Promoting Peace and Conflict Resolution in A Transforming Indonesia

Speech by
DR. SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO
President of the Republic of Indonesia

PROMOTING PEACE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
IN A TRANSFORMING INDONESIA

Delivered at the Nobel Institute

Oslo, 13 September 2006


Bismillahiirrahmanirrahim
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear friends,

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak about my country in front of such a distinguished audience. I bring with me the warm greetings of the good people of Indonesia. They thank you for your unwavering support for the victims of the tsunami. They also thank you for the participation of Norwegians in the Aceh Monitoring Mission, which has done so much to contribute to the peace in Aceh.

Norway has many friends and admirers in Indonesia. You are known as a country of peacemakers, a nation that helped forge the Israeli-Palestinian treaty in 1993. You have also promoted peace and reconciliation in places such as Guatemala, Haiti, Colombia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste. Peace-making has indeed become Norway’s international identity.

I have been asked to speak today about “Promoting peace and conflict resolution in a transforming Indonesia.” It is a topic that is dear to my heart.

Almost 2 years ago, I was elected as Indonesia’s sixth President in 59 years, running on a platform of change. My ultimate objective as President is to advance, as far as possible, Indonesia’s transformation.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, Indonesia has gone through a remarkable make-over in the recent years.

We have become the world’s third largest democracy, after India and the United States, and I do believe that a democracy we have reached a point of no return. We have conducted 2 free and fair elections—in 1999, and the 2004 elections, which is said to be “the most complex elections anywhere in the world”, and had a voter turn-out of more than 90%, larger than the US turn-out. We have taken the military out of politics, and turned them into professional soldiers who are protectors of democracy and reforms. We have a vibrant multi-party Parliament that is very independent of the Government. We have no more political prisoners. We have scrapped oppressive laws and made human rights a top national priority. And we now have total freedom of speech and press freedom which is part of a vibrant and independent civil society.

Indonesia has also become living proof that Islam, democracy and modernity can and do go hand-in-hand. Indeed, I would argue that Indonesia’s democratic transition ranks as one of the most important events in what is known as the “Third Wave” of democratization worldwide which began in the 1970’s.

There is no question that transforming a nation as large and complex as Indonesia is a huge long-term task. That transformation, however, will not go far unless we are able to promote lasting peace in Indonesia and resolve our internal conflicts. And the problems were daunting, and were many.

In Aceh, the separatist Free Aceh Movement had waged an armed insurgency for more than 30 years. In Papua, there is a separatist movement which has been smoldering for several decades. In Poso and in Maluku, violent communal conflicts have flared up since the beginning of the crisis.

Each of these conflicts have their own “personality”, and differ in intensity and violence. But altogether, they have claimed thousands of lives, and inflicted social and economic devastation. In some cases, they have produced a “lost generation”.

They also put a strain to our national unity and our democratic way of life.

They sap the energy of the nation and rob the conflicted communities of the rhythm of a normal life. They have deprived many individuals of their human dignity.

Worse, they fan the fires of extremism and radicalism. The classic example is Poso, which served not only as a recruitment centre but also provided training grounds for terrorists.

In many cases they have polarized society to the extent of eroding the authority of institutions of governance, thus providing occasions of uncontrolled violence.

In a very real way, they seduce the people from the fold of the law and into a world view where there is only prejudice, hatred and intolerance, and where debate is carried out through bloodshed.

In such conflicted places, democracy can only be in retreat.

Resolving these conflicts is therefore crucial not only to the conflicted communities but also to our national integrity, our national security, and our democracy.

BUT as we soon found out the hard way, democracy alone was not necessarily a panacea for resolving all these conflicts. Indeed, democracy sometimes can even complicate peace-making efforts. The celebrated political scientist Samuel Huntington has warned, and I quote him, that “the expansion of democracy to a wide-range of non-western societies can lead to the rise of political leaders and movements that appeal to indigenous nationalists, religious and often anti-western sentiments that increase the likelihood of conflict”, end of quote.

