OPINION on CONFLICT SENSITIVITY (Aceh & Gayo Land Case Study)

Here, I just try to convey briefly how conflicts occur in Indonesia, Aceh and other regions within Indonesia has specification, and is a point of indifference toward local culture and social aspects. Hence, it leads to acute social insult, which eventually needs high and continue social cost for curative efforts. What I write is based on my experience over 3 years in Aceh and other region in Sumatera (Jambi) in which I have been involved in handling various programs ranging from emergency relief, humanitarian, community development, community outreach, community advocacy, local participation, household based public health, local governance strengthening, coordination, and good governance. Also as supported with my education background, sociology, with variety of analysis and discussions. I know, this comment is less focused and detail and this is not the right place to describe in detail. I am ready to put in the more detail description regarding my writing. 
 

I. General Overview of the Conflict Background

Context of conflict occurred in a region or a state has different background, although may have similarity in general context. Conflict management efforts often failed due to lack of focus on different local history characters, or less attention to the existing specification as consideration in taking conflict management strategy, it is merely on copy pasting lesson learned from some other region in which conflict management successfully handled. Whereas, if we learn more, the success story from other countries because they are do care about the exclusivity they have and the efforts are conducted referring to this.

a. Historical Review

Historically, protest against the central region, in this case NKRI (Union Republic of Indonesia), has started since 1949, after the Netherlands received the round tale conference result and Indonesia officially becoming States of Indonesia Republic concits of 16 small states. This amount is increased since the independence of Indonesia August 17, 1945 with 8 provinces (Sumatera, Kalimantan, Jawa Barat, Jawa Tengah,Jawa Timur, Sulawesi, Maluku dan Sunda Kecil).

RIS was failed with its disappointment to the failure of parliamentary system. Cabinet was formed and changed in short period, persevere, more in political position fight of the leaders. Then in August 1950, RIS back to union state based on Constitution 1945.

Reviewed further, conflict context in Indonesia has occurred since pre-independence era, when kingdoms of Java doing expansion to other Indonesian regions (check Majapahit – Mataram history). The fact showing that egocentric and feel superior and think that other tribes and regions are lower and should be subject, as a background of ongoing bloody conflict throughout kingdoms history in Indonesia.

Dissatisfaction of district and community toward RI since 1950 continues. Centralized, conservative, and feudalistic governance has made districts revolt (check DI TII, RMS, PRRI rebellion, etc).

Until the new era (Soeharto) districts rebellion continued, the incidences in Timor Leste, Aceh and Irian (check how Timor Leste finally got their freedom, Aceh demanded independence, as well as West Irian).

If reviewed, conflict background or insubordination has sociology-cultural color. Whwre ethnic or certain tribe is so dominant in all development lines whether economic, political, social and cultural. With Java dominance, and more with some Javanese country figures (moreover during Soeharto era), has made other tribes alienated, as if they don’t have chance to show up, to exist that they are Indonesian. Indonesia is not only Java batik, primbon, or attitude, etc.

Consider the context of conflict in Aceh, existence and tribe arrogance has been fundamental triggered (beside other historical factors, though tribes dominant background has been factual conflict source). Java dominance (central) in economy, social, cultire and political development access has made them feel treated as ‘unfair’. The unfairness is more perceived by Aceh people while distributing development ‘cake’. Natural and other resources belong to Aceh don’t give balance benefit for Aceh development. Authorization in management, distribution and determination of use of resources is not on Aceh’s but other tribe (java/cental). This occurs in all segments of economy, politic, social and culture. When central government gave full authorization through decentralization which gives wider power to district to manage their regions in all development aspect, Aceh has reached its disappointment and revenge. This is happened because conflict management conducted by central government for Aceh is so repressive. Coordination, participative, communication in socio-culture efforts have less applied in overcoming conflict at that time.

Consider again the internal conflict in Aceh, in this case Aceh and Gayo, same color and case happened, where tribe arrogance as Aceh has underestimated other tribes in the region. Even, to tell you frankly, Aceh tribe is more powerful and conceited and ‘feels’ as they are the best. Neglecting toward Gayo tribe is really obvious and visible, and even claim, take Gayo culture as Aceh identity (like Saman dance, etc), without stating that the dance is from Gayo. Aceh also has distinction/dichotomy ‘coastal people’ and ‘mountain people’ and they made the coastal people as Aceh and other region as compliment and is not in the same position with them (check how the establishment of BRR regional III, full of primordial and tribe sensitive).

