Aceh’s flag : A human rights approach

Aceh’s flag : A human rights approach Harison Citrawan  ;  A Researcher at the Human Rights Research and Development Agency, the Law and Human Rights Ministry

JAKARTA POST, 18 April 2013

  

The ongoing controversy surrounding the Aceh provincial flag under qanun (bylaw) No. 3/2013 arises from the fact that it resembles the flag of the now defunct secessionist group the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). As well as taking a legal approach to this issue, it can also be discerned from the application of human rights principles. The establishment of special autonomy status in Aceh is a form of intrastate agreement that is derived from the Aceh people’s right to self-determination. As this right allows people to freely determine their own political status, the Acehnese have the right to forge their legitimate claims politically, including the creation of a local flag, as enshrined under the Helsinki peace accord that Indonesia and the GAM signed in 2005. Theoretically speaking, such an intrastate autonomy agreement has several important advantages, especially when it is contested with the threat of secession. A. Buchanan (2004) speaks of three advantages.  First, uncoupling the right to secede from legitimate interests that groups may have in various forms of intrastate autonomy is liberating. It allows groups to get what they need without the risks involved in secession.  Second, states will be more receptive to legitimate claims for autonomy if they are assured that they can respond to these without implicitly recognizing the group’s right to secede.  Third, the justice-based account of the unilateral right to secede focuses attention on the need to provide better protection for human rights. Human rights have two essential elements: the permission or liberty and a correlative obligation. On the one hand, self-determination provides people with the permission or liberty to determine their own political status and natural resources. On the other, it places a limitation on the correlative obligations of people exercising their rights. As for the issue of the Aceh flag, while national laws allow this province to design its own flag freely, the Acehnese will also weigh up the limits or correlative obligations that should be respected in exercising the right to self-determination.  Under Article 1, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, member states shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination and shall respect that right in conformity with the provisions of the charter of the United Nations (UN).  At this point, we may pinpoint the nexus between these norms, that the realization of the right to self-determination has to be within the UN’s principle objective of maintaining peace and security. As a result of this, member states have to preserve international peace and security to promote this right. In brief, the exercise of the right to self-determination shall not obstruct international peace and security. Another set of limitations on exercising the right to self-determination is that it should also be limited by the rights of others. Arguably, in exercising this right, every person must take into account the other’s human right and failing to do so could be regarded as an infringement of human rights. The exercise of self-determination in this context must regard the national interest as a whole. Departing from these limitations of self-determination, we turn to the illegitimate rule of the Aceh flag. First, given the resemblance of the flag with the GAM’s, the complaint of the central government is legitimate , as the flag itself could revive old hostilities. The home minister’s rejection of the qanun is justified under human rights norms, as the restriction is expressly stipulated by law and is necessary in a democratic society for the protection of national security and public order.  Second, the respect of the rights of others, that is to say other provinces or the nation as a whole, would justify the legality of the self-determination exercise. Self-determination is a process rather than an end,  “a continuum of rights” that provides “a plethora of possible solutions” (Pomerance, 1982). From a human rights vantage point, the practice of this right in Aceh through special autonomy status should focus on the legitimate purpose of achieving justice and prosperity. ●

Will the Acehnese salute the Indonesian flag?

Will the Acehnese salute the Indonesian flag? Muhammad Adlin  ;   Doctorate Degree in Economic Sociology from University of Indonesia, Co-Editor of Serambi Mekkah yang Berubah (The Changing Veranda of Mecca: Views from Within), Aceh Research Training Institute (ARTI) and PT Alvabet, 2010

