1

Proceedings

EU-Indonesia Day Pluralism and Democracy: Indonesian Perspectives

Thursday, 7 December 2006

9.00 – 18.15 hrs

European Commission Charlemagne Building

Brussels, Belgium

On 7 December 2006, the European Commission together with the European Institute for Asian Studies organized a conference in the Charlemagne Building aimed at addressing the challenges facing Indonesia as an emerging democracy and the prospects for EU-Indonesia relations for the next few years. The ‘EU-Indonesia Day’ assembled around 100 participants (officials, diplomats, parliamentarians, academics, NGOs, think tanks) from the European Union and Asian countries. EU-Indonesia Day constituted a sound opportunity to identify and discuss, in the presence of major European and Indonesian stakeholders, the issues underlying the challenge of protecting and promoting pluralism and democracy in the Indonesian society.

The conference was divided into three main parts with opening addresses by H.E. Dr. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the European Commission in charge of External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy and Mr. Din Syamsuddin, Chairman of Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s largest Muslim social and educational organization and Professor of Islamic political thought at the National Islamic University in Jakarta. A first panel discussion, in the morning, was devoted to the subject of ‘Religion and Politics’. In the afternoon, a second panel addressed the interplay between ‘Democracy and Conflict Resolution’. The third panel discussed the issues related to ‘Indonesia in the new East Asian Context’.

European Institute for Asian Studies

European Commission, DG External Relations

2

Opening Addresses After a brief introduction by Mr. Seamus Gillespie, Head of Unit (SE Asia) of the European Commission, H.E. Dr Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations, devoted her opening address to underlining the opportunities for Indonesia and the EU to build on the common ground between them with regard to the global challenges to face and the way to solve them. Mr. Din Syamsuddin, Chairman of Muhammadiyah, judged the crucial questions of the moment to be, on the one hand, whether democracy can flourish in a country as diverse as Indonesia and, on the other hand, what role Islam can play in this context, especially with regard to the need to ensure that democracy and pluralism can reinforce each other.

H.E. Dr Benita Ferrero-Waldner (Commissioner for DG RELEX) with Mr. Din Syamsuddin (Chairman of Muhammadiyah) and Ms. Gagarin (Chargé d’Affaires of the Indonesian Embassy and Mission to the EU). Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner said that the day’s theme of ‘Pluralism and Democracy’ goes to the ‘…heart of the debate about what it means to be a state in the 21st century…’, as well as to the heart of the debate about identity and about the individual’s relation with the State. These issues are not confined to particular parts of the world. Building and then sustaining democracy requires constant vigilance in order to ensure that fundamental values and fundamental rights are protected and promoted. Tolerance and respect are watchwords. But how can tolerance and respect be built and reinforced in a highly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation? In other words, how to accommodate difference whilst ensuring that fundamental standards are respected? In helping fighting the ignorance often underlying intercultural tensions, dialogue is essential. That holds true both within and between States. However dialogue shall not be reduced to a question of assimilation of a group by another, or of any community giving up core beliefs and values which are close to their heart. Democracy provides a mechanism by which differences are resolved peacefully, and by which various viewpoints are heard, discussed and respected. How to promote democracy and dialogue in the culturally rich context of Indonesia? Although not being formally an Islamic State, Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world and has a leadership committed to dialogue and reform. Indonesia is ideally placed to promote virtues of pluralism and

3

democracy to the South Asian region and to the international community in its whole. For its part, the European Union is committed – in particular through the forthcoming new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Indonesia – to foster its dialogue and to maintain its support for the Indonesian government’s efforts. As Mr. Din Syamsuddin explained in his keynote address on ‘Islam, Pluralism and Democracy in Indonesia’, democracy is not new to Indonesia – the country adopted a parliamentary democracy system from its independence until 1957. However, democracy was on a long ‘vacation’ from 1957 to 1998, when the successive Sukarno and Suharto governments imposed a form of authoritarian rule. Accordingly, what Indonesia has been experimenting with since 1998 is an endeavour to restore democracy. Parliamentary and presidential elections took place on 5 April, 5 July and 20 September 2004, in a peaceful and democratic way, representing a significant step towards the consolidation of the democratic process. The European Union Election Observation Mission assessed the elections very positively. The election of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has confirmed the Indonesia people’s will to keep the track of Reformasi that had progressively been abandoned by his predecessor. However Indonesia’s society has evolved tremendously in the last four decades and the endeavour to consolidate democracy is taking place in a relatively new socio-economic context. Indonesia was hit hard by the Asian financial crisis of 1997/1998. In 1998/9, GDP shrank by about 14% and despite some revival since then, growth rates of around 3 to 4% per annum have not managed to reduce poverty and unemployment back to levels prevailing before 1996. The Indonesian economy is now displaying stable macro-economic indicators achieved by scrupulously implementing the International Monetary Fund’s restructuring programme. However significant progress remains to be made in order to reduce the number of households still living on incomes below the poverty line. Indonesia is one of the most heterogeneous nations on earth. Diversity – especially in terms of religion, ethnicity and ideology – remains the most important feature of the country. Indonesia is a plural society which comprises more than 17 000 islands, 400 ethnic groups, as well as various customs, religions and beliefs. The total population is about 250 millions inhabitants. From this population, Muslims serve as a majority (approx. 88% Muslims, 7% Protestants, 2,5% Catholics, 1,5% Hinduism, 0,5% Buddhists and 1% other beliefs/animists). However despite the large Muslim majority, Indonesia is not an Islamic State. The Indonesian Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar, 1945) is not based on Shari’a but on Pancasila, a form of national ideology established as official State foundation. Nevertheless the fall of the New Order regime in 1998 had reopened the debate about the compatibility of Islam and democracy, but the Indonesia experience has clearly shown that compatibility.