I myself was as Haed Office working with UNORC in Gayo Highland/TAFO( Takengon Field Office) always see and learn the historical, cultural, and socio-anthropological context of the facts happened withi TAFO including context of conflict. I see tribal arrogance of Aceh in social, cultural, economy and political aspects trigger ‘unfair’ feeling refers to the conflict occurred. ALA incidence is predictable and reasonable. Too much to write related with analysis background of Aceh-Gayo conflict. My conclusion is not because I WORKED IN Gayo, but merely based on historical facts, sociological reviews, and 2 year working experience in Coastal Aceh (both west or east), and my education background, sociology, directs and strengthen that tribe arrogance and ego (spread out and be in all development aspects) has been one of conflict trigger.

b. Sociological, anthropological and political

Socio-anthropologically, Aceh-Gayo conflict has lead to prolonged conflict in Aceh. Unfair treatment against existence of other tribes except Aceh (coastal people) has encountered dissatisfaction and insubordination. Gayo with its rich natural and cultural resource, seems as they don’t have any potential in the context of politic and development in Aceh, muted and alienated in historical stage. All refer to Aceh and Aceh people (coastal people). In some aspects, it is worse than the case betweem centralized governance while Jakarta is the centre pf development ignoring other regions in Indonesia. Look how the effort of first President of Indonesia, Soekarno, who realized that Indonesia is islands with various tribes and cultures, could be high potential to conflict. And he created nationalism jargon like Bhineka Tunggal Ika = Unity in diversity. And he understands the diversity of ideology and values in Indonesia and he put it in a jargon, Nasakom = National, Religious and Communist is Indonesia. And shows diversity of culture, natural resource of Indonesia in a jargon = Indonesia as equatorial emerald. The decision to take Muhammad Hatta as vice of President, as he is from West Sumatera, is expected to represent a message that Indonesia is not only Java, although many other figures from Java who are more representative at that time fro being the vice of President. Other settings also showed by Soekarno that Indonesia is we all, not Java, Sumatera, Kalimantan or Papua. So, efforts to reconcile all diversities and ethnicity have often done, for if conflict is still there, this is regardless of political interest and also international.

In the context of Aceh Gayo, efforts to rally the sociological (assimilation) has not poured out in the efforts of legislation, development aspects, and even concretely detail in daily (look how Aceh sell its Acehnese to international, look how as if Aceh language is a must and a symbol of Aceh confession in all lines and even Governor and the deputy use the language regardless where they are. So, where is Gayo? Alas? Or Jamee language?

MoU Helsinki is even more mind and Acehnese instead of Aceh provice which consist of various tribes.

c. Cultural, norm, ethic and religious Review

Can not be avoided that the context of Indonesia is diversity of cultures, values/customs and religions. Often the conflicts in Indonesia including in Aceh are triggered by this background (lcheck conflict in Maluku Utara, Poso Sulawesi, and Sampit Kalimantan). On the similar religion dominant in Aceh, namely Islam, religion value becomes insignificant to be discussed (different with Maluku Utara case), but in the framework of traditional values, application of traditional values and norm which is dominance in Aceh, again Aceh tribe is in front line. Of the naming of development jargons, programs and events places (such as Inong balee for women activities, in Gayo also use the same term, while then local government of Gayo doesn’t respect to the Inong Balee, even the benefit is good, we couldn’t blame it). The pint is, sensitiveness to local aspects and context is very bad in Aceh, moreover to step forward to sustainability stage, etc.

II. Lessons Learned of conflicts in Indonesia

1.  In regard of character/culture of Kingdoms where previously Indonesia is kingdoms. It is reflected in governance system, attitude toward diversity, superior feeling and history proud

2.  Not apart from context that Indonesia consists of various tribes and cultures with different customs and values.

3.   Not apart from different religious context

4.   Not apart from international political interest and history of colonialism and the settings.

5.  Conflict management is partial, fragmentary, not integrated, often put ethnicity ego and dominance or major tribes. Often put political interest above others which also lead from the racial or certain faction ego.

