Palestine and Aceh: Limits of solidarity

Palestine and Aceh: Limits of solidarity

Aguswandi, London

An interesting opinion article appeared in this newspaper,
which drew a comparison between the plight of the Palestinians
and the Acehnese. (The Jakarta Post, Nov. 8). This is maybe the
first time an Indonesian has connected the two conflicts. There
has been no identification of the similarities between the two in
Indonesia, despite common elements of widespread and deliberate
human suffering, injustice and human rights violations.

When Palestine is raised, Indonesians are outraged, but when
the Acehnese conflict is raised, Indonesians frequently refuse to
acknowledge that terror and horror are the daily reality in a
corner of their nation.

Having made the link, however, the writer failed to consider
the critical question of why Indonesians react differently
towards the conflicts in Aceh and Palestine. This is a hugely
important question that must be answered, as the different
responses go far beyond the nature of the two conflicts, and
enter the tangled but critical arena of one's nationalism, which
is what dampens human solidarity.

As we know, Indonesia's response to injustice can be
passionate and vocal. Not only have Indonesians protested against
the abuses endured by the Palestinian people, they have shown
their support for oppressed people worldwide. Recent unlawful
killings in Southern Thailand, for example, sparked public
outrage in Indonesia. This is a very positive sign of Indonesian
solidarity for human suffering. But what is of concern is that
this compassion and humanity shown towards people in other
countries is not extended to those suffering the same wrongs
within Indonesia. It seems that moral outrage is not universal.

Efforts are made to justify the different reactions, to cling
to distinctions about the rights and wrongs of each case. It is
usually said that Palestine is a different story, that is the
history of an oppressed people, while the conflict in Aceh is
branded with the "ethno-separatist" label. Muslim groups cite the
brotherhood of Islam to justify their support for the people of
Palestine, but refuse to apply this to Aceh.

They ignore the fact that even the Palestinian leadership has
rejected a religious definition of the conflict. As the writer
correctly pointed out, even Yasser Arafat refuted suggestions
that the situation is simply a struggle between Islam and
Judaism. Nonetheless, Indonesian Muslim groups continue to
encourage support for Palestine in the name of religion while
supporting military operations against their equally Muslim
fellow citizens in Aceh.

The problems of oppression of Palestinians and Acehnese are
similar: The daily violence against the people. In fact, in terms
of death tolls, more people have been killed in Aceh in the last
two years than in Palestine. From May 2003 till October 2004,
1,160 Palestinians were killed. However, since martial law was
imposed in May 2003, according to conservative estimates 2,100
people have been killed in Aceh. The average death toll in Aceh
is four to five a day compared to one or two a day in Palestine.

What then is the cause of this disparity in compassion and
solidarity? The answer lies in Indonesians' deep-rooted
nationalist sentiment. This emotion overrides people's
instinctive feelings for solidarity towards suffering, regardless
of religion or nationality. Scholars who study nationalism have
discussed the way in which devotion to the nation state takes
precedence over any other kind of loyalty. Aceh, Palestine,
Southern Thailand, Mindanao and Papua are no different; their
people are oppressed and they are victims of injustice. Yet the
solidarity they receive depends on how it affects the interest of
people of any given nation state.

Nationalism limits Indonesian solidarity for the problems in
Aceh, as well as in West Papua, in a way many would find shocking
when Palestine is being discussed. As long as suffering happens
outside their own country, Indonesians are boundless in their
solidarity and support. But there are frontiers to this
compassion that can be clearly marked on a map: boundary from
Sabang to Merauke. Injustice beyond these borders stirs sympathy,
and injustice within them will evoke quite different responses.

This glaring discrepancy should warn us that giving
nationalism privileged status is dangerous. While it still allows
people to condemn unacceptable practices elsewhere outside its
borders, it shuts people's minds to similarly horrendous
realities within the border of Indonesia, most notably in Aceh
and West Papua. Of course the conflicts are not completely
ignored. Some cases are so horrible they sneak through people's
radars. We occasionally notice violent deaths and sometimes speak
about them. But, in general, we have started to accept the
abnormal as normal. The extraordinary becomes not only expected
but accepted.

This also explains why Indonesians will go into the streets to
protest against the U.S. war in Iraq, but not Indonesia's war in
Aceh. People recognize external power relations between the
center (the West), and the periphery (Third World countries),
while failing to see the power relations within the latter, far
closer to home. They do not consider that unjust power relations
and abuses within their sphere are as dangerous as those
"outside".

The writer is an Acehnese human rights activist and working
for TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights Campaign in London.