Jakarta's neurosis over Aceh and Papua -- Why?

Jakarta's neurosis over Aceh and Papua -- Why?

Aboeprijadi Santoso, Radio Netherlands, Brussels

The public hearing on Aceh and Papua held by the European
Parliament in Brussels on Oct. 1 was a rare but important
occasion. It also showed support for Indonesia. But Jakarta
declined the invitation, leaving the international community out
in the cold.

The time has passed that governments -- thanks to decades of
Cold War -- can hide human rights abuses, confine them as
"domestic issues" and evade responsibility for human disasters,
as in Cambodia, Indonesia and East Timor in the 1960s and 1970s.

Today the issues may be seem less tragic, but the changing
context has charged the global trends of public opinion with a
different intensity. As Europe, unlike the United States, is less
preoccupied with the "war on terror" in Asia, European
institutions are encouraging peace and dialog on issues less
important for global security, yet quite urgent in terms of the
human rights of local peoples. The war in Aceh and the case of
violence-ridden Papua are such issues.

Following its resolution last June, the European Parliament
(EP)'s hearing was intended as an exchange of views on human
rights issues involving all sides. The four speakers invited
included Malik Mahmud of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and two
human rights activists -- Aguswandi of Kontras in Aceh and John
Rumbiak of the Institute for Human Rights Studies and Advocacy
(Elsham) -- only Jakarta's representative was absent.

The committee chairman Max van den Berg (of the Labor party in
the Netherlands) stressed, "we respect the Indonesian state in
its full integrity and sovereignty, we do not support the rebels,
but we do want to listen to other opinions." Didier-Rod (France,
Green-Left) who led the forum, expressed the same view and
regretted Jakarta's refusal to join the discussion.

As Indonesia's new envoy to the EU, Abdurrachman Mattaliti,
only arrived in Brussels shortly before the hearing and had yet
to present his credentials, he declined to comment on the
hearing. In Jakarta's view, the EP had put Indonesia and GAM as
"equals" as the GAM representative was referred to as "the Prime
Minister of Aceh-Sumatra National Liberation Front."

So "we made a strong objection," the envoy explained. "We
acted as instructed by Jakarta," Counselor Agus Sarjana said.

However, the hearing did not turn into a campaign to undermine
RI's position as Jakarta clearly feared. The Indonesian military
and GAM were seen as parties to the violence, but no one
questioned the territorial integrity of Indonesia. One member, N.
Deva (U.K., Conservative), even warned against "renewed
imperialism" which, he said, might occur as in Sri Lanka if the
West started to "intervene in the affairs of other countries".

GAM's Malik Mahmud requested an immediate reopening of the
dialog "with a neutral government to act as mediator."

EP members thus called for efforts to focus on humanitarian
and human rights issues i.e. on the urgency to help war victims,
restore civil rights in Aceh and support efforts to build peace
zones in Papua. Aguswandi pleaded: "All of us, Indonesians and
Acehnese, will be the losers (of the war in Aceh)." (Since) the
struggle of the civil society "is not about having our own state,
nor about territory, but about people, Acehnese and Indonesians,
the international community should support the civil society's
role in building peace in Aceh".

Given the severe restrictions for the media and aid agencies,
several EP members proposed a mission to investigate human rights
violations and to gain direct access to war victims. "We want an
international fact-finding mission to be sent," said GAM's Malik
Mahmud. But since humanitarian aid presupposes a civilian rule,
the critical issue was the martial law in Aceh. Moderator Didier-
Rod concluded: "We cannot support military rule, only dialog can
restore a civilian rule".

Thus Europe may be poised to convey the message that if the
situation in Aceh and Papua continues to worsen, a fruitful
Europe-Jakarta dialog may be constrained by the issue of
restoring the rule of law.

But, as Rumbiak pointedly criticized the West and Jakarta, one
key issue remains: "How could the international community
encourage Indonesia to nurture a democracy when they maintain a
military link that threatens to destroy Indonesia's new democracy
and respect for human rights? Both were trapped into the global
campaign on terror which defines security as state security
rather than human security," Rumbiak said.

These are important global and humanitarian issues, which
Jakarta should be ready to respond to, instead of avoiding them.

Haven't Indonesian diplomats in the past always spoken out on
East Timor whenever the resistance campaigned abroad, including
at the European Parliament? At the Brussels Hilton in early 1992
then foreign minister Ali Alatas aggressively and eloquently
confronted the international press shortly after the St. Cruz
massacre -- in which hundreds of protesters were killed -- had
shocked the world. The best defense is offensive.

He succeeded to convince the media that Jakarta neither
directed nor condoned the killings and impressed them by offering
a different perspective -- thus, defusing the uproar on Vice
President Try Sutrisno's "dirty lie" that "only 19 were killed".

With full support for Indonesia's integrity, Jakarta is now
much stronger than previously, as an aggressor, dealing with the
East Timor issue. So why now the neurosis against the world?

Jakarta's attitude has been unusually nervous and suspicious
in its attempts to keep "external" elements out of Aceh. This has
run through incidents from the shootings of German tourists; to
the threatening and deporting of American, South Korean,
Malaysian and Japanese journalists; the restriction and
harassment of local journalists and activists, to effectively ban
all foreign press and aid agencies and the hunting down of
Acehnese outside Aceh -- all at the price of the greater
suffering and isolation of local Acehnese.

Even two Australian seafarers stranded in Aceh were suspected
of "foreign conspiracy". In Papua, the paranoia grew since the
killings of American teachers last year provoked a series of FBI
investigations and Papuans resisted the division of the province.

All of these seem to reflect doubts among political and
military leaders about what really happened, as Jakarta is
determined to prevent the issues of Aceh and Papua from going
international. The crux of the matter is, to quote one EP member,
"We respect Indonesia's border, but why did they do all that
(abuses) to maintain the border?"

It is this pregnant question that must be addressed. With
soldiers and armed rebels operating virtually "uncontrolled" in
vast areas "protected" by the martial law, the fear of abuses
will not go away easily.

Jakarta has "lost" East Timor not because, but in spite of,
its diplomacy. If any lesson should be learned, it is that
abusive realities on the ground, not international forums abroad,
might provoke the world to internationalize the conflicts.