4

Panel I: Religion and Politics Independent Indonesia was created neither as a strictly secular nor as a Muslim State. Today, the identity question re-emerges. Are politics becoming more influenced by religion and is religious tolerance – the hallmark of Indonesia’s Islam – under threat? Are religious forces, from majority Islam and from the other minority religions, responding properly to the challenges to nurture the values of democracy and pluralism? To what extent can the European Union contribute? The first panel, coordinated by Mr. Nico Schulte-Nordholt (Professor, University of Twente) together with Mr. Djohan Effendi (Chair, Indonesian Conference on Religion and Peace), was devoted to the issue of the very complex interplay between religion and politics. The debate among the panelists and with the public on the issues of pluralism and the prospects of democracy in post-Soharto Indonesia raised several issues. Most of these issues related to the role played by Islam and the effects of religion – in particular of Shari’a – on social and political developments.

Panelists of the Panel I. (from left to right): Mr. Syafi’i Anwar, Ms Suraiya Kamaruzzaman, Mr Djohan Effendi, Mr Nico Schulte Nordholt, Ms Eva Kusama Sundari, Mr. Trisno S. Sutanto, Mr Yuhairi B. Misrawi Interfaith dialogue and politics of identity: religious pluralism shall not be equated with religious relativism One of the most significant achievements of the post-Suharto regime is the amendment of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution aimed at including a long list of human rights provisions, notably a very liberal provision regarding freedom of religion. Legally speaking, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion has a secured foundation in the Indonesian system. However, the discourse on the relationship between religion and the State has lead to conceptual tensions and political troubles and conflicts among Muslim radicals, conservatives, and progressive/liberals. Whilst the elections of 2004 have been regarded as

5

the culmination of Indonesia’s experiment of democracy and as an enlightening example of the compatibility of Islam with democratic values, the current situation in Indonesia is marred by incidents and by the rise of Islamic radicalization. As underscored by the participants to the conference, radical conservative movements are characterized by three major features: (1) strict and exclusive Shari’a mindset; (2) anti-pluralism agenda and (3) gender inequality and domestication of women. Facing this situation, moderate and progressive/liberal Indonesian Muslims, as well as non-Muslim communities, try to challenge the Islamic resurgence and the agenda which underlies it. The role of moderate Muslim organizations in bridging the dialogue and in explaining the debate to the Indonesian people is essential as is the role played by non-religious political parties and Islamic perspectives regarding the religion of others and the protection of religious minorities. Muhammadiyah and Nahdhatul Ulama are the two largest Islamic organizations having struggled since the beginning of the 20th century to establish a modern and moderate Islam in Indonesia. Committed to a form of inclusive and modern theology, the two organizations have played a considerable role not only as a moderating force, but also as a moral force persistently striving for a betterment of the social situation. Rejecting radicalism and terrorism, they have been at the forefront of promoting education, and tolerance, providing social and health services, empowerment and improving the standards of living as well as pushing for democracy and good governance. As formulated by Mr. Din Syamsuddin during his intervention, the Islamic ‘mainstream’ aims to strike a balance between spiritualism and political activism on the one hand, and between spiritualism and rationalism on the other. Indeed as recalled by Mr. Zuhairi B. Misrawi (Coordinator of P3M, Organisation for Islamic Boarding Schools), NU recently restated its commitment to defend and support Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution within the framework of the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. In addition to moderate Muslim organisations, non-governmental organizations are vigorously engaging in strengthening civil society by promoting the compatibility of Islam with democracy, human rights, pluralism and gender equality. The emergence of this progressive/liberal Islam appears, for instance, through the activities of the young Muslims having created the Liberal Islam Network (Jaringan Islam Liberal), which advocates in favour of the deconstruction of Shari’a, promotion of pluralism, diversity and gender equality. The vast majority of Indonesians are moderate and denounce violence as a means to resolving differences. Nevertheless, as underlined by Mr. Din Syamsuddin, there is a clear trend in Indonesian Islam towards a stronger spiritual orientation of Muslim communities. This trend is evinced notably through the rise of religious gatherings like majelis taklim or pengajian (religious circle) and the emphasis of Islamic symbolism and practice in daily life and should be interpreted as a search for identity. As pointed out by Mr. Syafi’i Anwar (Executive Director of the International Centre for Islam and Pluralism), disruptive globalization has created a crisis of identity within the Muslim community, the fear being that greater globalization and economies’ interdependencies will lead to greater social fragmentation and have negative effects on family ties, moral values, national identity and cultural character. Radical propaganda, disseminated through the printed and electronic medias, TVs and radio stations, some of which disseminate extremely violent messages, deserves extremely close attention and vigilance from the part of the authorities. Mr Syafi’i Anwar