Indeed, it was a source of tremendous concern for us that rising communal violence accompanied our early democratic transition. In the first 2 years after the 1999 elections, separatist politics in Aceh and Papua intensified significantly. Ethnic violence tore part Maluku, long-renowned as a bastion of religious tolerance. In Borneo, the Dayaks and Madurese engaged in violent clashes. Minor ethnic confrontations that played on religious differences flared up in Lombok, Flores, Medan, Lampung, Jambi, South Sulawesi, Centra Sulawesi, West Kalimantan, Aru island, and Sumbawa.

With all this, the famous columnist Thomas Friedman, who visited my country, felt justified to label Indonesia in the summer of 2001 as a “messy state : too important to fail, but too messy to work”, according to him.

Well, I am pleased to say that I stand before you today NOT as a leader of a broken nation on the brink of collapse, but a rejuvenated, confident nation on the path of a major transformation. I strongly believe that we are well on our way to attaining our own version of democratic peace throughout our vast country.

It took us some time, but we finally found a set of effective ways and measures that will lead to the attainment of that goal.
In the first place, we are now making optimal use of our basic strength: our ability to maintain and strengthen our brand of open, inclusive and tolerant nationalism, as opposed to narrow, exclusive, intolerant nationalism.

This means preserving a political and social system that protects and celebrates the diversity of our several hundred ethnic groups as well as guaranteeing religious freedom. This means protecting multi-culturalism, where the smallest minority group is equal to the largest ethnic group. This means building a democracy of freedom AND tolerance, not freedom versus tolerance. It also means that Indonesia would not be an Islamic state based on Islamic laws, despite the fact that there are more muslims in Indonesia than in the entire Middle-east.

This open, inclusive, tolerant nationalism has proved to be the best way to manage diversity. Without it we will deteriorate from managing change to managing chaos. This is also the best way to ensure that every individual, every ethnic group, and every religious community become a stake-holder in the concept of Indonesia.

We are wiser now in dealing with communal conflicts in such places as Poso, Maluku and Sampit. Since each of these conflicts have its unique set of characteristics, each solution must be tailored to a particular set of local realities and factors. But generally, the solutions require strong law enforcement on the ground to contain and put down the violence; the pro-active role of the Government in these local communal conflicts, particularly in separating the warring factions; the engagement of local community and religious leaders; starting-up a process of reconciliation, and a long-term program for economic and social reconstruction. Alhamdulillah, the situation in Poso, Maluku, Sampit are now under control.

At the same time we are willing to take calculated risks in adopting new approaches to resolve long-standing conflicts. This is what we did in Aceh, and with your indulgence, I wish to focus a little time on this subject.

Aceh ranked as our most difficult, most serious, most lethal and longest separatist conflict.

The Free Aceh Movement, known as GAM, had fought us for nearly 30 years. With Reformasi, there was hope that the conflict could be resolved. Instead, newfound political freedoms helped GAM flourish.

Various administrations tried to make peace in Aceh. Under President Abdurahman Wahid, a cease-fire was forged, called the Humanitarian Pause, ostensibly named so that aid could be more effectively distributed in the region. That peace did not last.

Another cease-fire agreement was signed during the government of President Megawati Sukarnoputri, called the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, or COHA. That peace did not last either.

As Coordinating Minister for Politics and Security, I was involved in both peace efforts, and I was fortunate to draw lessons both from the negotiations and failed implementation of the cease-fire.

When I became President in October 2004, the talks between the Government and GAM had already been cut off, and confidence between the conflicting parties was at a low point. I was determined to renew efforts to find peaceful political solution for Aceh. I traveled to Banda Aceh shortly after my inauguration, and called for renewed dialogue with GAM. But the offer was not met with receptive response.

Then, on December 26th, 2004, just a day after Christmas, a deadly tsunami crashed on Aceh, killed over 200,000 people, and made 500,000 others homeless. Aceh was destroyed flat to the ground. It was the worst disaster that ever happened to the Acehnese, and indeed to Indonesia.