JAKARTA POST, 04 April 2013

Indonesia’s Independence Day on Aug. 17 is still a long way off. But an intriguing question has loomed as to whether the people of Aceh will mark the day as one of national unity and reconciliation and salute the national flag? Or will they raise and salute the flag of now defunct Free Aceh Movement (GAM) instead? Since the Indonesian government and GAM leaders signed a peace agreement in Helsinki on Aug. 15, 2005, that brought nearly three decades of armed rebellion to an end, GAM’s flag and its other attributes have been banned.  The flag issue has resurfaced and renewed debate after the Aceh Legislative Council passed a qanun (ordinance) making GAM’s crescent moon and star flag and the Bouraq-lion symbol the province’s official flag and coat of arms. House of Representatives lawmakers were quick to accuse Aceh of violating the Constitution and law.  The peace accord says the local Aceh government can decide upon a new flag, anthem and other regalia after holding an election.  Therefore, it is not a decision for ex-GAM combatants, but the elected legislature (DPRA) and the autonomous province of Aceh in consultation with the House.  Interestingly, the new flag was approved nearly unanimously by Aceh councilors. The question is, has the DPRA consulted with the House in Jakarta on the matter? I doubt it.  Beyond the constitutional and legal issues, the feeling of being Indonesians among Aceh people is visible, although it should not be assumed that it extends to their respect for the national red-and-white flag. As a researcher and tutor at Syiah Kuala State University in Banda Aceh from 2008 to 2009 and a witness of the first anniversary of Aceh tsunami on Dec. 26, 2005, I got the impression that most Acehnese I met felt comfortable and happy about being part of Indonesia. My travels further north to Lhokseumawe confirmed that sentiment.  This happiness is obvious as Aceh has been granted special autonomy, which includes the right to establish local political parties to articulate Acehnese interests at the local legislative council and to formalize sharia. Former GAM leaders and Aceh laymen I met in the field mostly said they were proud of being both Indonesian and Acehnese.  Having said that, in August this year there will be an even greater celebration of the historic peace deal that led to Aceh’s special autonomy. The Acehnese will all rejoice on that day as the time of their reconciliation with Indonesia. The Acehnese have waited for this momentous occasion for a long time after the Aceh rebellion led by Daud Bereueh from 1953 to 1963 and the Aceh independence movement under charismatic GAM leader Hasan di Tiro from 1976 to 2005, which left 15,000 dead.  During that time, the Acehnese experienced enduring misery until a devastating tsunami hit the province on Dec. 26, 2004, which saw 170,000 people perish.  To many people, including me, the tsunami was a blessing in disguise as it led to an eternal peace.  There was a perception that the tsunami was punishment for the moral crisis facing the predominantly Muslim province. This was partly the reason behind the stricter enforcement of sharia and the introduction of the controversial sharia police in the region.  But, to always link Aceh and sharia so as to create a nuance of the Middle East is totally wrong. Many people I met in Jakarta and Australia were of the opinion that Aceh had turned into an Arab province within Indonesia only after the political decision on the Acehnese flag was made. Besides, the crescent moon and star in the flag is the core symbol of Islamic teachings. During a seminar on March 25 organized by the school of humanities and social sciences (HASS), UNSW ADFA, Canberra, I argued that there was no single picture when one talked about Aceh. It is therefore crucial to view Aceh beyond the issue of sharia.  In literature, adat or custom has equal footing with Islam in Acehnese history. The two are like two sides of the same coin as exemplified in a local poem “Adat bak peutoumeurouhoem, hukum bak syiah kuala”. Adat belongs to peutoumeurouhoem (elder) and hukum or sharia belongs to Tengku Syiah Kuala (Islamic cleric) (James T. Siegel, 1969). In terms of sharia implementation, the highland Aceh (Gayo) observe Islam differently to those of lowland Aceh (John Bowen, 1995).  Looking at the attitude of the Acehnese, there is a positive dynamic among the people themselves toward the revival of past symbols and institutions. For example, Gayo youth marched on the main roads of Aceh to rally against the ordinance on the Acehnese flag, saying the flag misrepresented the Gayo community.  The issue of the revival of local institutions and culture, as well as Islamic values, is mostly proposed by older people, while young people prefer to talk more about the current needs of the Acehnese. For them, the Acehnese flag is a matter of past memories. So, let the Acehnese decide what’s best for them. ●

When Aceh’s flag creates fear

When Aceh’s flag creates fear Nani Afrida  ;   A Journalist with The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 03 April 2013

  

