Breaking taboos for better conflict management

Breaking taboos for better conflict management

After decades of maintaining "harmony" by the sweeping of
sensitive issues under the carpet, at the cost of thousands of
lives lost in armed conflict, Indonesians are slowly realizing
that they must learn to deal with and live with their differences
-- through means other than violence. The Jakarta Post's Ati
Nurbaiti talked to conflict resolution expert Johan Galtung,
founder of the Transcend International organization. He was among
several speakers at the recent International Conference on
Conflict in the Asia-Pacific held here by the Indonesian
Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and the Management of Social
Transformation-Unesco. The following are excerpts from the
interview:

Question: How do you account for conflicts here?

Answer: To understand conflict, one must not focus too much on
the violence. Parties to the conflict must be identified...
(Regarding Indonesia), the unitary state inherited from Dutch
colonial rule now has some 200 million people with differences in
many areas such as religion, history and geography or territory.
It's not such a big surprise that by insisting on a unitary
state, the result is violence.

Nations (ethnic groups or others with commonalities) want to
be led by their own kind of people. The central government wants
a unitary state. Nations want autonomy. Is there a reasonable
solution? There is and it's called federalism.

Q: You mentioned that months ago here, yet the government has
opted for the "integrated operation" in Aceh including a military
operation and martial law. Your comment?

A: The official version is that negotiations broke down, but it
seems to me that the military wanted to intervene and the
government was unable to restrain it. And what was the indirect
or direct role of the United States? Is it scared of any
separatist movement becoming a potential host to al-Qaeda? In
East Timor (in the 1970s) the U.S. was afraid of communists
(taking over and possibly gaining a foothold in the region).

Federalism is a taboo topic here. Devolution is not. The key
to federalism here is autonomy in which units can make decisions
that the central government cannot overrule ... Federalism tries
to keep everyone in one family. You reach a kind of pact or
contract in which the central government says to the outer
regions, you have independence in, for instance, education and
the economy, but we cooperate in matters of security, foreign
affairs and finance.

If Turkey did this in 1920 with the Kurds it would have saved
enormous problems. They didn't and the result was a bloodbath.
And if the United Kingdom had been a federation including
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland it would have also saved a
lot of problems. But the UK prefers a "union" assuming that
London can dominate. If it was the "Federation of British Isles"
London would be less important. But there is progress ...

There are similar processes all over the world and in Ethiopia
it's been a success. It has 60 languages and now has 12 states
and there has been no major violence (since these changes)
following the bloodbath under (king) Haile Selassie and his
successor ...

Q: Is the United States a good example of a federation?

A: No, it's divided mechanically, it's a fake federation like
Canada and Australia. But there is much to learn in
administrative matters such as in the arrangement of the House of
Representatives and the Senate -- even if (the federation)
doesn't address "nationality". The white people are all
immigrants, while the Inuits in Alaska, the Hawaiians ... all
want more autonomy. So there's still tensions there.

In Indonesia, in the 1970s, I was impressed by (the late)
Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana. He is in my heart and brain. He was
among the main constructors of Bahasa Indonesia. He had great
sensitivity and that legacy stays. He managed to construct a
language for the use of areas across the archipelago. This
project was a success. The military project has not been a
success (military operations in various areas), nor the economic
project, and I mean the living level at the bottom of society.

This (the language) project survived all these tensions! The
political project was too unitary.

Q: What would be a similarly positive project now for Indonesia?

A: There's a good argument here for federalism, against
(aspirations for) independence. One criteria in staying in one
family is one language. Basques in Spain, for instance, say they
are not asking for independence, but autonomy, and that they want
dialog before decisions are made.

Q: What's the cost of dismissing the discourse on federalism?

A: Continued, endless violence. National forces are very strong
in relative terms and they won't give up. And you'll waste so
much energy, money instead of jointly moving ahead. The problem
won't go away. The military everywhere wants to win ...
(Regarding Aceh) the military is demanding the right to enter and
win.

Q: Apparently fighting rebels was easier than facing Acehnese'
demands to take alleged violators of human rights to trial...

A: Yes, it was more manageable. And that way, as Americans say,
the military could chalk up its victory (against separatists).
The Nepal (government's) measures against the Maoists reflects a
similar paranoia against communists, or terrorists. There's
always a "satan" in different clothes; it used to be communists,
now its terrorists with suicide-bomber vests. Projecting such
paranoia on to the whole world (mainly by the U.S.) makes it
difficult for everyone.

The Indonesian military may not think that way but it would
see a chance to gain victory (against rebels).

Q: In a situation like Aceh currently, what does it take to
return to the negotiation table?

A: If people in Aceh could struggle non violently, and take a
Ghandian approach, this would have an enormous effect. At the
same time, people in Jakarta or Java should hold more
constructive discussions on the F-word (federalism) and break the
taboo...

Reconciliation does not solve all problems. It's needed for
better ties, bonds, but it still leaves the political problem.
Federalism is also not a solution to all problems, there's the
question of class. I understand that in Maluku (the influence) of
Muslims has been rising and Christians were declining ...

Q: The rallying point for "nationalism" regarding Aceh includes
the sentiment that the rebels and their supporters are ungrateful
people who don't understand the history of the struggle for
independence...

A: But you can't throw everything out, you would only prolong the
suffering; under Dutch rule, Sukarno and M. Hatta (the country's
founding fathers) were also regarded as criminals! Indonesia has
been independent for so long and it is shocked to find those who
want independence from it -- like a Chinese box with boxes within
boxes. One day Aceh and Papua might also wake up to find their
own Chinese boxes...

Q: You mentioned the involvement of women and the youth in
conflict resolution. What has been your experience in this
regard?

A: Women are more compassionate, they see the suffering, while
the youth are idealists, they say "we can do this". Older men are
"realists", saying, "we've tried, it's not possible," so it's not
always good to bring old men together.