Reply to Shane Barter

Reply to Shane Barter

My response to Shane Barter's article Swedish court's
acquittal of Hassan:

Much discussion of the issue of Aceh is indeed driven by a
lack of clear thinking, as noted by Shane Barter here on July 26.
Unfortunately, however, his own contribution did little to add
clarity to the discussion.

Barter criticizes contributions to the Aceh discussion by both
Dr. Kirsten Schulze and myself, getting much of it wrong. It is
worth noting that in my comments on Dr. Schulze's article, I
noted that we did agree that any death is a tragedy, and that all
should be avoided.

Dr Schulze and I discussed this matter after her article was
published but before mine was written, and again after mine was
published. We remain friends and colleagues who agree on much,
but accept that we do not have to see all matters in exactly the
same way. There was certainly nothing "personal" in my critique
of Dr Schulze's article.

But more importantly, Barter is wrong to claim that I "justify
the abuse of the Javanese on the grounds that the Free Aceh
Movement (GAM) has the support of the majority".

What I said was that GAM attacks specific civilians it
believes oppose its cause. I made the separate point that GAM
does receive popular support and could not survive if it did not.
GAM does not attack civilians generally, with which Dr Schulze
agrees. That is, I explained why GAM attacked certain
individuals.

In terms of the issue itself, it is unclear whether Barter is
familiar with Aceh or many Acehnese. If he was, he would know
that the option for a "non-violent space based on civil society"
effectively disappeared a couple of years ago. This was because
the overwhelming majority of such civil society supported the
call for a referendum on Aceh's political future, and
was hence incorrectly targeted by the Indonesian Military (TNI)
as being allied with GAM.

Perhaps Barter also missed my comment that liberation
movements should aspire to the exemplary standard they believe
their causes imply.

Barter's concludes by suggesting "a more balanced approach
that rejects violence and terrorism, which means no less than
rejecting the TNI and GAM, two wolves", falls into the trap of
implying equivalence between the TNI and GAM. This equivalence
was at the core of my disagreement with Dr Schulze and misses the
point about the origins, and overwhelming perpetrator, of
violence in Aceh.

Finally, Barter seems to have also missed my comment that by
returning to a cease-fire, there might eventually be hope for a
negotiated settlement in Aceh. Without such a cease-fire, it is
unlikely that members of Aceh's "civil society" will feel safe
enough to come out of hiding.

DAMIEN KINGSBURY

Deakin University

Melbourne, Australia