Conflicting paths to peace in troubled Aceh

Conflicting paths to peace in troubled Aceh

Otto Syamsuddin Ishak, Sociologist, Civil Society Alliance
for Democracy (Yappika), Jakarta

Militaristic politics will destroy the egalitarian values of
the Acehnese. War will lead to their character assassination --
the Acehnese may be branded with a stereotype in connection with
their acquaintance with fundamentalist Muslims.

Meanwhile, many forms of bombing as well as arms-related
murders occurring from outside Aceh including Jakarta have been
blamed on the Acehnese. Yet the Indonesian regime is also known
as a party responsible for various crimes against humanity, both
in war and conflict areas, and in places where non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) emerge to fight for human rights in
Indonesia's political order. All of this will echo loudly
throughout the world.

The most tragic thing about the armed conflict in Aceh is the
human destruction. Data compiled by a number of Aceh NGOs shows a
rapid increase in the number of crimes against humanity toward
the Acehnese from 2000 up to late 2002. These crimes against
humanity can be broken down into arbitrary arrests (419 in 2000
to 981 cases in 2002), murder (524 to 1,113 cases), forced
disappearances (140 to 267 cases), torture (549 to 1,706 cases)
plus violence against women and children. Even more of these
crimes were committed between 1976 and 1999.

These collected figures are the tip of a very broad and deep
iceberg. The space for NGOs, victims as well as the community to
take notes of, investigate and to report these crimes is becoming
increasingly small.

So, what is the meaning of a political contract if it will
become an instrument of the state to destroy all of those
involved? The state has lost its significance, as it has killed
an increasing number of people and destroyed their life systems,
including their economy.

The armed conflict has lasted 26 years and negotiations began
only in 2000. Despite all the losses there remains a strong
conviction within the military elite that a negotiation can never
solve the separatist question in Aceh. The answer is only war.
This military settlement has dominated the views of Indonesian
bureaucrats and politicians.

This conviction is not without its historical reasons. History
shows that Indonesia's colonial war could only be settled by
means of guerrilla warfare. This is why all agreements involving
cease-fires with colonizers, such as the Linggarjati agreement
and the Roem-Royen treaty, all with the involvement of a third
party, were in effect only brief and later disrupted by
militaristic action.

The Dutch, writes historian Anthony Reid, said their action
was a policing act intended to stop disorder, and they declared
the treaties no longer binding to them.

In its fight against the Dutch the Indonesian Military
retreated to safer places, pursuing a scorched-earth policy on
the way and waging guerrilla warfare. Pierre Heijboer even said
that some Britons, Chinese and Japanese were subjected to robbery
and murder. It was this guerrilla warfare waged by the Indonesian
side that served as a milestone in the political history of its
military, reinforcing the belief that it was actually the
military's settlement that released Indonesia from the clutches
of the Dutch on Dec. 30, 1949.

Strong belief in a militaristic settlement continues to shape
the main strategy to solve the armed conflict in Aceh, reflecting
the constant dualism in Indonesia's peace approach to conflicts.

On the one hand, it wishes to sit at the negotiating table --
while its military elite decide to go on with military operations
-- so that the implementation of every agreement cannot happen.
An exception to this was the first negotiation, the Humanitarian
Pause.

This treaty was signed on May 15, 2000 and ended with terror,
torture and the murder of members of the monitoring team as well
as a number of humanitarian and human rights activists plus the
arrest and harassment of negotiators of the Free Aceh Movement
(GAM). The historical cycle, Indonesian style, had repeated
itself. Before, it was the Dutch colonial rule that was subjected
to this practice. Today, it is practiced against GAM.

Therefore, a negotiation does not pave the way for the
termination of violence, in the perspective of renowned peace
worker Johan Gaitung. The above dualism does not give room at all
for efforts of reconstruction, reconciliation and resolution.

The end of violence may open up larger public space for
civilians to reconstruct the crimes against humanity. A very
phenomenal example, following the removal of the Military
Operational Region (DOM) status on Aceh on Aug. 7, 1998, was the
opening up of a chance for the Acehnese to indict the Indonesian
Military and even keep them under control. This really crushed
the image of the military and their political position in
Indonesia's political system.

The armed conflict in Aceh surely has a broad destructive
repercussion with respect to the right to live and the political,
economic and cultural system of civilians in Aceh and in
Indonesia. Violence contributes very basically to the destruction
of all aspects of life, even if committed under the name of
nationalism or territorial integrity. The armed conflict in Aceh
has contributed chiefly to the conflict involving members of
security forces, including among the police and army or within
certain army/police units.

Likewise, the war has contributed to the weak condition of our
laws -- for example the tribunal for human rights violations --
either linked with the war in East Timor or in connection with
the shooting of students, and the May 1998 tragedy in Jakarta.
The law has become subordinate to military politics.

The armed conflict in Aceh has contributed to the escalation
of terror, armed crimes and murders conducted by unknown people,
drug trafficking, the spread of counterfeit money and the level
of corruption in Indonesia.

Therefore, the end to violence cannot be solved by the armed
groups alone. It is a problem of the civilians in Aceh and has
even become a political and economic problem faced by the nation
and is related to their own image. Besides, it has become a
problem, at least, for the nations in Southeast Asia.

The world community needs to encourage and pressure all
parties relying on violence to bring the war to an end. In this
way, civilians will gain the required space and strength with
which they can implement the reconstruction, reconciliation and
resolution to design Indonesia's civilized political, economic
and cultural order.

The article is based on the writer's paper prepared for a
Regional Workshop on Understanding Conflict in Asia, held in
Jakarta on Oct. 29-31, by the Bangkok-based Forum Asia and the
Alliance of Independent Journalists.