As a local journalist who covered the Aceh conflict during the 2000s, I and many colleagues had the opportunity to interview Free Aceh Movement (GAM) fighters. After the interviews, we often exchanged souvenirs. We would give the GAM fighters T-shirts, key holders or caps, while they handed us GAM-symbolized pins or GAM flags in return. The GAM flag is red with a white crescent and star in the middle, flanked by black and white bars, while GAM’s symbol features a lion and a buraq (a mythical horse with wings and a human face). For the Acehnese, keeping GAM’s flags or other regalia placed them in danger. We had to hide it carefully, otherwise the Indonesian security forces would accuse us of being close to GAM and perhaps arrest us. I remember once when my mother accidentally found a GAM flag among the books on my shelves. She looked more afraid than angry. “Never ever bring this flag in here again,” she yelled at me after burying it in the backyard. My mother’s feeling was shared by other Acehnese everytime they found GAM flags near their houses during GAM’s anniversary every Dec. 4. People were traumatized by the flags as they were afraid of being troubled by the security forces, who usually tortured or arrested anyone in possession of such a flag. This was a horrible time for the Acehnese. On March 24, the Aceh Provincial Legislative Council (DPRA) passed a local bylaw (perda), known as qanun No. 3/2013, which endorses the GAM flag as the provincial flag and the GAM symbol as Aceh’s symbol. DPRA speaker Hasbi Abdullah said the flag and symbol would unite the people of Aceh. Hasbi is a prominent figure in the Aceh Party, a local party consisting of former GAM members. “The Aceh flag is also a manifestation of the Acehenese people’s cultural struggle,” he said. Aceh Governor Zaini Abdullah, who is Hasbi’s brother, said that if the central government approved the qanun, the current Pancacita flag, which has been used since 1961, would be revoked and no longer be used. Zaini, previously GAM’s health minister, said the flag change was based on Law No.11/2006 on Aceh government. He added that the change of flag and symbol would be conducted gradually, urging residents not to raise the new flags just yet. As an Acehnese, I doubted that the GAM flag would be able to fly legally as fears of the danger it caused still haunted the minds of many Acehenese. However, I was proven wrong as the majority of Acehenese seem happy with the decision. People in several areas in Aceh have started to raise the flag, with thousands at rallies with the flags in the capital, Banda Aceh, showing their excitement. The mood was a reminder of the people’s demands for a referendum in 2000. Some friends of mine are putting the GAM flag as profile pictures on their BlackBerry smartphones, while others eagerly ask whether the central government has approved the qanun. The central government, on the other hand, looks unhappy with the Aceh government’s decision. Jakarta-based experts and politicians keep complaining that the central government should not accommodate the move to make the GAM flag the provincial flag of Aceh. Such concerns from Jakarta are understandable as people may conclude that if the central government endorses the flag, which symbolizes separatism, Aceh may then ask for independence. The central government must be aware of this possible scenario. Others may think that endorsing the GAM flag as Aceh’s provincial flag will spoil an already peaceful situation, particularly the relationship between Aceh and Jakarta. In response, both Zaini and Hasbi have stated that there was no intention for Aceh to be free from Indonesia and that the flag is meant only to unite the Acehenese in achieving prosperity. One important aspect of the endorsement of the GAM flag as the Aceh provincial flag was part of the central government’s earlier commitment that the Acehnese select a flag and symbol for the province. Such a commitment was mentioned in the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Indonesia and the GAM in Helsinki in 2005. Trust is the most important thing for the province, which had contributed many things before Indonesia’s independence. Aceh attained peace because of trust. If the central government ignores the promise, there will be another problem for peace in Aceh because people in Aceh believe the flag issue is not the only promise being reneged upon by Jakarta. Several things in the peace agreement have yet to be implemented – the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission (KKR), a human rights court and the revenue sharing commitment. The issue of human rights is very serious for victims in Aceh as they need to find the truth. After more than eight years of peace in Aceh, none of the victims have received justice because of a dead end in national regulations. Human rights victims are also dissapointed as the 2005 MoU runs counter to the 2006 Aceh Government Law. For instance, Article 227 of the law mentions that cases before 2006 cannot be processed in Aceh’s human rights court. In fact, human rights violations in Aceh happened before 2006. Another promise is about a 70 percent share of the revenues from oil and gas reserves. The Acehnese have long blamed the central government’s greed for their poverty, as most of the revenues from the province’s resources have gone to the state’s coffers. For the Acehnese, a promise is a promise. They will be dissapointed if the central government does not keep its word, just like during the eras of Sukarno and Soeharto. However, if the central government finally approves the red flag as the Aceh provincial flag, I still cannot imagine how my mother would feel. I hope she is not afraid anymore, but who knows? ●