Humanitarian gap between society and political elite

Humanitarian gap between society and political elite

Max Lane, Visiting Fellow, Centre for Asia Pacific
Social Transformation Studies (CAPSTRANS), University of Wollongong,
Australia

On July 11 at the Taman Ismail Marzuki Jakarta Arts Center,
more than 30 community, cultural, human rights and other
organizations are sponsoring an Aceh Peace Concert. Among these
organizations are the Indonesian Forum for Environment (Walhi),
the human rights organizations ELSAM, the cultural organizations
Satu Merah Panggung, Institut Ungu and political issues oriented
groups.

Not only is the sponsorship of this free event very broad but
so is the artistic program. Apart from rock and pop groups, and
poetry readings by poet and playwright W.S. Rendra, musicians and
singers from an Acehnese background, Zulaika and Zelly, will
also perform.

The humanitarian organization Indonesian Institute for
Pluralism will be collecting blood donations to be sent to Aceh.

The concert represents more than just a humanitarian or social
justice cultural event. It points to the existence of a basic and
very broad sentiment and sympathy for the suffering of the people
of Aceh and a questioning whether a military approach is the best
one.

At a press conference members of the Boomerang rock group and
the Element pop group earlier expressed the sentiment that war
would not settle anything. Other artists said, "The Acehnese are
our brothers and sisters". Some of them stated that they hoped
the concert will bring a halt to the war in Aceh. These are
general sentiments but they express a concrete desire, which may
be reflected in the peace resolution planned in the event.

It is not possible that this effort is only some kind of
isolated manifestation of such sentiments of sympathy and
concern.

These sentiments are expressed in daily conversations; they
are also reflected in the media debate, and sometimes protests,
over restrictions on reporting developments in Aceh or the
alleged abuse of journalists at the hands of the authorities. It
also expressed in the regular reporting on the plight of
refugees. Some newspapers also report the impact on the war on
the daily lives of people: The screening of ID cards; the
inspection of houses by armed soldiers; the organizing of loyalty
ceremonies for civil servants and so on.

There is little doubt that the Aceh Peace Concert is a genuine
symbol of an underlying humanitarian and democratic sentiment of
concern regarding the plight of the Acehnese people.

There can also be little doubt that there is a huge gap
between this concern among society-at-large and the political
stand of the elit politik -- the legislators, government and
military authorities. At the political level, there appears to be
a total consensus to resolve the situation in Aceh by purely
military means.

One aspect of this, as expressed by the military emergency
authorities, is the policy of attempting to "separate civilians
from the Free Aceh Movement (GAM)". Such a policy implemented as
a military operation inevitably means bringing civilians into
direct contact with a fearsome entity, bands of armed men. This
will always intimidate, frighten and eventually alienate people,
no matter how "gently" this might be done.

It is also a frightening prospect that among the whole of the
elit politik there are no voices calling for an end to the
military operation. One exception is Syafii Ma'arif, the chairman
of the Islamic organization Muhammidiyah, who has indeed called
for the war to end. But is even more frightening that there is
insufficient sympathy and humanitarian concern for anybody in
this political elite to look for the causes of the conflict in
Aceh.

Why? Why has a small band of maybe 20 guerrillas grown to
5,000? Why has it become necessary (in the eyes of the government
anyway) to test even civil servants' loyalty and even that of
legislators from political parties close to the national elite?

It cannot simply be because GAM is forcing people. No
guerrilla movement anywhere in the world has been able to grow
without some level of sympathy.

So why has GAM grown? I have not been to Aceh for a long time.
The conclusion from what Acehnese are telling me is that there is
a desire to escape, not so much from other Indonesians in
general, from the political elite and its coercive methods,
including its reliance on military methods. All the polls done on
political popularity show that the vast majority of Indonesians
would like to escape this elit politik. There is hardly an
Indonesian political elite figure that can score more than 15
percent in the polls, and that an unenthusiastic 15 percent.

In Aceh, the militarization of politics has forced some
Acehnese to resort to military means.

This particular war indeed cannot solve anything. The
demilitarization of politics and the creation of an environment
where different visions of the future can be struggled over
peacefully is the pressing need now. Stopping the military
operations is the necessary first step that the Megawati
government must take. GAM could respond then by making it clear
that it is willing to abide by the will of the Acehnese people in
a future democratic decision making process, including if the
Acehnese people reject GAM's vision.

The slogan "Unity from Sabang to Merauke", that has always
been a part of the freedom movement in Indonesia, as well as the
principle of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (unity in diversity) were
always a reflection of solidarity between oppressed people. The
war in Aceh is a violation of such solidarity. Initiatives such
as the Aceh Peace Concert are a more genuine expression of
Bhinneka Tunggal Ika than either the military operations period
of former president Soeharto or the state of military emergency
under President Megawati Soekarnoputri.