Rethinking nationalism in the context of separatist conflict
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