Afghan experience shows Indonesia it's OK to rely on outside help

Afghan experience shows Indonesia it's OK to rely on outside help

Teuku Faizasyah, Candidate Ph.D, Diplomatic History and
Conflict Resolution, Waikatou University, Hamilton, New Zealand

Agreed at last, but will it last? This is the most frequent
question raised after the Bonn's talks on Afghanistan, under the
auspices of the United Nations.

In Afghanistan, military might and diplomacy -- coercive and
multilateral diplomacy -- are being used in tandem. The so-called
Realist, who champions power politics, considers a victory in a
battlefield essential, because such victory would increase their
bargaining position in the negotiating table.

Unfortunately a dictated peace is often fragile. The seeds of
discontent among the losers tend to linger. An example was Pir
Sayed Ahmad Gailanis, the spiritual leader from ethnic Pashtun,
who complained that the composition of the interim government
gave little consideration to the Mujahidin.

Although, he has reason to complain, the agreement reached in
Bonn should be understood in the context of third party
preferences to have a moderate government ruling the new
Afghanistan.

The Idealist, the peace loving person, believes in the
efficacy of a gradual process toward peace. It is important to
make each of the conflicting parties aware of the negative
consequences of a prolonged conflict. A neutral third party
prefers to let the conflicting parties sit together and help them
unravel all their differences. The only constraint for the latter
approach is time; and whether the third party and those in
conflicts are willing to sacrifice time, for the sake of finding
the most acceptable solution to the conflict.

For the coalition forces, time is a luxury. The coalition
forces and mediators in Bonn were taken by surprised when they
learned of the fall of Kabul to the Northern Alliance in a
relatively short interval.

To avoid the Northern Alliance dominating the post-Taliban
Afghanistan, the mediators had to expedite the negotiation
process and press the factions to find a solution on the most
pressing issue, that is, the composition of an interim
government.

The Bonn initiative was far from altruistic and the motivation
was very much defined by "interests," if not an amalgamation of
interests. It was obvious that the Western governments and
countries neighboring Afghanistan wished to have a benign
government there, a non aggressive partner willing to listen to
their concerns and strategic interests.

For the UN, the success of the Bonn meeting was a means to
reassert itself as a responsible international organization for
world peace, and not simply a rubber stamp for the U.S.

In the case of Afghanistan, conflict resolution at this stage
is both a myth and reality. For one thing, the third party has
little interest in the fate of the Taliban. They did not attempt
to mediate between the coalition forces and the Taliban's
government and instead brokered meetings among various factions
in Afghanistan, except the Taliban.

The initiative simply suggested that the fate of the Taliban
had already been decided before hand, and the agreement reached
in Bonn was the last nail hammered into the Taliban's coffin.

Despite some gloomy prospects, the agreement to proceed with
the traditional system of consultation (Loya Jirga) can be seen
as the light in the end of a tunnel.

The third party is responsible to make sure that: (1) the
largest ethnic group should not dominate (domineering) the peace
process; (2) the Royalist -- the darling of the West -- should be
more wise toward the other factions; and (3) the Northern
Alliance should not pressing hard for concession from their the
facto occupation of large territory.

What about Indonesia? Are we warmongers or peace lovers?
Is it fair to compare recent development in Afghanistan to our
domestic problems? Some Indonesians might say that our issues of
separatism and communal conflicts are insignificant compared to
the magnitude of Afghanistan.

Our problems, they might add, are still manageable and the
government always appears optimistic of its ability to manage the
problems. To request third party assistance in solving separatism
and communal conflicts in Indonesia is a taboo. Indonesians are
so zealous in expressing national sovereignty and are deeply
disturbed if foreign countries interfere in the internal
problems, as was the case of East Timor.

Unfortunately our now borderless makes it difficult for any
country to lock up its door and be a master in its own house. We
were terrified, for instance, to see before our very own eyes the
destruction of the World Trade Center in New York and we were
saddened to learn of heavy civilian casualties from the bombing
raid in Afghanistan.

In the same way, foreigners who view the cycle of violence,
ethnic and religious conflicts as well as unending disturbances
in Indonesia from their television screen will be shocked to
learn that Indonesia, the well known tolerant nation, is going
down hill in the history of civilization.

Afghanistan's fiasco should be a reminder that we cannot close
our house and try to deal with internal problems on our own. If
the existing mechanism to resolving conflicts, the consultation
for consensus approach (musyawarah untuk mufakat) is no longer
adaptive to present realities, and given our limitations to solve
the problems, we should not hesitate to look for other options.

We should not feel ashamed to request assistance from our
neighbors, non regional countries or non-state third parties who
have the means, ability and most importantly commitment to render
us some assistance in solving our internal problems.

Maybe as an institution, our government no longer appears
neutral to the conflicting parties or perhaps the government
itself is becoming part of the problem.

If once we were successful in helping our neighbors with their
internal problems, such as in Cambodia and the southern-part of
the Philippines, perhaps it is now timely if we send them a
gesture that we would appreciate their kind assistance in return.

The government should have the political will and strong
commitment, because we are now racing against time. We never know
what comes next after Afghanistan. We might not be harboring
terrorists, but if the international community is getting more
and more frustrated with our inability to solve our internal
problems, we might face more international pressure in years to
come.

In today's world there is a limit to "national sovereignty."

It is also timely for the government to innovate in its
approach to internal conflicts. We should look for new impetus to
stimulate dialog among conflicting parties and between the
government and the separatist movements, and maybe this time we
should welcome third party assistance within the corridor of our
national sovereignty.

The decision to involve the Henry Dunant Centre (HDC) in the
dialog process with the Free Aceh Movement is a one step ahead in
our attitude. The third party can help our nation in the healing
process and to let go past hatred. As Indonesians, we might share
similar cultures, but that does not guarantee we can appreciate
different interpretations of our shared cultures.

Let us not be the judge of our own conflicts; perhaps non-
Indonesians can see the reality better. The path of peace will
take time and energy, but hopefully with less casualties. There
is no instant solution to the deep-rooted problems and protracted
conflicts, but the willingness to innovate in conflict resolution
will hopefully open new windows of opportunity.

In entering this new year, we should renew our commitment for
peace and rebuild our image of a peace loving people, not
warmongers.