6

Ensuring respect for freedom of religion and beliefs remains a topical challenge to the Indonesian people and government. Inter-religious, interfaith as well as inter-beliefs dialogues should be consolidated. This issue was raised by Mr. Trisno S. Sutanto (Executive Director of MADIA, the Society for Inter-religious Dialogue), who drew attention to the particular interpretation of the concept of agama in Indonesia. In brief, agama is understood, in the Indonesian context, as ‘State-recognised religion’ vis-à-vis those who are called bellum beragama i.e. ‘people who have not yet converted to one of the State-recognised religions’. The establishment of PAKEM in 1954 (the body created for the supervision of mystical beliefs in Indonesia), as a powerful means to monitor and control religious/beliefs groups, has been a determining element in the politics of agama and has had – and still has – far reaching consequences on religious pluralism and on the implementation of freedom of religion and beliefs in the country. Attention should be paid to the functioning of this body and to its influence on the respect for pluralism and multiculturalism in Indonesia. However in no sense shall ensuring and promoting religious pluralism is perceived as a cover for ‘missionary’ activities aiming at converting Muslims. It is on the contrary an issue of democracy and universally recognized human rights protection for all, men and women. Impact of the decentralization process: dualism of regulation, introduction of Shari’a and politicization of religion Following the democratic transition, Indonesia has adopted a policy of decentralization, which is now progressively being implemented. The decentralization policy was designed as means to improve the democratization process of the country. However, today the issue of the formalization of Shari’a is at the heart of the politics of autonomy granted by Jakarta to the provinces. Indeed in a certain number of provinces, local administrations – seeming to consider that greater regional autonomy signifies an opportunity to implement certain aspects of Islamic law – are promulgating Shari’a based district regulations worryingly discriminating against vulnerable groups, in particular against women. Islamic political groups took advantage of the end of the authoritarian regime in Indonesia to promote the enforcement of Shari’a at the level of local bylaws and regulations. Indeed as underscored by Mr. Syafi’i Anwar, regional leaders, having capitalized on this for their own political interests, use the morality argument citing the failure of the secular laws and of the State in addressing socio-political issues, spread of corruption and the ongoing economic crisis, as reasons for the need of Shari’a based rules. Moderate progressive Muslim warn about the dangerous implications of Shari’a based local regulations on the democratization process in Indonesia, especially the risk of weakening social and national integration. Three main societal groups are in particular likely to suffer from their implementation: the poor, minority groups and women. From a rule of law perspective, Shari’a based regulations and bylaws are extremely problematic: firstly, for the reason that Indonesia has explicitly rejected the formalization of Shari’a Islam in its Constitution; secondly, because of the obstacles these bylaws pose in the light of international human rights obligations bounding Indonesia, in particular the provisions of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

7

Gender equality: Discrimination against women through local regulations

Ms Suraiya Kamaruzzaman

The inclusion of Shari’a within local administrations and districts mainly concerns regulations of daily life obligations, such as the allocation of time for religious education at school, the collection and distribution of zakat, the performance of prayers and recitation of Qur’an. However a certain number of regulations are especially directed towards women. As underlined by several panelists, they constitute a specific source of concern in the light of the democratization process in the country. Indeed, in a number of districts, strict local regulations limit women activities. During the conference, a special consideration was given to the situation in Aceh, where the implementation of Shari’a based regulations has created tension. Beside their frequent discriminatory effects towards women, the tensions deriving from these bylaws essentially relate to the risk of legal uncertainty and failing implementation of justice at the local level. Indeed, in addition to their content which is generally per se violating human rights and freedoms – especially women rights – these regulations are often drafted in an extremely imprecise manner leaving a wide margin of interpretation to the Shari’a police.