6.  Conflict management doesn’t give priority to social, culture, value-norm and local aspects context. Then, local initiative or participation becoming less considered in determining conflict management strategy (for point 5 and 6, check BRA stories and the efforts, from BRA generation 1 lead by Ir. Usman Hasan Msi who tried to interpret section 2.3.5. MoU Helsinki ideally, then BRA generation 2 under coordination of Prof. Dr. Yusny Saby MA, with community based reintegration, and BRA generation 3 under coordination of Bapak NurDjuli). How all those show trial and error, and partiality becoming games in managing this prolonged conflict.

7.  Conflict often occur due to the feeling of ‘unfair treatment’, more specific ‘not representied’. Poor appreciation toward local potential, confession toward local existence.

8. There is no local valued independent institution that has responsibility on conflict management, reintegration, and peace building. There are many institutions established for conflict management is established by government, or representing faction interest (dominant faction/tribe).

III. Efforts plan in conflict management, reintegration or peace building fore be made.

From the points of lesson learned and general review of history, socio-anthropology and political analysis, some efforts may be conducted in conflict management are:

1.  Establishing independent institution (locally) responsible for conflict management, reintegration efforts and peace building. This institution is in central, province, and district level. This institution should represent transparency and professionalism and independent. Under strong legislation protection against the given mandate. Activities of this institution are directed to coordination, facilitation, and advocacy any issues about conflict, reintegration and peace building. For temporary, it could follow KPK (corruption eradication committee). This institution should represent social, values, cultures, tribes, racial, and history diversity from each region where the institution is established.

2.   Conducting human resource and public capacity building program for conflict context through chain and locally workshop. The workshop is the institution’s responsibility. If the institution is not available, it can be given to local government. The locally workshop is a manifest of conflict color occur in each region, that can represent local feeling, aspiration, and initiative. Workshop is limited, not constantly conducted in one year/months. It can serve as recommendation for start or opening for concrete activities in the field.

3.   More focus on establishing channels of communication and two-way dialogue between benefactor and the beneficiaries in all lines, whether through mass media, radio and television, or local meeting discussing and coordinating incidences, efforts and plans and expectation in conflict context. All activities are directed to joint solution oriented, in which community role and voice is the main.

4.   The activities are more in form of FGD which will identify and discover local potential and color that will help in determining conflict management policy.

5.  Turning on local potential and existence through advocacy against establishment or consolidation of social, cultural, and art institutions in each region with similar opportunity to show up and exist based on their potential. To make local specification as potential for development.

6.  Integrating the positive values of conflict understanding, reintegration, and peace building efforts in social, education, culture institutions and other government institutions. Consider that study and learning is important to align history to give positive impact for the next generation, so integrating conflict, reintegration, and peace building context in schools, colleges and universities is required.

7.  Establishing transparency amongst actors and factions and institutions engaged in conflict in general, reintegration and peace building effort, either local, national and international to together work under vision and mission to wholly and sustainable conflict management. Not to place other interest other than creation of reconciliation and peace building. This can be done through activities, efforts of independent institution established as described in point 1.

8. Conducting advocacy and communication activities by production of books, leaflet or strong and powerful writing for sustainable peace building.

9.  Putting people/passive conflict victims (not ex GAM, government or military) as energizer and ideas creator who give inputs to authority. Policies and conducted efforts are based on input from the community, because the civil society feels the real impact of conflict, and they don’t know what benefit they obtain. They are more neutral and honest toward the reconciliation desire.

10. Give priority to social and cultural approach (socio-anthropology) in managing conflict issues.

11. Other efforts that will appear over the process, activities, monitoring and evaluation of the conflict management, reintegration and peace building program.

IV. Conclusion

The important point is: all the above efforts and other efforts are directed to lead to social contract, culture contract, and political contract which represent all factions, lines, and joint interest and will be joint responsibility in keeping and establishing sustainable peace building. Not to stuck on routine, formal and ceremonial activities .

NK - "Earth Hails"
-from my multiply's blog