|
JAKARTA
POST, 10 Mei 2013
Do you believe your
country is peaceful?
This may seem like a simple question, yet when it was posed to participants at The Habibie Center-ASEAN Foundation roundtable discussion on “The culture of peace in an ASEAN regional perspective” in March, it drew varied responses.
Though all participants answered “yes”, they attached caveats to qualify the term “peace”. These included peace as a process, as a perception and as the absence of conflict.
Additionally, peace was qualified as social peace, political peace and peace from a socio-economic development aspect. The difficulty in answering this question demonstrates the complexity of the issue, namely to define a common understanding of “peace”.
One thing for certain, however, is that leaders of the 10 ASEAN member states who gathered in Brunei Darussalam for the 22nd ASEAN Summit might reflect on a number of deadly conflicts that did not showcase a very peaceful region of late.
Interreligious violence between Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar, the Sabah stand-off between Malaysia and Filipino followers of the Sultan of Sulu and clashes between the Indonesian police and army in South Sumatra are just some examples.
These cases pose disturbing questions about the appropriateness of ASEAN’s ambitious plan to form an ASEAN community in 2015. They arguably make a mockery of ASEAN’s vision of a “concert of Southeast Asian nations […] living in peace, stability and prosperity”.
Here is heart of the issue: What do we mean by “peace”? Participants of The Habibie Center-ASEAN Foundation discussion noted ASEAN’s tendency for an outdated, limited and state-centric perspective on peace, which often led to the oft-expressed but deeply flawed assertion that no wars had broken out in the region since ASEAN was established in 1967.
This may be true if we use ASEAN’s outdated, limited and state-centric perspective on peace but for those involved in interreligious violence in Myanmar, the stand-off in Sabah or the police-military clashes in South Sumatra, it is highly unlikely that the assertion the region is at peace will find much support. For victims, non-traditional conflicts cause no less suffering than classical state-to-state wars.
In this sense, there is a need for a shifting of paradigm when it comes to our understanding of peace. In particular, this new paradigm must be more comprehensive, encompassing and relevant to the 21st century. A good starting point may be The Habibie Center-ASEAN Foundation’s “Key elements of an ASEAN culture of peace and key recommendations toward developing an ASEAN culture of peace”.
It calls for an ASEAN regional perspective on a culture of peace that acknowledges the notion that peace is more than just about the absence of war as well as taking a concern for climate change, ecological security and equitable and sustainable development. This should be applauded for attempting to bring a more comprehensive definition to our understanding of peace.
Similarly, its acknowledgement of the important role of women and youths, not only in peace-building measures and conflict resolution but also in the area of good governance, demonstrates a more encompassing understanding of peace. In other words, peace is more than just about men laying down their firearms but also requires bringing women and youths into the equation. At the same time, the emphasis on education illustrates the embracing of socio-cultural aspects into our understanding of peace that goes beyond the typical emphasis on politico-security and economic considerations.
Lastly its relevance to the 21st century — where we are now witnessing a rise in non-traditional conflicts that departs from classical state-to-state warfare — can be seen in the emphasis in changing mind-sets of the peoples (not states) of ASEAN to realize they are stronger together than as individuals.
The call for us to respect and tolerate one another first and foremost as fellow citizens of ASEAN should be understood as raising our regional citizenship identity relative to our national identity. The old mentality of “us” versus “them” needs to be abandoned as it has no place in the increasingly connected 21st century of globalization.
Related to this point is the call for the greater utilization of information and communication technology, especially social media, to propagate an ASEAN spirit from a bottom-up approach. This is particularly important as the role of social media has sometimes been used to perpetuate conflict through provoking and mobilizing perpetrators of violence. We need to seize such technology as a force for peace rather than for violence.
No doubt, peace remains a complex issue. The use of war and violence is so entrenched around the world that for some, the history of mankind is a history of war. Indeed Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa noted that just as war is waged, so too must peace be waged with equal persistence and perseverance.
By shifting the paradigm on our understanding of peace, we can take one small but significant step in our efforts to wage peace in the region.