In their highly interesting interventions, Ms Eva Kusama Sundari (Member of the House of Representatives, MP, see photo on the left) and Ms Suraiya Kamaruzzaman (Executive Director of Flower Aceh) highlighted the consequences of decentralization on the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms for women. Ms Kusama Sundari showed, for instance, that among all the local regulations adopted in 2006, 27 were concerned with issues regarding morality and religion, 14 were discriminating against women and only 3 laws – adopted at the village level, not even district level – were supporting women’s status. The discrimination enshrined in these laws, which is affecting women directly or indirectly, takes different forms ranging from differentiation

measures to limitation, exclusion or alienation policies. Although national laws by and large do comply with international and constitutional guarantees, from a gender perspective, the situation at the level of local regulations is extremely worrying. This situation impacts not only the status of women – especially their status under criminal law – but also the security situation at the national and regional levels and, more generally, the whole country as a rule of law based State. The behaviour of Shari’a police/militia, which often holds more power than the police itself, constitutes a particular source of concern, especially in the context of the drafting of police/military reform support programmes. These assertions were confirmed and sustained by Ms Suraiya Kamaruzzaman who offered details of her experience of living and working in the province of Aceh, where Shari’a received official recognition in 1999.

8

Decentralisation and law enforcement: the need to reconcile Indonesia’s national and international undertakings with regulations at the local level There is an urgent need to reconcile Indonesia’s national and international undertakings with regulations at the local level. Uncertain socio-political conditions – as well as the State’s failures regarding law enforcement and the fight against corruption and crime – constitute significant factors driving the rise of radical conservative Islam movements, which capitalize on this situation to impose Shari’a as an alternative. Even if, in the light of international human rights standards, certain national rules remain problematic – especially for their direct or indirect effect on minorities and women rights (e.g. attention was drawn during the conference on a draft anti-pornography national law which go past its initial objective to restrict some women rights) –, the problem lies elsewhere. Whilst national laws in Indonesia are often very responsive to international standards, the difficulty lies in the fact that this responsiveness is not translated at the local/district level. In this regard, one of the most serious problems relates to the de facto dualism of criminal legislation. The role of the central government is essential in upholding and strengthening law enforcement in Indonesia. In other words, as underlined by Mr. Syafi’i Anwar, there is a need for the Indonesian State to firmly use its constitutional authority to re-examine, review or revoke Shari’a bylaws and regulations which contradict constitutional understandings within the framework of the Unitary State Republic of Indonesia and the spirit of the 1945 Constitution. The resurgence of the demand for the formalization of Shari’a at the local level is to be taken seriously. Empowering the people through education and participation: radicalism as an outcome of ignorance

The need to enhance the investments in education and training in Indonesia was highlighted by all the participants. The debate regarding democracy and pluralism is firmly entwined with the implementation of the right to education. In a country as diverse as Indonesia, characterized by its plurality of cultures, ethnic groups, languages and religions, no genuine democratic development can be started without dialogue and mutual understanding. Radicalism being the outcome of fear and ignorance, empowering the people constitutes the starting point of any valid deliberative or discursive process. In this context, special attention shall be drawn to the right to education and the right to participation of minorities and vulnerable groups, especially women. Panel II: Democracy and Conflict Resolution Within a short span, Indonesia has undergone a most remarkable transition from authoritarian to democratic government. In addition, violent domestic conflicts have been addressed. What are the forces behind such changes and what forces are opposing change? Can conflict resolution in Aceh serve as a model for other conflicts, like Papua, or elsewhere? Panel II of the EU-Indonesia day focused on the relationships between re-instating democratic governance and resolving conflicts in the post-Suharto era. Political, institutional and analytical perspectives were offered by respectively Mr Simon Morin Member of Parliament, representing Papua for Golkar in Jakarta since 1992, Mr John Quigley, Editor of the EurAsia Bulletin, evaluating the EU and ASEAN contributions to the

9

resolution of the Aceh conflict, and Dr Gerry van Klinken of Leiden University, offering a taxonomy of conflict, distinguishing between causes and their political and human impacts. Further, three accounts based on first-hand observations and corroborations were offered by Mr Faisal Hadi of the Aceh coalition of Human Rights NGOs, by Mr Qaasim Mathar of the Islamic University Makassar Muhammadiya and by Mr Aguswandi of Tapol, a human and political rights advocacy.

Panellists of the Panel II (from left to right): Mr John Quigley, Mr Faisal Hadi, Mr Aguswandi, Mr Willem van der Geest, Mr Simon Morin, Mr Gerry van Klinken, Mr Qaasim Mathar The second panel of the ‘EU-Indonesia Day’ aimed at addressing the multifaceted interplay between democracy and conflict resolution in Indonesia, by focusing on the challenges and prospects of decentralization policies, with a particular emphasis on Aceh and Papua. Indonesia is a country of transition where a number of conflicts remain, both geographical and socio-economic conflicts. How to manage conflict resolution processes in this context? Above all, how to solve – not merely stop – differences and tensions before they escalate into conflicts? Facing the deficiencies of hardline security and military measures, decentralization policies have been presented as a possible solution. However experience shows that decentralization has often been far too much idealized. How to avoid the capture of decentralization processes by small powerful oligarchies? In other words, how could democracy and decentralization reinforce each other? As explained by Mr. Quasim Mathar, there are at least three conflicts areas in Indonesia: in Aceh (in Sumatera), Ambon (in Maluku) and Poso (in Sulawesi). Papua could be added as a fourth conflict zone. However the conflict in Papua is not originated from religious issues, as what happened in the three other provinces. In Papua the conflict and its separatist implications essentially arose from an unfair exploitation of natural resources in the region.

