identification of these communities

identification of these communities as “isolated”, “backward”, or “primitive”. These communities are perceived to be in need of development, the “solution” for their “development deficit” being, quite “naturally”, the “efficient” forest exploitation of their “under-utilized” lands (Peluso and Harwell 2001, 100). From this illustration we can see the relation between forest demarcation and the state’s aspiration to extend and affirm its control over forest lands and resources. The discussion on the creation of “political forest” and its role in the expansion of state control leads me to argue that forest demarcation, zoning and designation in Indonesia can be seen as part of the process of state-building. State territorial claims on forest lands have strengthened the state’s function of policing the territory and expanded the objects of its authority: forest lands and resources. At the same time, I believe that control over forest resources and its commoditization also plays a role in Indonesian state-building. I have mentioned that forests are a source of income that contributes to the economic development in Indonesia. To be able to argue, however, that the control over forest resources is participating in a state-building strategy, I need to show how vital is the income from forest resources to the economic development. More importantly, I have to show how essential economic development is for the project of state-building of the Suharto’s regime. 5. State building, economic development and forest exploitation The New Order regime set “development” as a state-wide and national objective. “Development” became a mean of legitimization for the regime, as it allowed for the state to demonstrate its ability to provide material benefits to its subject (Barber 1997); an ability that was deemed to bring stability and promote national integration. The New Order government defined “development” as both industrialization and modernization (Dauvergne 1993-1994, 507), a goal that can only be achieved with an efficient management of natural resources by the government. “Development” was also associated with Indonesia’s national interest and Pancasila ideology, thus making local resistance to development initiatives to be viewed as a sign of “backwardness”, or worse, as an insurrection against the government (Barber 1997)