Rethinking nationalism in the context of separatist conflict

Adam Tyson, Toronto

Aceh has always been an essential part of the vast Indonesian archipelago, being of great historical, economic and symbolic importance. Today this volatile region of Northern Sumatra is most commonly identified with the perpetual "low-intensity conflict" between the military and the unconventional separatist force known as the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka or GAM). The modern independence movement in Aceh began in 1976.

Since then it has entered the public sphere of discussion mainly in reference to its impact on national unity. Officials from the state and the military have continuously appealed to the public's sense of nationalism, arguably in an attempt to justify the ongoing conflict, on the basis that the preservation of national unity in times of crisis takes precedence over issues of justice, law or human rights.

Testing the limits of Indonesia's emerging democracy, it is now time to advocate a change in the tone of the public debate about the conflict in Aceh. Firstly, those who are opposed to the severe tactics used by the military in order to quell the separatist movement should no longer be told that they are anti- nationalistic, and that such an attitude will only serve to further the prospects of national disintegration.

Such logic has proven to be detrimental over the years; among other things, the fear of being labeled anti-nationalistic has allowed the issue of conflict in Aceh to become effectively depoliticized, removed from the public debate, and isolated from the scrutiny of the media.

By accusing those who are opposed to the ongoing war in Aceh of being anti-nationalistic and sympathizers of "terrorists", state and military officials have long been able to contain the growing opposition towards their "dirty war". Of course no one is suggesting that the state, the military or the general public should tolerate armed resistance within their borders; however given the failure of most conventional solutions there is a real need to rethink our approach to dealing with such conflicts.

There are some excellent organizations and charismatic people in Indonesia that have gone to great lengths to show that the effects of the military campaign in Aceh have been devastating. However, such actions, while admirable, are by themselves not enough to resolve the matters at hand. The state apparatus has almost free reign to do as it likes in Aceh, countless civilians have their lives disrupted by the conflict, the military acts without accountability, public debate is stifled, and balanced media coverage of the conflict is effectively frozen.

It is high time that the public reengage in the debate about this unwholesome conflict, and that it becomes a major political issue which cannot be repressed. Consider this fact: The conflict in Aceh, one of the most controversial issues facing the Republic of Indonesia, was not a focal issue for debate during the legislative and (ongoing) presidential campaigns in 2004. Political candidates and parties remain reluctant to take a firm stance on the issue, fearing that they will appear anti- nationalistic or "soft" on issues of separatism and terrorism.

In an era where the democratization of the electoral process is taking hold, it is indeed time that the major issues are brought to the fore, and that politicians seeking to hold office or obtain power through public vote are forced to take a stance on the issue of separatist conflict. This opens up new forums for the discussion and formulation of policy to bring an end to conflict and violence.

Perhaps part of the new debate should address the question: What is Indonesian nationalism, and what bearing might this term have on Indonesia's separatist conflicts? Nationalism evokes feelings of a strong bond between the diverse peoples of Indonesia, binding them together in the common pursuit of development, unity and progress. Suggesting that those elements of the public who are opposed to a war that is tearing at the fibers of society and causing destabilization are anti- nationalistic is simply wrong and misguided.

To take a public stand against the devastating effects of the Acehnese conflict might in fact be the highest form of nationalism, proving ones commitment to conflict resolution and the peaceful reintegration of this troubled region into the nation as a whole. It takes an empowered and enlightened form of public nationalism to stand up to the state and the military and demand that the Acehnese conflict become a public issue, a political issue, and one in which the nation's press is able to cover in a free and unbiased way.

As citizens in a new democracy it is now a public right and responsibility to demand changes in government policy with respect to this conflict. Genuine nationalism is born out of the refusal to tolerate the official line that the state has taken for decades with respect to the need for a military solution and martial law in order to "win the hearts and minds" of the Acehnese. Bold expressions of nationalism might become the impetus on which a solution to this conflict may arise.

Take, for example, the idea of a "people's power" approach, in which large elements of society take it upon themselves to intervene directly in an issue which affects the nation as a whole. Although entirely different, this could be related to the "pilgrimage for peace" that was recently witnessed in the city of Najaf, Iraq.

In the name of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of association, a movement could be formed that would allow a coalition of concerned students, citizens groups and professionals to march into Aceh and demand to know what really stirs within these borders. Asymmetries of information between the state and the public can only impede the peace process. Perhaps there is a reality and a truth that the state or the military does not want confirmed; perhaps the answer to conflict resolution lies in accurate information, truth and knowledge.

Braving the threats of both the military and GAM, it is possible to imagine a coalition of students, activists, and other concerned elements of Indonesian society moving en mass to the troubled region of Aceh and becoming the countries largest mediators, with the common goal of active diplomacy in order to achieve conflict resolution.

Armed with the knowledge that they are trying to doing what is best for the nation, for the preservation of national unity in the face of destabilizing conflict, and under the watchful eyes of national and international media, this new form of people's power might just prove to be a force to be reckoned with. One question remains: Who could lead such a movement, and who would be willing to follow?

The writer, formerly a visiting researcher at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung, is now a PhD candidate at Leeds University, England. He can be reached at adtyson@hotmail.com