10

In addressing these questions, as underlined by Mr. Simon Morin, there should be no trade-off between achieving stability and promoting democracy. Indeed experience has shown that an early investment in democracy and human rights is the best way to ensure stability in the long run. As underlined by Mr. Quasim Mathar, plurality and diversity require the existence of a democratic spirit in any conflict resolution design, a spirit which puts all parties equally in enhancing freely their thoughts. What is needed is an ‘open dialogue about hidden fears’, in particular about the hidden fear that local autonomies would lead to national disintegration. The less democratic a conflict resolution is, the less time an agreement will last (if only it is achieved). Communal conflicts and decentralisation Could communal violence be a side-effect of democratization? Dr van Klinken focused on the relationship between communal conflict and decentralisation over the period 1996-2002. During this period, in particular during 1999-2000 the intensity of conflict was at its highest and casualties across Indonesia numbered 19.000 persons, of which the major share (10.000) died in communal conflicts of an ethnic and religious nature, whereas a further 9.000 died in secessionist conflicts, such as East Timor. Communal conflicts can be explained by grievances, reflecting the emotions and behavioural responses due to misery experienced, with many people feeling bad much of the time. The conflicts can also be explained by mobilisation, in response to institutional interventions and organisations activating people. These different ways of looking at the context in which conflicts erupted have implications for the conclusions and policy recommendations. Mr Gerry van Klinken In Indonesia, identities became locally salient around decentralization reforms. A study of the conflict narratives shows that these communal conflicts emerged as ‘politics by other means’ at a moment of opportunity following the collapse of the New Order in 1998. They were led by urban middle class elements in provincial towns outside Java, that were particularly dependent on State subsidies and employment, thus having a particular interest in politics, as well as ethnic and religious clientelist support networks. The history of these mainly administrative towns is entwined with that of State formation throughout the 20th century. In Indonesia communal conflict zones are identified with low scores on the human development indices, in particular the persistence of high infant mortality. Nevertheless, the poorest areas experienced few open conflicts. There is also a correlation, albeit weak, with the extent of religious and ethnic diversity; but no statistical link was found with economic inequality. Mobilisation methods also look at how conflicts build-up over time, where small-scale, sometimes trivial, incidents escalate rapidly and spin out of control quickly. Mobilisation leads to identity formation as well as actor formation. Urban organisations, run by middle class notables including religious leaders, parliamentarians, academics, NGO leaders etc, pursue defensive as well as offensive strategies, placing identity, rather than land

11

or wealth, as the defining characteristic. Local as well as parliamentary elections are key moments for mobilisation, although in the case of Indonesia the change of administrative boundaries, splitting up provinces as well as the decentralisation of the budget became important rallying points too. Hence, communal conflicts grow when state institutions are weak and need to be addressed through political solutions, creating better rules, better governance, learning citizenship and growing democratic practices and cultures. Conflict resolution processes – the examples of Aceh and Papua

As explained by Mr Simon Morin (photo above), the present administration in Indonesia inherited two long-running separatist conflicts: Aceh and Papua. In Aceh, the cessation of hostilities negotiated in 2002 did not last long and the hostilities resumed in 2003 under President Megawati. However following the widespread human and physical destructions caused by December 2004 earthquake and tsunamis, the government under President Yudhoyono and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) resumed peace talks, this time in Helsinki. In August 2005, the two parties signed a peace agreement in a form of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). In the light of this achievement, domestic and international attention has now turned to Papua. The more successful the peace process in Aceh, the more the central government will be capable to turn its concentration to Papua and to feel convinced addressing the conflict.

(i) Papua Mr Morin argued that Papua needed to be treated as a ‘normal’ province and that the resolution of the conflict between the central government in Jakarta and people of West Papua would need to be achieved through dialogue. Stopping a conflict through police and military action was not the same as solving a conflict. The 1962 New York agreement had offered the right to self-determination, but Indonesia’s leaders had fought for keeping Papua with Indonesia. Endless violation of human rights had occurred and economic marginalisation had continued, while Papua’s natural resource wealth had been exploited ruthlessly. A first opportunity for a dialogue on peaceful separation had been opened up during the transitory rule of President Habibie, which had also enacted the decentralization laws allowing Papua to keep an increased share of its locally generated wealth. The principle problem, from the viewpoint of Mr Morin, was not separatism, but rather one of lawlessness. The key actions required to resolving the Papua conflict were to (i) promote broad-based economic growth benefiting the inhabitants; and (ii) reform the military, the police and the judiciary. The framework for these should be found through a dialogue process, while a process of truth, justice and reconciliation between the Papuans and the central government should take place separately.

