all gone the peasants’ way in the post-1998 period.
>> > State
>> > policies have facilitated large-scale investment in land by
>> > corporations,
>> > and hence concentration of corporate control over large tracts of
>> > land.
>> > Land grabbing and dispossession is once again on the increase. 
>> Many
>> > autonomous local governments do little to help, and are often
>> > effectively
>> > bought off by the corporate interests. Using the power of their
>> > money,
>> > plantation owners, miners and other business interests are able to
>> > pay
>> > police and civilian militias to evict local people. Patterns of
>> > massive
>> > land conflicts involving violence and human rights violations very
>> > reminiscent of those witnessed under the New Order are occurring 
>> once
>> > more.
>> >
>> > These conditions pose a challenge for the left. Indonesia has a 
>> rich
>> > tradition of peasant mobilisation in defence of the interests of
>> > landless
>> > and marginalised rural people. It is time for yet another revival 
>> of
>> > that
>> > tradition.
>> > Dianto Bachriadi (dianto.bachriadi at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:dianto.bachriadi%40gmail.com>) is a researcher at the
>> > Agrarian Resource Center (ARC), Bandung.