|
|
Conflict Transformation
and the Tsunami in Aceh
by Lukman Age
Coordinator for the Peace for Aceh Program,
Research and Education for Peace
Universiti Sains Malaysia and Researcher at the Dept.
The negotiation process
to solve the conflict
in Aceh that has been
closed for almost two
years, has now reopened
following the tsunami
disaster in the area
on 26 December 2004.
The hope of peace that
was nearly lost when
the government started
to validate the martial
law in Aceh has now recovered,
as well as foreign attention
streaming to this area.
However, will this peace
process be successful
in ending the protracted
conflict that has happened
for several decades?
How is the anatomy of
Aceh conflict to date?
And what is the conflict
element that has changed
due to the natural disaster
with more than 120,000
victims? Also, what is
the impact of this, changing
the efforts of sustainable
peace achievement and
replacing the cycle of
violence that seems to
be inherent to Aceh?
To answer all those questions, it is better to first
briefly describe the background of the conflict in Aceh.
Many academicians divide conflicts in Aceh into two kinds.
The first conflict was at the beginning of the 1950s
where there was rebellion led by the Islamic Leader (kaum
ulama) or DI/TII as a response to the central government
attitude that ignored its promises. The second conflict
started when GAM was formed in the 1970s for those who
are struggling for the independence of Aceh, separate
from Indonesia.
When we examine it more closely, both of these conflicts
have a relationship and cannot be separated from each
other because the two conflicts were born based on similar
principles. On the one side is the strong feeling of
the Acehnese ethnic identity. On the other side is the
weakness of the nation building process in Indonesia.
Fighting for the development of a very complex nation
building on a foundation due to various ethnicities,
languages, religions and cultures has made Indonesia
unable to accommodate "over requirements" from
a community who wants to express their uniqueness and
individuality such as Aceh.
Potential conflict will always be present as long as
this condition becomes the basis in the relationship
between Aceh and Indonesia. All peace efforts implemented
will only be useful for slowing the speed of new violent
conflicts in this area as long as the energy for resistance
is still available in the Acehnese people and as long
as centralistic patterns and violence are still maintained
by the Indonesian Government system. Thus, the conflict
is not only to be viewed from the perspective of the
relationship between the Government of Indonesia and
GAM or DI/TII, but also, to be viewed from the relationship
between the Acehnese people and Aceh as an identity within
Indonesia, the nation country. Therefore, the peace process
that is currently undertaken must be followed by efforts
of overall conflict transformation in all aspects and
continuously to ensure that permanent peace can be achieved
in this area. Otherwise, it will only repeat the failure
of peace processes that has occurred previously.
It is impossible to expect that the present negotiation
facilitator, Crisis Management Initiative (CMI), can
perform all works in order to guarantee the peace in
Aceh. All parties relating to the peace development efforts
in Aceh have to see collectively and carefully the aspects
required for emphasis in order to support the current
peace process. The first step to do this is by performing
analysis of the changing conflict conditions in Aceh,
either directly or indirectly caused by the tsunami disaster
in this area.
To simplify this analysis, 5 aspects of conflict transformation
formulated by Hugh Miall, Oliver Rambotham and Tom Woodhouse
should be the reference. The five aspects covered:
- transformation of context
- transformation of structural
- transformation of actor
- transformation of issues
- transformation of personal and group
These are adopted from Vayrinen, Galtung and other
peace experts' concepts.2
Transformation
of Context. Transformation
of context means that the
conflict is related to
the regional or international
context. Changes at this
level will affect the resolution
of the conflict problem.
There are essential changes
in this aspect post-tsunami
as the previous, small
attention of the international
community has become drastically
raised. The incredible
tsunami made the Government
of Indonesia unable to
close Aceh from the outside
world. Thousands of foreign
armies come to Aceh in
the first three months
of the tsunami emergency
period and hundreds of
NGOs and other international
institutions continuously
work to date in various
reconstruction programs.
Even though most of the
attention is focused on
the humanitarian aid and
post-tsunami recovery,
the existing conflict will
actually be a consideration
of all parties who want
to distribute their money
in Aceh. The changing of
this context is one of
the reasons why the negotiations
between Government of Indonesia
and GAM have reopened.
Even though there were
many efforts to reopen
negotiations before the
tsunami, the negotiations
could never have been held
in present conditions,
without the momentum of
the tsunami followed by
the increased attention
of the whole world onto
Aceh.