12

(ii) Aceh: the need for support and stability factors Several panelists and participants to the conference addressed the specific features of the conflict resolution in Aceh. The discussions were extremely challenging. Among the findings and recommendations made, in particular, by Mr. Faisal Hadi (Executive director of the Aceh Coalition of Human Rights NGOs) and Mr. Aguswandi (Human rights advocate), the need for support and for strengthening stability factors in the region was especially pointed out. Attention was drawn to the fact that the situation in Aceh is still transitional, thus fragile. The province is in transition to peace. The present political settlement in Aceh is not the first. The same holds true for the international involvement in the region. It is time now to adopt a broad holistic approach to the conflict resolution in Aceh – moving beyond the tsunami disaster – and to address the most important issues faced by the district today. Sustainable peace is a long way to go. The elections of December 2006 represent, in this regard, a great source of hope and expectations. Among the potential stability factors for the situation in Aceh – besides the need for a general betterment of the economic situation in the region, which is per se a potential source of tensions – the participants have highlighted the following measures the Indonesian government could take, with or without the support of the European Union:

- establish an Acehnese Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Human Rights Court in order to address the human rights violations which took place in the past ;

- support the setting up of programmes for the reintegration of combatants and for the support to victims;

- strengthen civil society and media organizations, especially their awareness raising capacities and their support to victims;

- support the implementation of good governance policies, especially with regard to power sharing and the fight against corruption;

- strengthen security and justice reforms and, in particular, address the issues of Shari’a based local regulations and bylaws;

- support education and training programmes, especially on the issues of pluralism, multiculturalism, human rights and democracy;

- draw special consideration to vulnerable and minority groups – especially women – in devising public policies for the region, especially with regard to their right to be represented and to their right to participate in public affairs;

Mr Aguswandi (photo above) noted that Aceh may be considered a success story, but that it not yet had achieved peace. The present situation was best described as one of ‘…a transition towards peace’. It was not the first time that Aceh had been on this path – the special autonomy law, the initiatives of Presidents Habibie and Abdur Rahman Wahid as well as the COHA had attempted to create peace as well. Hence the question about the sustainability of peace needed to be raised. What was different now was the election, the attempt at re-

13

integration of ex-combatants, the opportunity for improved governance because of the Aceh governance law, the economic recovery, the technical assistance at the village level and the improved opportunity for human rights. However, the European Union could not just walk out of Aceh, it should continue its support and continue to promote human rights and integration. Indeed, the EU should be a new factor in the stability of Aceh and its relations with the central government.

(iii) Aceh: EU and ASEAN involvement – lessons learnt Mr Quigley focused on the institutional aspect of the EU and ASEAN’s involvement in finding a resolution to the long simmering Aceh conflict. The basis for EU involvement had been laid by the peace agreement between the Indonesian Government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), reached through the intermediation of the former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari. The monitoring mission composed of 227 civilians included personnel from 4 ASEAN countries as well as from the EU, Norway and Sweden. Fielded in mid-September 2005, the mission was to complete mid-December 2006, immediately following the Aceh elections. The mission had performed a reconciliatory role, contributed to the reduction of mistrust between the parties and effected a partial, though very limited, disarmament from the side of GAM. Mounted within the framework of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the mission’s experience provided a blue-print of a new instrument for the EU’s involvement with security in Asia, consistent with the aims spelled out in the EU’s security strategy of 2003. Similar monitoring missions could be mounted elsewhere within Indonesia, or possibly elsewhere within the ASEAN region such as in Southern Thailand or Mindanao, The Philippines. The AMM was a joint EU-ASEAN operation. ASEAN has used the experience gained from interacting with the EU to build structures that will be available in the future for either ASEAN-only missions or multi-regional missions that could include the EU. In early June 2006 for instance, at a meeting in Singapore, it was proposed that the countries of South-East Asia should introduce a ‘crisis management centre’. Similar to some EU mechanisms, the Centre would be able to call upon both civilian and military forces to respond to a crisis. An ASEAN Security Strategy would also become essential, if not inevitable, as the meetings of ASEAN Defense Ministers become more regular and the interest of the group in both traditional security issues and soft security concerns assumes a greater profile. The mission to Aceh demonstrated an example of coherence in external relations policy, particularly for EU policy towards Asia. The deployment of the ESDP civilian crisis management mission to Aceh represents the culmination of the implementation of a broad range of policy instruments (in particular the Rapid Reaction Mechanism and the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights) both to the province and to Indonesia. The long-term commitment of the EU to one country and its regions, across so many different sectoral priorities, is remarkable and unprecedented. This process continues today with the deployment of an Election Observation Mission to Aceh to monitor the 2006 December elections. During the Q&A session several key points were made – first that the nature of the problems leading to conflict were to be found in the pervasive poverty affecting many across the country, the discrimination of women and the unfulfilled wish for good governance and economic recovery. The importance of fighting gender discrimination was particularly highlighted by several commentators. Empathy was expressed with Mr Morin’s viewpoint

