Can media de-escalate conflict? Nani Afrida   ;   A Journalist, Currently A Student of International Peace Studies at the United Nations Mandated University for Peace (UPEACE) in Costa Rica

                                                JAKARTA POST,  22 Januari 2014

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

“Sir, do you have a plan to upgrade the security approach in Papua?” “No, no, the situation in Papua is still under control. It is still under civil order.” “But the situation in Papua has become worse; do you think the government will upgrade the approach in the future?” Those questions were raised by journalists to a senior military officer at the Presidential Palace on Dec. 1, 2011. It was Papuan National Day, when clashes between soldiers and Free Papua Movement (OPM) rebels are often reported.  The journalists’ questions were simple and the answers would be good for headline news stories, but I — who was also present — felt terrified. It would have been dreadful for Papuans if the government finally decided to upgrade civil order to civil emergency or martial law. But it would have been even more horrible if the decision to do so had been inspired by journalists’ questions.  As a local journalist who previously worked in Aceh, I lived under martial law in 2003-2004 and under civil emergency in 2004. The Acehnese lived in fear, cornered by members of either the Indonesian Military (TNI) or the then Free Aceh Movement (GAM). All activities were stopped and people tended to stay at home rather than risk their lives. Journalists in Aceh had to be extra cautious; otherwise, they would be summoned to military headquarters for interrogation if their stories were considered to have put soldiers’ lives at risk.  I could not understand why my colleagues asked those questions about Papua. Maybe they did not realize that their questions could have endangered Papuans, locally based journalists and soldiers, and lead to an escalation in the conflict there. Or maybe they were under their editors or employers’ pressure to get headline news. It is no longer a secret that journalists tend to make sensational news during wartime, which have sometimes jeopardized peace efforts. New technology and social media have contributed to tighter competition; thus, sensational news is an easy survival method. Peace and conflict studies cite the media’s role in three phases of conflicts: pre-conflict, during conflict and post conflict. Other players include the government, military, insurgency groups and so on. However, just like the other actors involved, the media can escalate or de-escalate a conflict. There are so many theories relating to “peace journalism” and “conflict-sensitive journalism”, but applying them depends on a journalist’s knowledge and sensitivity. Meanwhile, the media industry is focused on gaining more revenue, rather than thinking how to make peace.  Alvaro Sierra, a lecturer for peace and conflict studies, noted how journalists could also promote peace, including by acting as mediators between the two conflict parties. He cited an attempt by CBS’ famed newsman, Walter Cronkite, who had interviewed both then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin in 1977. At that time of tension between the two nations, Sadat had earlier said he would be ready to go to Jerusalem if he could prevent Egyptian soldiers from being killed. Cronkite then managed to interview both leaders, and managed to encourage them to meet in Jerusalem.  The “Cronkite Diplomacy”, as it was dubbed, was criticized as a journalist attempting to be a mediator. However, Cronkite argued that he was merely curious. He told Time magazine, “I don’t think a journalist should become involved in high-level diplomacy.” Others have cited British correspondent Patrick Seale, who is considered to have broken the deadlock in Israeli-Syrian negotiations in 2000, and the murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was seen as mediating between the Russian government and Chechen terrorists when the latter held 700 hostages in 2004. Among media outlets promoting peace is the website amankiasha.com that focuses on promoting peace between Pakistan and India, which was established by two leading media houses, The Jang Group in Pakistan and The Times of India in India.  What about in Indonesia? Not only must Indonesia deal with internal conflicts due to diverse ethnicities, cultures and religions, it also faces non-conventional potential conflicts from terrorism, migrants and border disputes.  However, we rarely see the involvement of media outlets and journalists in attempting to de-escalate conflict. When I was working for local media in Aceh during 2000-2003, newspapers often displayed fully armed GAM militiamen on their front pages — a great sales strategy. But the media blow-up of the presence of GAM, regardless of the movement’s diverse strength in different areas, contributed to more massive military operations, creating more tension and casualties. Indonesia desperately needs journalists who have the ability to de-escalate conflict. A journalist should be both sensitive and creative to deal with situations, and that is not easy. Training is a must, but it should involve daily practices in areas other than theoretical discussions. Journalists must first and foremost understand the background of a conflict; to misunderstand a conflict will only escalate it, adding to the risk for locals. Media outlets should remember the duty they have to be a watchdog and peacemaker rather than acting as provocateurs. Sometimes the media forgets that heightened conflict will only result in a level of harm to itself that will outweigh any benefits derived by netting greater revenue.  During armed conflict, several media outlets have had their journalists killed, and anger from any side in a conflict against a particular media outlet that is perceived as publishing or broadcasting news that discredits them, leads to great difficulty for the journalists to access news sources.  However, the core problem for media in conflict situations is when it loses its independence or is accidentally trapped between two conflicting parties.  It is time for media outlets to think ahead and recognize that the media in general and journalists in particular should de-escalate conflict; not only for the sake of the public but also for their own interests.  The writer is a journalist and currently a student of International Peace Studies at the United Nations Mandated University for Peace (UPEACE) in Costa Rica. ●

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? ●