A dialog for Aceh
A dialog for Aceh
With the urgency growing by the day for the problems in Aceh
to be properly addressed, Indonesians are putting their best hope
for a conclusive solution in a seemingly simple word: dialog.
A dialog, according to one of the definitions given by the
Merriam Webster's dictionary, is a discussion between
representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at
resolution.
In principle, it appears simple enough. Clearly, the conflict,
which has been festering for several decades but of late has
almost reached the level of an open rebellion, must be resolved
without delay if the unity of the nation is to be preserved.
Obviously, too, a free and open dialog between the two sides
is the only way to a settlement, since one almost 10 years of
military force and oppression under past regimes has already
proved to be totally ineffective -- not to say counterproductive
-- in pacifying the rebellious sentiment of the Acehnese.
Unfortunately, there is nothing simple about the relationship
that exists at present between the central government in Jakarta
and this westernmost of the country's provinces. At the risk of
oversimplifying a complex issue -- and one that has become
increasingly more tangled with the passing of time -- it is
probably correct to say the problem of Aceh is essentially one of
shattered trust and a wounded sense of justice.
Aceh never was a region that outsiders found easy to
subjugate. The Dutch, whose presence in the Indonesian
archipelago lasted more than 300 years until World War II, fought
long, bloody campaigns in the rebellious territory, only
succeeding in "pacifying" the area shortly before the start of
the war in the Pacific. After Indonesia became an independent
country, an Islamic insurgency plagued the province for years
before a negotiated settlement restored peace.
Although religious sentiments speak strongly among the
staunchly Muslim Acehnese, it is the perceived unfair
distribution of wealth that is the crux of the broad popular
discontent. Aceh, with its vast natural resources, is one of the
country's richest provinces. Considering the area's contribution
to the national coffers, the Acehnese feel that they are
receiving a vastly disproportionate measure of the returns for
development.
Jakarta's initial mistake in responding to this growing
discontent was to send troops in ever greater numbers to suppress
the increasingly defiant protests. Untrained and unequipped to
deal with problems that are in essence human and social in
nature, it appears that many of the troops resorted to using
brute force. The widespread human rights abuses that resulted
from the strong-arm approach appear to have been the turning
point in the present clamor for an independence referendum in
Aceh.
As the situation stands at present, it would seem that, aside
from an immediate East Timor-style referendum, a free and open
dialog between Jakarta and the Acehnese indeed offers the best
hope for a solution that benefits not only the Acehnese, but the
Indonesian nation as a whole. Such an open dialog, however,
presumes a willingness on the part of all parties involved to
keep an open mind, to listen to each other and to find a commonly
acceptable way out of the present difficulties.
To start with, there should be no preconditions. Most
importantly, there must be a willingness on all sides to see that
justice is done. This implies a willingness to accept full
accountability for wrongs done in the past. For some, this is
certain to be difficult to accept, but justice must be allowed to
take its course if the problem of Aceh is to be resolved once and
for all. For some in the Indonesian Military (TNI), the burden of
truth in this case could be hard to bear. Yet, it is by making
these sacrifices that they can prove their true commitment to the
nation.
As for the government of President Abdurrahman Wahid, this
could be the first and last chance it has to prove its mettle and
win the full confidence of the nation and the world.