14

that Papua needed to be treated as a ‘normal’ province and that open and frank dialogue was the way forward. Further clarification was sought how conflicts in Indonesia had ended – for example the anti-Chinese violence of 1997 had ended nearly as abruptly as it had started. Panel III: Indonesia in the New East Asian Context Indonesia’s foreign policies seem again more assertive in the Southeast Asian context and beyond. At the same time, an East Asian architecture is taking shape, building on older and newer patterns, with China and India rising as regional superpowers. The third panel discussions of the ‘EU-Indonesia Day’ addressed the situation of Indonesia in the new East Asian context. What are the assets and challenges facing Indonesia in the evolving regional architecture? Which role could be played by the European Union in this context, especially within the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) frameworks? The moderator of this last debate was Mr. Geoffrey Barrett, ASEM Coordinator, European Commission.

Panel III. (from left to right): Mr. Seamus Gillespie, Mr Georgios Antoniou, Mr Sebastian Bersick, Ms Eva Kusuma, Mr Geoffrey Barrett, Mrs Sri Nuryanti, Ms. Gagarin According to Mrs. Sri Nuryanti, Executive Director of the RIDEP Institute in Jakarta, although Indonesia recovered rather quickly from the East Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, it is still a country combating problems of poverty and unemployment. In the process of undergoing reforms, it has encountered a myriad of socio-economic and political difficulties and sometimes lost its direction. Despite these setbacks, significant progress has been achieved. For one, Indonesia has carried out peaceful elections and encouraged the active participation of civil society in the political domain, an important step in its democratisation process. Furthermore, the country has initiated social security sector reform and is working hard to combat the widespread corruption that still prevails. For continued success, Indonesia

15

must set clear priorities and targets for what it wants to accomplish. Under the banner of ‘Unity in Diversity’, the country should strive to maintain the pluralism and endurance to keep on trying which has characterised its efforts thus far. In the context of East Asian regionalisation, Indonesia should take advantage of increased interaction and learn from the experience of other countries. Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have all adopted successful models of development by defining and building on their competitive advantages. China’s rapid economic growth, in particular, holds several lessons for Indonesia in terms of building up infrastructure, reforming bureaucracy, addressing corruption, improving the education system and establishing economic zones. For South-East and, more broadly, East Asian integration to be successful, be it in the context of ASEM, ASEAN or even the EAC, mutual cooperation and understanding need to be further developed. Regional partners need to develop a common agenda for the future, identifying the needs, priorities and means to achieving their goals. Such an agenda would need to be followed up by strong leadership performances demonstrating a willingness to take action. Contrasting the modalities of the European vs. Asian integration processes, Mr. Georgios Antoniou of the European Commission stated that Asia is at a crossroads. There are two possible scenarios for the type of integration and cooperation that will characterise the region in the future. 1) The region will become a loosely integrated union influenced and led by one or two dominant powers. 2) Asia will follow a model of balanced integration bringing stability and prosperity throughout the region. It is the European Union’s hope that the latter will prevail. Up until now, Asian integration, as witnessed by summit meetings, has been shaped by an approach that has been friendly, non-confrontational, flexible and at a pace comfortable to all. However, the vast majority of agreements have also been non-binding. If tangible results are to be achieved, such as the realisation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area, Indonesia, as the largest ASEAN nation, must muster political will and find dedication to push ASEAN forward. Dr. Sebastian Bersick, Senior Researcher at the European Institute of Asian Studies, highlighted the fact that trends towards regionalisation in the context of East Asia are rapidly developing. New patterns of integration and cooperation are emerging and being managed by institutions at all levels (e.g. domestic, intra, and inter-regional). This trend of regionalisation in East-Asia and of community building processes within the region is exemplified, in particular, by the intention of ASEAN to establish an ASEAN Community, ASEAN’s intention to endorse an ASEAN Charter, as well as the institutionalization of the East Asia Summit (EAS) process. In fact, two different broad trends of regionalization processes can be identified: (1) among Asian countries (ASEAN, ASEAN+3, EAS) and (2) among Asian and non-Asian actors (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)). Because of the increasing cooperation between all the actors involved in the region, the risks that these interactions might lead to conflicts increases as well. That is why new patterns of interdependences need to be managed. And that can only be achieved by the building up of institutions at the regional, interregional and international levels. The EU response to these trends should be to facilitate regional and global processes of integration.

