Counter path to Aceh peace

Counter path to Aceh peace

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

In terms of length, the present armed conflict in Aceh which
started in 1976, is second only to the war the Acehnese waged
against the Dutch colonial rule (1873-1942). The armed conflict
in Aceh may also be considered as the Acehnese War Part II and
the enemy is Indonesia.

This armed conflict in Aceh has affected many parties, such as
foreign investors like ExxonMobil and other foreign companies
owning the shares of capital-intensive projects in Aceh or
strategic industries.

Peace-making has involved foreign non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) such as the Henry Dunant Center, which
includes representatives of the United States, Britain,
Yugoslavia and Thailand as its "wise men", and some other
international NGOs dealing with human rights and humanitarian
affairs.

The reason for the involvement of so many parties is that the
protracted armed conflict in Aceh has generated an adverse impact
on both sides, as well as on neighboring countries (in the case
of internally displaced persons) and other countries which have
investment in the country.

This armed conflict is an act not only to destroy those
parties relying on the strength of their weaponry, but also
civilians and the markets, central to Aceh's economy. These last
two have often been made objects of structural and cultural
violence of the warring parties and have even been made objects
of frustration when one party loses a battle.

A war involving armed political entities should not involve
the market and the civilians although it is the principle of a
war to distinguish only friends or foes.

Those involved in a war often encourage the market and
civilians to form part of or to be opposed to the parties on the
grounds of sacred integration and nationalism. Therefore, the
involvement and the destruction of a market and civilians in a
war violates not only classical war ethics and religious values,
but also the values of modern life which apply universally --
human rights.

We can calculate roughly how much Indonesia has spent on
Aceh's armed conflict, especially given that mobilization of
troops in Aceh today is by far the number of soldiers ever
deployed in Aceh's history of war. As many as 40,000 troops have
been mobilized from outside Aceh and if each needs Rp 17,500 for
their daily meal allowances, the Indonesian government must spend
up to Rp 700 million a day only for their meals. Certainly, more
money will be needed for the war zone of Papua and the other
conflict-ridden areas such as Maluku, Poso and Kalimantan.

Some of the Indonesian soldiers reportedly receive funds from
ExxonMobil channeled to them through the state oil company
Pertamina. There are up to 150 military posts with at least 25
soldiers stationed at each post. Roughly, therefore, there are at
least 3,000 soldiers, whose lunch fees must be borne by the
foreign investors. The money spent on the side dishes totals Rp
52.5 million/day or some Rp 19 billion a year. Then there are
security charges that must be borne by major foreign industries
and estate companies, most of which are relatively found in
hinter Aceh.

To buy bullets, Indonesia must fork out Rp 25 billion a day,
or Rp 8.5 trillion a year. Of course, this budget does not
include ammunition for heavy-duty guns such as armored vehicles,
tanks, bazookas, bombs, grenades and fire bullets that can
annihilate entire villages. This cost precludes armory,
transportation means, communications, the construction of defense
facilities, international campaigns and so forth.

For the armed conflict in Aceh, the cost has exceeded the
state's budget for the military of Rp 32 trillion. The problem is
where Indonesia can obtain legal funds to finance its war in
Aceh.

This amount of money is of course spent neither on development
nor on attempts to take Indonesia out of the acute economic
crisis, nor efforts to improve and develop the market and the
living quality of Indonesians. Instead, it has been spent on
counterproductive destruction.

Other costs arising from the armed conflict in Aceh can be
calculated on the extent of the destruction sustained by the
market and the political and cultural systems. The destruction of
the market includes the destruction of a production system,
marketing network market facilities and the flight of investments
from Aceh and Indonesia.

Therefore, an illegal economic system has found fertile ground
and has become uncontrollable. People's capital has also been
damaged owing to massive stealing, extortion, robbery and looting
-- all developing fast in line with the war escalation and
intelligence operations conducted by the parties.

As a result, the surviving political system is likewise devoid
of morality. Corruption in the form of bureaucratic rents, the
abuse of funds and the manipulation of funds through fictitious
projects is a product of political collusion involving
bureaucrats, businessmen, legislators and the military.

This collusion has gained intensity and frequency following
the closure of the public space, where civilians or civilian
community organizations can exercise control over their right of
sovereignty as citizens of a republic. War kills a system or the
potential and the chance to develop a system of democratic
statehood. War will instead reinforce the establishment of a
militaristic, authoritarian and centralized political system.