1 DECEMBER 2000
AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
Boundaries, Territories, and Spatial Issues in the 21st century
Boundaries and territories are concepts mostly associated with the discipline of geographers. Can there be a fruitful discussion on 'spatial issues' between geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, literary critics, and historians? This was the challenge for a one-day seminar in Amsterdam on 1 December 2000. A group of scholars from the National University of Singapore and the University of Amsterdam crossed the boundaries of their disciplines and regional specialties to discuss geopolitics and globalisation in Southeast Asia and Europe.
* By JACQUELINE VEL & MARIO RUTTEN
The seminar 'The Geopolitics of Globalization in Southeast Asia and Europe' was a collaborative effort between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the University of Amsterdam. It was organized by the Amsterdam Branch Office of the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) and Platform ASiA of the University of Amsterdam. Dr Srilata Ravi and Dr Richard Derderain (European Studies), Prof. Carl Grundy-Warr and Prof. Martin Perry (Geography), Dr Carole Faucher (Sociology), and Dr John Phillips (English Language and Literature) made up a six-member delegation from Singapore that was on tour in Europe to discuss their ongoing research.
When discussing geopolitics in Southeast Asia, one of the recurrent issues is the decreasing relevance of national boundaries. In the context of economic development, 'growth triangles' have emerged that cross national boundaries. Prof. Martin Perry used a case study of the Singapore-Indonesian border zone to illustrate the characteristics of growth triangles and contrasted its impact with the European approach to borderland relations. The relevance of this comparison between Southeast Asia and Europe in terms of interstate co-operation was questioned by the discussant Prof. Herman van der Wusten (UvA). He pointed out the fact that the European states involved are often, in economic terms, equally strong partners. This is not the case with the Singapore-Indonesian growth triangle in which Singapore is clearly the dominant partner. Moreover, Singapore differs substantially from other partners involved in growth triangles in the sense that it is most of all a global city with its urban interests. For such global cities, national policies and national boundaries seem to have become increasingly less relevant.
For those who reside in borderland areas, however, national boundaries are still very relevant and often have a dramatic impact on their lives. An extreme case of this is the borderland area between Thailand and Burma. Prof. Carl Grundy-Warr presented his findings on the lives of the Burmese refugees on the Thai side of the border. He stressed the limitations of existing conflict management mechanisms, international actions, and political processes because they are usually linked up with rigid notions of territorial and political sovereignty. Another example of research that focuses on the perspective of the people who live in a borderland area was presented by Dr Carole Faucher. Her case study of the Malay population in Riau showed that views on ancestral territory among the population are not confined to the Indonesian national boundaries. The Riau Malays regard the Indonesian policies of changing administrative divisions over a territory identified by themselves as the Malay's heartland as a form of disempowerment.
The global movements of migrant populations and the establishment of large 'diasporic' communities raise fundamental questions about the capacity of nation states to maintain control over their national territory and boundaries. With regard to this, Dr Richard Derderian showed how tensions between newcomers and a settled majority in suburban France is not a recent phenomenon at all. This theme was taken up by the discussant Dr Ruben Gowricharn, who compared Derderian's arguments on France with studies on the Dutch multicultural society. He emphasized that the process of defining immigrant minorities as problematic clearly reflects an elite perspective. According to Gowricharn, the issue is not to find an answer to the question about how minorities can adjust or obtain equal opportunities. The challenge lies rather in finding a way of communication that is based on respect and acceptance.
This theme of immigrants and identity was also at the centre of Dr Srilata Ravi's presentation on contemporary writings by Vietnamese authors in French. Her case study showed how the multiple or hybrid identities of authors illustrate the fluidity of existing boundaries and the fact that crossing them has increasingly become more common. In his comments, the discussant Dr John Kleinen raised the question as to whether 'diasporic writings' can constitute a specific category to be characterized as transnational. According to him, writing has always crossed borders and an author's readership has often been separated from his or her national identity, even more so when the text has been translated into another language.
At the end of the seminar, the participants looked back on a successful day. The initiative of the delegation from the National University of Singapore to make a tour through Europe and present ongoing research appeared to be a very stimulating formula for academic co-operation. *
Dr Jacqueline Vel is a sociologist with a research interest in rural development in Indonesia. She is a lecturer at the University of Amsterdam, and
Co-ordinator of the Platform ASiA, UvA.
E-mail: vel@pscw.uva.nl
Dr Mario Rutten is a sociologist with a research interest in rural entrepreneurs in South and Southeast Asia, and the Indian diaspora. He is Director of the Platform ASiA of the University of Amsterdam and Head of the IIAS Branch Office, Amsterdam.
E-mail: mrutten@pscw.uva.nl