16

Indonesia has the potential to play an important role in regional integration processes according to Mrs. Eva Kusuma Sundari, Member of the Indonesian House of Representatives. However, the country’s domestic situation can block the ability of Indonesia to be effective. The key is to turn potential roles into effective ones. Indonesia can serve as a model of how to transfer an authoritarian regime into a democracy with a flourishing civil society. With the help of the EU, Indonesia can push for democratisation in Myanmar, for example. Furthermore, Indonesia can play a more active role as a mediator in North Korean and/or Iranian talks.

The European Union remains committed to developing relations with Indonesia in both the bilateral and multilateral settings. Indonesia has transformed itself into a pluralistic polity with an open political debate. As a mature partner for dialogue, there is great potential for Indonesia and Europe to work towards forging common positions on critical international issues. A crucial question for both will be the dilemma of deepening vs. widening the regionalisation processes at hand. As a significant actor within Asia, Indonesia has the potential to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of Asian integration and cooperation. Concluding Remarks Summary of the conference was made by Mr. Seamus Gillespie, on behalf of the European Commission, and Ms. Gagarin, Chargé d’Affaires of the Indonesian Embassy and Mission to the EU. They thanked the participants, the co-organisers and especially those panelists who had traveled from Indonesia to share their views and insights.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION Among the various contributions the European Union could bring to the debate about religion and politics in Indonesia, the participants to the ‘EU-Indonesia Day’ have highlighted in particular the following actions: - Support Indonesia in the implementation of the UN Development Millennium Goals,

especially with regard to the right to education and the eradication of poverty; - Support Indonesia in the implementation of the ICCPR and ICESCR, which entered into

force in May 2006; - Continue to support the strengthening of legal systems and legal reforms;

17

- Encourage national authorities to adopt strong public policies in favour of diversity, especially religious pluralism;

- Encourage national authorities to take firm stance against Shari’a based local regulations violating fundamental values, especially women rights and minority rights;

- Encourage national authorities to strengthen the constitutional monitoring of local regulations;

- Support the establishment of a legal framework to put in practice the constitutional guarantees on religious freedoms;

- Draw a particular attention to the issue of Shari’a police when devising programmes aimed at supporting police/military reforms;

- Encourage national authorities to reinforce their fight against corruption and violence, especially at the local/communal level;

- Support moderate Islam organizations, in particular Muhammadiyah and Nahdhatul Ulama, in particular in their efforts to promote dialogue and education;

- Strengthen activities in favour of multiculturalism and interfaith dialogue, esp. promoting better understanding of religions;

- Support civil society organizations aiming at promoting diversity, democracy and human rights, in particular women rights organizations;

- Support educational programmes aiming at enhancing the understanding of democracy and human rights standards;

- Support the fight against incitement to hatred and violence; - Encourage the adoption of participatory policies empowering the people, in particular

over local issues/budget. As proposed by M. Simon Morin, there are a certain number of actions, which could be undertaken and implemented in order to achieve a comprehensive solution to the conflict in Papua. Among these, the following measures could be noted down: - Engaging with legitimate representatives of Papuan society in a wide-ranging dialogue

concerning a variety of issues, including truth, justice and reconciliation, security arrangements and the division of the province;

- Realizing special autonomy for the region; - Developing local governance and enhancing transparency, in order to ensure that special

autonomy funds improve the well-being of Papuans; - Reforming security arrangements to put an end to human rights violations; - Ensure the education and training for Papuans in public administration, regional planning,

natural resource organization and other related fields; - Expand the lawmaking, budgeting and oversight capacity of legislatures in Papua; - Enhance civil society’s ability to monitor, investigate and expose human rights violations,

corruption and other abuses of power. Besides the demands to the European Union to strongly support the stability factors identified above, attention was raised by the panelists and the participants to the need for the European Union to be extremely prudent in devising and implementing the exit strategy of the Aceh Monitoring Mission. Two additional recommendations were made. - The possibility of appointing a EU Special Representative to the region should be

considered. - As regards the conflict in Papua, the panelists and participants to the ‘EU-Indonesia Day’

have highlighted the need for the European Union to support the various actions and

18

measures identified above aiming at achieving a comprehensive solution to the tensions. Among these measures, special attention should be drawn on the need for the EU to encourage the Indonesian government to enter into an open and straightforward dialogue with Papuans representatives.

Report by Dr. Willem van der Geest, Director, European Institute for Asian Studies; Ms. Signe Bruun-Jensen, Researcher, European Institute for Asian Studies and Ms Valérie van

Goethem, Consultant, CECOFORMA.

This report is based on the various interventions and remarks made by the panelists and the participants during the conference. However it does not systematically refer to the

persons having provided the reported information.