Transformation
of Structure. The
structure of conflict is
the actors, problems, difference
of goals or asymmetrical
for the short-term period
particularly in the current
negotiation process. In
this negotiation phase,
the international world
is currently on the Indonesian
government side to 'persuade'
GAM to receive the autonomy
offered by Indonesia. Even
though success is achieved
in having a smoother negotiation
process, the solution done
in an asymmetrical conflict
structure still has the
risk of failure in achieving
the eternal peace.
Transformation
of Actor. Conflict
actor transformation is
also one method to enable
an easier solution of the
conflict. Many conflicts
become easier to solve
when there is a change
in the leadership of both
parties. The tsunami has
changed several factors
in the conflict of Aceh.
Before the tsunami, the
military had a dominant
role in Aceh, but the domination
and authority are now divided
post-tsunami. Following
the tsunami, there has
been the formation of the
Reconstruction Implementation
Board or Badan Pelaksana
Rekontruksi (BPR) and the
ending of emergency status
in Aceh. Even though it
has no mandate in the arrangement
of conflict, the existence
of BPR that is directly
under the president and
its mission priority for
the interests of tsunami
victims and Acehnese people
will be able to balance
the military position that
was previously dominant
and more prioritised to
the nobility of Indonesia.
In addition, the Henry
Dunant Center, the previous
facilitators of the negotiation,
has been replaced by the
Crisis Management Initiative
(CMI) in the post-tsunami
scenario and is led by
the former president of
Finland, Martin Ahtasari.
Also, the presence of Professors
Damien Kingsbury and Dr.
Vacy Vlazna as GAM Advisors
in the middle of Aceh conflict.
Transformation
of Problems. This
aspect is one important
element in conflict transformation,
because the conflict is
determined by the position
of all parties against
a problem. The conflict
transformation occurs whenever
they change the position.
It can be seen clearly
that when GAM changed its
position against the problem
of freedom, the last difficult
discussion became smoother
and various agendas and
other issues began to be
started and discussed such
as cease fire, amnesty,
local general elections.
This is progress in the
peace process. However,
the best solution achieved
from this negotiation will
not guarantee the successful
end of violent conflict
in Aceh if this process
is not followed by the
efforts of overall peace
development. On the Indonesian
side, the military and
nationalists are always
ready to hold up the peace
process, while the awareness
for freedom separate from
Indonesia has been protracted
in Aceh.
Transformation
of Personal and Group. This
is related to the change
in the hearts and minds
of the conflicting parties,
because conflict comes
from the heart and mind
of the conflict actors.
The tsunami disaster in
Aceh and the other countries
around the Indian Sea was
an incredible humanitarian
disaster in modern human
history. Hundreds of thousands
of lives in Aceh became
victims in just a few hours.
The destruction left is
not comparable to other
natural disasters or destruction
from battles this century.
However, will it change
the heart and mind of the
conflicting parties in
Aceh? On the Indonesian
side, it is still very
doubtful. The civil government
of Indonesia still strongly
pushes GAM to release the
claim for freedom as a
requirement for opening
negotiations. The Military
has not really considered
the number of humanitarian victims
resulting from the tsunami
in their response to the
conflict in Aceh. Their
position remains the
same i.e. that the stringent approach is the only way
to solve the conflict problem in Aceh. It means that
the territorial value is more important than facilitating
the parties in performing a humanitarian mission to
help people who have been saved from tsunami. On the
GAM side, its intention to release the claim for independence
in restarting the peace discussion indicates a signal
of awareness to stop violence in Aceh. An easy requirement
such as releasing the negotiators arrested in Indonesian
prisons was not even claimed when GAM joined the negotiations.
Also, the statements of GAM leaders did not indicate
strong desires to have open access toward the agencies
and foreign countries to help the Acehnese people suffering
from the tsunami. Even though the strategic and political
nuances still exist in this decision-making process,
without the tsunami it seems to be quite difficult
for GAM to change their position against this problem.
The changes occurred to the five aspects of the conflict
above has driven better conditions for the current
peace process, but the peace process will be wasted
without more overall peace developments.
Endnotes
1 This article
in Bahasa Indonesia version
has been
published at www.acehkita.com
2 See Hugh Miall et.al. Contemporary Conflict
Resolution: The Prevention, Management and
Transformation of Deadly Conflict, Polity Press,
Cambridge, 1999. p 156-157
Content
|
