Rethinking nationalism in the context of separatist conflict<\/p>\n
Adam Tyson, Toronto<\/p>\n
Aceh has always been an essential part of the vast Indonesian
\narchipelago, being of great historical, economic and symbolic
\nimportance. Today this volatile region of Northern Sumatra is
\nmost commonly identified with the perpetual \"low-intensity
\nconflict\" between the military and the unconventional separatist
\nforce known as the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka or
\nGAM). The modern independence movement in Aceh began in 1976.<\/p>\n
Since then it has entered the public sphere of discussion
\nmainly in reference to its impact on national unity. Officials
\nfrom the state and the military have continuously appealed to the
\npublic's sense of nationalism, arguably in an attempt to justify
\nthe ongoing conflict, on the basis that the preservation of
\nnational unity in times of crisis takes precedence over issues of
\njustice, law or human rights.<\/p>\n
Testing the limits of Indonesia's emerging democracy, it is
\nnow time to advocate a change in the tone of the public debate
\nabout the conflict in Aceh. Firstly, those who are opposed to the
\nsevere tactics used by the military in order to quell the
\nseparatist movement should no longer be told that they are anti-
\nnationalistic, and that such an attitude will only serve to
\nfurther the prospects of national disintegration.<\/p>\n
Such logic has proven to be detrimental over the years; among
\nother things, the fear of being labeled anti-nationalistic has
\nallowed the issue of conflict in Aceh to become effectively
\ndepoliticized, removed from the public debate, and isolated from
\nthe scrutiny of the media.<\/p>\n
By accusing those who are opposed to the ongoing war in Aceh
\nof being anti-nationalistic and sympathizers of \"terrorists\",
\nstate and military officials have long been able to contain the
\ngrowing opposition towards their \"dirty war\". Of course no one is
\nsuggesting that the state, the military or the general public
\nshould tolerate armed resistance within their borders; however
\ngiven the failure of most conventional solutions there is a real
\nneed to rethink our approach to dealing with such conflicts.<\/p>\n
There are some excellent organizations and charismatic people
\nin Indonesia that have gone to great lengths to show that the
\neffects of the military campaign in Aceh have been devastating.
\nHowever, such actions, while admirable, are by themselves not
\nenough to resolve the matters at hand. The state apparatus has
\nalmost free reign to do as it likes in Aceh, countless civilians
\nhave their lives disrupted by the conflict, the military acts
\nwithout accountability, public debate is stifled, and balanced
\nmedia coverage of the conflict is effectively frozen.<\/p>\n
It is high time that the public reengage in the debate about
\nthis unwholesome conflict, and that it becomes a major political
\nissue which cannot be repressed. Consider this fact: The conflict
\nin Aceh, one of the most controversial issues facing the Republic
\nof Indonesia, was not a focal issue for debate during the
\nlegislative and (ongoing) presidential campaigns in 2004.
\nPolitical candidates and parties remain reluctant to take a firm
\nstance on the issue, fearing that they will appear anti-
\nnationalistic or \"soft\" on issues of separatism and terrorism.<\/p>\n
In an era where the democratization of the electoral process
\nis taking hold, it is indeed time that the major issues are
\nbrought to the fore, and that politicians seeking to hold office
\nor obtain power through public vote are forced to take a stance
\non the issue of separatist conflict. This opens up new forums for
\nthe discussion and formulation of policy to bring an end to
\nconflict and violence.<\/p>\n
Perhaps part of the new debate should address the question:
\nWhat is Indonesian nationalism, and what bearing might this term
\nhave on Indonesia's separatist conflicts? Nationalism evokes
\nfeelings of a strong bond between the diverse peoples of
\nIndonesia, binding them together in the common pursuit of
\ndevelopment, unity and progress. Suggesting that those elements
\nof the public who are opposed to a war that is tearing at the
\nfibers of society and causing destabilization are anti-
\nnationalistic is simply wrong and misguided.<\/p>\n
To take a public stand against the devastating effects of the
\nAcehnese conflict might in fact be the highest form of
\nnationalism, proving ones commitment to conflict resolution and
\nthe peaceful reintegration of this troubled region into the
\nnation as a whole. It takes an empowered and enlightened form of
\npublic nationalism to stand up to the state and the military and
\ndemand that the Acehnese conflict become a public issue, a
\npolitical issue, and one in which the nation's press is able to
\ncover in a free and unbiased way.<\/p>\n
As citizens in a new democracy it is now a public right and
\nresponsibility to demand changes in government policy with
\nrespect to this conflict. Genuine nationalism is born out of the
\nrefusal to tolerate the official line that the state has taken
\nfor decades with respect to the need for a military solution and
\nmartial law in order to \"win the hearts and minds\" of the
\nAcehnese. Bold expressions of nationalism might become the
\nimpetus on which a solution to this conflict may arise.<\/p>\n
Take, for example, the idea of a \"people's power\" approach, in
\nwhich large elements of society take it upon themselves to
\nintervene directly in an issue which affects the nation as a
\nwhole. Although entirely different, this could be related to the
\n\"pilgrimage for peace\" that was recently witnessed in the city of
\nNajaf, Iraq.<\/p>\n
In the name of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and
\nfreedom of association, a movement could be formed that would
\nallow a coalition of concerned students, citizens groups and
\nprofessionals to march into Aceh and demand to know what really
\nstirs within these borders. Asymmetries of information between
\nthe state and the public can only impede the peace process.
\nPerhaps there is a reality and a truth that the state or the
\nmilitary does not want confirmed; perhaps the answer to conflict
\nresolution lies in accurate information, truth and knowledge.<\/p>\n
Braving the threats of both the military and GAM, it is
\npossible to imagine a coalition of students, activists, and other
\nconcerned elements of Indonesian society moving en mass to the
\ntroubled region of Aceh and becoming the countries largest
\nmediators, with the common goal of active diplomacy in order to
\nachieve conflict resolution.<\/p>\n
Armed with the knowledge that they are trying to doing what is
\nbest for the nation, for the preservation of national unity in
\nthe face of destabilizing conflict, and under the watchful eyes
\nof national and international media, this new form of people's
\npower might just prove to be a force to be reckoned with. One
\nquestion remains: Who could lead such a movement, and who would
\nbe willing to follow?<\/p>\n
The writer, formerly a visiting researcher at Parahyangan
\nCatholic University, Bandung, is now a PhD candidate at Leeds
\nUniversity, England. He can be reached at adtyson@hotmail.com<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/rethinking-nationalism-in-the-context-of-separatist-conflict-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}