By this time, my Government was totally focused on the very difficult relief efforts to rescue survivors, collect and bury the dead, and care for the homeless. But I also saw a small window of opportunity opening. The Acehnese people desperately wanted peace. The whole world wanted Aceh to have peace. There was a tremendous political and psychological imperative to renew a peace process.

We therefore began discreet overtures towards GAM military leaders in Aceh, and we found out that while they were receptive to peace, they would not e part of it unless directed by their political leadership abroad. So we began to find ways to contact GAM leaders abroad. And to cut a long story short, with the assistance of former President Martti Ahtisaari of the Crisis Management Initiative in Helsinki, in January 2005, about one month after the tsunami, representatives from the Indonesian Government and GAM finally met in Helsinki to try to find a lasting peace for Aceh.

Remarkably, it took only 5 rounds of negotiations in a time-span of 7 months for the negotiators to seal a peace deal. This peace deal was more than just a cease-fire agreement or a temporary pause arrangement. It was a comprehensive political solution that would permanently terminate the conflict, and to permanently deliver peace in Aceh. Finally, after 30 years, we were able to defeat conflict, and win the peace.

A few weeks ago, on August 15th , we celebrated the first anniversary of the peace accord, and we were pleased to see that what began as a fragile peace process has now become the norm on the ground. Aceh the former battle ground has now become a peace zone. This is possible only because everyone kept their end of the bargain in the implementation of the peace accord, and we allowed no room for spoilers to harm the peace.

Today, the hostilities are gone, and the guns are silent. GAM has surrendered their weapons, which have been destroyed. Amnesties have been given to around 2,000 GAM members. The Indonesia military and police have been relocated. There is no more military confrontation anywhere in Aceh. GAM have come down from the hills and rejoin society, where they can build a new life for them and their children. Families have been reunited. In July, the Indonesian Parliament has concluded the Law on Governance in Aceh, which is now being considered by the Acehnese. And GAM leaders abroad have returned to Indonesia, including Malik Mahmud who came from Sweden to celebrate one year of peace in Aceh.

Today, Aceh has been born anew. Acehnese young and old can sleep well at night, no longer fearing gunfire or intimidation. Acehnese farmers are back in their fields and Acehnese entrepreneurs are back in business, no longer fearing disruption to their livelihoods. Many Acehnese children are again receiving an education, no longer fearing the kidnappings or killings of their teachers, or the burning down of their schools. During the World Cup, former GAM combatants were seen watching the games with police officers and military personnel. Grassroots organizations are working hard to regroup again after being inactive during the military operations.

Aceh is preparing for local elections at the end of December this year that will result in greater autonomy and greater prosperity for the once troubled region.

Many people have asked me, how did you know that a peace agreement would be reached in Aceh? Well, the absolute honest truth is that I did not know. I was not entirely confident that a deal would be reached. But I knew that history would not forgive me if I did not try. History would not forgive me if I passed up this window of opportunity that, unfortunately, came during an unprecedented tragedy.

And although I was not entirely confident in the outcome, I was absolutely determined to see to it that the peace process would have the full political support of all branches of my administration. I was absolutely confident that we would provide the goodwill and attention that was lacking in previous talks, and equally importantly, during the implementation of a possible cease-fire. That meant some sleepless nights, believe me, as we were constantly updated on the progress of the talks. But I was absolutely confident that this commitment on our part was needed for trust to be built between the two sides.

For our part, I think the key that helped to unlock the conflict was a paradigm shift that begins with the notion that a military solution alone would never be able to produce lasting peace in Aceh. As a general who spent many years in military life, including in Bosnia as a peace-keeper, I was convinced that a military solution would never work, because it would give us, at best, a short-term win-lose outcome which would not terminate the conflict. What we needed was a win-win solution based on political compromise and flexibility that would permanently end the conflict and turn GAM into stake-holders in the peace. A win-win solution is harder to reach because it requires humility, tolerance, patience, trust, and friendship. But a win-win solution would effectively end the vicious cycle of conflict, and that is what we got in Aceh today.