Hopefully, when the question “Do you believe your country is peaceful?” is asked in the future, we, the peoples of ASEAN, will all be able to answer “yes” resolutely. ●
This may seem like a simple question, yet when it was posed to participants at The Habibie Center-ASEAN Foundation roundtable discussion on “The culture of peace in an ASEAN regional perspective” in March, it drew varied responses.
Though all participants answered “yes”, they attached caveats to qualify the term “peace”. These included peace as a process, as a perception and as the absence of conflict.
Additionally, peace was qualified as social peace, political peace and peace from a socio-economic development aspect. The difficulty in answering this question demonstrates the complexity of the issue, namely to define a common understanding of “peace”.
One thing for certain, however, is that leaders of the 10 ASEAN member states who gathered in Brunei Darussalam for the 22nd ASEAN Summit might reflect on a number of deadly conflicts that did not showcase a very peaceful region of late.
Interreligious violence between Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar, the Sabah stand-off between Malaysia and Filipino followers of the Sultan of Sulu and clashes between the Indonesian police and army in South Sumatra are just some examples.
These cases pose disturbing questions about the appropriateness of ASEAN’s ambitious plan to form an ASEAN community in 2015. They arguably make a mockery of ASEAN’s vision of a “concert of Southeast Asian nations […] living in peace, stability and prosperity”.
Here is heart of the issue: What do we mean by “peace”? Participants of The Habibie Center-ASEAN Foundation discussion noted ASEAN’s tendency for an outdated, limited and state-centric perspective on peace, which often led to the oft-expressed but deeply flawed assertion that no wars had broken out in the region since ASEAN was established in 1967.
This may be true if we use ASEAN’s outdated, limited and state-centric perspective on peace but for those involved in interreligious violence in Myanmar, the stand-off in Sabah or the police-military clashes in South Sumatra, it is highly unlikely that the assertion the region is at peace will find much support. For victims, non-traditional conflicts cause no less suffering than classical state-to-state wars.
In this sense, there is a need for a shifting of paradigm when it comes to our understanding of peace. In particular, this new paradigm must be more comprehensive, encompassing and relevant to the 21st century. A good starting point may be The Habibie Center-ASEAN Foundation’s “Key elements of an ASEAN culture of peace and key recommendations toward developing an ASEAN culture of peace”.
It calls for an ASEAN regional perspective on a culture of peace that acknowledges the notion that peace is more than just about the absence of war as well as taking a concern for climate change, ecological security and equitable and sustainable development. This should be applauded for attempting to bring a more comprehensive definition to our understanding of peace.
Similarly, its acknowledgement of the important role of women and youths, not only in peace-building measures and conflict resolution but also in the area of good governance, demonstrates a more encompassing understanding of peace. In other words, peace is more than just about men laying down their firearms but also requires bringing women and youths into the equation. At the same time, the emphasis on education illustrates the embracing of socio-cultural aspects into our understanding of peace that goes beyond the typical emphasis on politico-security and economic considerations.
Lastly its relevance to the 21st century — where we are now witnessing a rise in non-traditional conflicts that departs from classical state-to-state warfare — can be seen in the emphasis in changing mind-sets of the peoples (not states) of ASEAN to realize they are stronger together than as individuals.
The call for us to respect and tolerate one another first and foremost as fellow citizens of ASEAN should be understood as raising our regional citizenship identity relative to our national identity. The old mentality of “us” versus “them” needs to be abandoned as it has no place in the increasingly connected 21st century of globalization.
Related to this point is the call for the greater utilization of information and communication technology, especially social media, to propagate an ASEAN spirit from a bottom-up approach. This is particularly important as the role of social media has sometimes been used to perpetuate conflict through provoking and mobilizing perpetrators of violence. We need to seize such technology as a force for peace rather than for violence.
No doubt, peace remains a complex issue. The use of war and violence is so entrenched around the world that for some, the history of mankind is a history of war. Indeed Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa noted that just as war is waged, so too must peace be waged with equal persistence and perseverance.
By shifting the paradigm on our understanding of peace, we can take one small but significant step in our efforts to wage peace in the region.
Hopefully, when the question “Do you believe your country is peaceful?” is asked in the future, we, the peoples of ASEAN, will all be able to answer “yes” resolutely. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar