Aceh: Peaceful solution or force

Aceh: Peaceful solution or force

By Desra Percaya

JAKARTA (JP): Decades of ideological confrontation between the
East and the West have brought about transformation in our
concept of conflict, the main aspect being a change of dimension
from international (inter-state) conflict to internal conflict.

The latter is increasingly dominating the landscape of
conflict. Its sources are basically rooted in the denial of
fundamental human needs for security, a distinctive identity, the
recognition of that identity by others, and effective and
legitimate participation in social, economic, and political
systems.

This type of conflict is found mainly in states with multi-
ethnic characteristics. Consequently, the impact of this is much
worse in developing countries as they are still in the process of
nation-building.

Instead of achieving a strong and solid nation, there are many
examples of states that have become dominated by authoritarian
regimes hiding under the umbrella of ideological competition in
international politics.

Once this global rivalry disappears, the strategic importance
then significantly decreases, and domestic cleavages gradually
challenge the concept of state and easily erupt into violent
domestic conflicts. Indonesia is undoubtedly no exception to this
description.

There is no question that the prevailing conflicts in
Indonesia are complex and multi-dimensional. They are usually
classified as either horizontal or vertical conflicts.

The first generally relates to conflicts among Indonesians
arising from differences in the population, while the latter
usually has the dominant feature of the presence of a strong
"opposition" to the central government.

However, the scale of antagonism is much greater when vertical
conflict is injected with the sentiments of horizontal
differences. This has been the case in Aceh.

Indeed, the transformation process from an authoritarian
regime towards a more democratic one has limited the ability of
the government in redressing this particular conflict. Further
factors contributing to the worsening situation have been the
collapse of the Indonesian economy and political bickering among
elite leaders.

Generally, the tension in Aceh has been attributed to state
injustices, the security approach and violations of human rights
that have gone on for decades.

This culminated in the Acehnese demand for independence from
Indonesia. They formed armed groups with the declared objective
of creating a new state by using force. They exploited racial and
ethnic sentiments, causing a massive impact as a great number of
Acehnese found the motion an irresistible offer.

Unfortunately, the offer is made at the expense of others.

One of the most obvious but less highlighted examples of this
strategy, has been the widespread hatred instigated by Hasan di
Tiro's faction in an attempt to deliberately portray Jakarta as
"Javanese colonialism".

This has resulted in a huge movement of people, or innocent
internally displaced persons with distinct race and culture,
mostly Javanese migrants. They are now fleeing Aceh because of
unbearable intimidation and inhuman treatment.

Are we turning a blind eye to the phenomenon of "mini ethnic
cleansing" in Aceh? Should the insurgent movement be allowed to
succeed in achieving its political objective of separating from
Indonesia at the expense of racial superiority?

If Aceh becomes an independent state, are the insurgents
prepared to bear the negative and far-reaching consequences of
the possible flow of innocent Acehnese being forced to return to
the province? No one dares to imagine such a possibility
occurring, but all of us must learn from the experience in the
former Yugoslavia.

As can be seen, the danger of separatism looms large in
Indonesia, with devastating consequences! What, then, are the
options?

Following the scapegoat theory, a government might easily
provoke a conflict with other countries so as to divert the
attention of the population and to prevent the state from being
torn apart.

According to Georg Simmel (1964), war with the outside is
sometimes the last chance for a state riddled with internal
conflict to overcome these antagonisms, the alternative being to
break up indefinitely.

With current capabilities, particularly in economic and
military fields, and the situation in international politics,
this option can be ruled out, although efforts to portray the
presence of an external enemy are occasionally aired.

Instead, President Abdurrahman Wahid has chosen to garner
strong international support for the maintenance of territorial
integrity and sovereignty of the unitary state of Indonesia.

His visits abroad have already secured support from many
countries, and they also act as a reminder to the separatist
movement seeking separation, especially when violence and racial
hatred are involved.

At least, international support is a starting point for the
government to find a comprehensive and lasting solution to the
various conflicts, and it is up to it to make maximum use of this
support.

However, one should not take it for granted that such support
will always be there, since the concept is rather dynamic and
could easily change depending on many factors, particularly the
actions adopted by the Indonesian government to redress the
issue.

While the government's policy in finding solutions is being
closely watched, citizens and non-governmental organizations in
many countries have a part to play, because pressure from
constituencies might change the position of their respective
governments.

While it may come as a surprise to many, the dialog and
humanitarian approach to resolving conflicts, such as in the
signing of the Humanitarian Pause, has been applauded and
welcomed by many countries, as well as the people of Aceh.

However, although the use of force is no longer a popular
option, it can never be ruled out entirely as states are entitled
to defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

As an alternative, it must be considered seriously, cautiously
and diligently, especially when dialog reaches an impasse, all
other possible ways have been explored, demands are just too
unrealistic, and none of the parties are willing to compromise.

Once again, the use of force by the government must be seen
only as a last resort and it must be implemented with strict,
clear and transparent rules of engagement, respect for human
rights, and minimum consequences for innocent civilians.

In the final analysis, peaceful settlement is, by any
standard, less costly than the use of force. Unfortunately,
however, the nature of human beings tends to be less patient and
appreciative of the lengthy process of negotiation.

The writer works at the International Organizations
Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.