Having managed to give peace a solid beachhead in Aceh, we now turn our eyes to another part of the country, Papua, where a small but intractable separatist movement has been simmering for decades. This time we are dealing with an entirely different challenge: Papua has an area that is vast compared to Aceh, much of it being swampy land and thick forests and uncharted rivers—but with a much smaller population.

The separatist OPM poses only a minimal military threat but tribalism is very strong in Papua and, compounded by social and economic grievances, it has complicated the peace and order situation. The political problems in Papua but complicated and difficult, but not insurmountable. Like Aceh, what is needed is a fresh approach to develop trust and confidence, while addressing the legitimate grievances in Papua.

Hence, my Government is putting together a “New Deal” for Papua, which entails vigorous affirmative action to bring a better life to the native Papuans by providing them more social services and creating more economic and educational opportunities for them.

My Government is ensuring that this time Special Autonomy works for the people of Papua by implementing it in a vigorous, judicious and transparent way. Development of Papua is being intensified with emphasis on education, health, food security and the building of rural infrastructures.

To be sure of its relevance and that it matches the needs and aspirations of the Papuans, I have personally discussed this programme with Papuan leaders and representatives of civil society. I am sustaining this process of dialogue.

This, after all, is one of the most important lessons that we derived from our experience in Aceh: every peacemaking effort must take into account the needs and aspirations of the particular community. A cookie-cutter solution never works. What works is a combination of political will, patience, genuine goodwill, compromise, redress of grievances attended by the spirit of reconciliation and dialogue that leads to cooperation. That is the approach we applied and will continue to apply in dealing with conflict situations.

Thus, our people are also learning that they have entered a new era of peace-making, one that reflects the changing power structure and the increasing strength of pro-democracy and human rights groups, and non-governmental organizations in general.

Indonesian politics today is as diverse as our cultural make-up. And that means a more participatory and more nuanced approach to conflict resolution. The draft bill of the Aceh Governance Law was first written, and rewritten, by dozens if not hundreds of members of Acehnese civil society, through multiple public discussions and consultations. That is Indonesia today: a medley of voices singing for the common good.

Such a situation would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. We are much wiser now.

Even our Foreign Policy reflects this new orientation. In 1999, East Timor parted ways with Indonesia in a political process that went astray and, sadly, ended in violence, destruction and bitterness. That post-referendum mayhem should never have happened, and we deeply regret that it did. We have since reached out to this new sovereign and independent neighbour of ours. We have sought and won not only reconciliation but also a robust friendship. Our relationship with Timor Leste is constant and comprehensive. And during the political crisis in Timor Leste recently, I maintained close communications with President Xanana Gusmao to ensure coordinated actions were taken to help contain and ease the crisis, such as the closing of the borders, which were later reopened, and the delivery of humanitarian relief. I am glad that the political situation has much improved, and I note that my good friend Prime Minister Jose Ramos Horta visited Oslo and spoke here last week.

We are reaching out in all directions: to Northeast Asia, to the South Pacific, to the Americas and Europe in an effort to fulfill our constitutional mandate to contribute to the making of a better world of social justice and peace. We are closely cooperating with countries that do not necessarily agree with us.

Neither cultural difference nor geographic distance has barred us from engaging other countries in constructive initiatives. A good recent example is our cooperation with the Government of Norway in organizing the First Global Inter-Media Dialogue in Bali, which explored the role of mass media in a globalized but culturally diverse world. I look forward to Indonesia working with Norway in deepening and enlarging this important dialogue among cultures and civilizations.

That is Indonesia today. A nation that is reaching far out to the world and reaching deep into itself for the most constructive purposes. A nation that has just learned what democracy is all about—and it is all about dialogue toward a win-for-all situation, on the basis of mutual respect and in affirmation of our shared humanity.

And I am both proud and humbled to be the leader of such a nation. I thank you.

Oslo, 13 September 2006