http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/nessen.cfm
October 14, 2006
William Nessen is the director of the full-length documentary The Black Road:
On the Front Line of Aceh's War, which was awarded the the Best Documentary
under 60 minutes and the Best Film of the Festival at the 2006 Mumbai
International Film Festival, Asia's largest documentary competition.
Edward Aspinall, Research Fellow, Australian National University and editor of
Inside Indonesia said about The Black Road that, "By showing conflict from the
perspective of ordinary villagers and insurgents, William Nessen's film
presents a perspective of war that is not only unique in reportage of Aceh, but
which is rare in the media's coverage of any of the 'small wars' which take so
many lives around the globe. So often, we see only the view of governments and
their troops. Here, the lens is reversed, and the effect is remarkable."
How did you become interested in the conflict in Aceh?
Just after the fall of Suharto, I went to Indonesia to work as a print
journalist and photographer. The conflict in Aceh was one of the two or three
most important stories in the region. At that point, Aceh appeared to raise the
question of whether Indonesia would remain one country or split into several
parts.
A number of the Acehnese you speak to in the documentary mention that Aceh was
far more resistant to Dutch colonialism than the rest of the East Indies. How
does this help explain the experience of Aceh following decolonization?
Aceh was one of the last places for the Dutch to invade. Bali came after. But
Bali was always several kingdoms and did not have the relatively unified
identity that the Acehnese had under the several-hundred year sultanate. Aceh's
place in the Indian Ocean world, rather than as part of the Archipelago, also
helped the Acehnese keep a sense of difference from the rest of Indonesia. That
sense of being Acehnese helped them fight the Dutch. And in the immediate
post-World War II years, during Indonesia's independence struggle, while the
Dutch regained all of the Dutch East Indies, only Aceh (and a small strip of
Java) remained free. The sense of identity and the awareness of their unique
history remained strong in the first years of Indonesian independence.
Jakarta's actions and the ensuing spirals of conflict of the past 50-something
years made the Acehnese even more aware of who they are.
One of the people you speak to in the documentary says that the struggle of the
Acehnese is not about ethnic identity or culture, but rather about sovereignty.
How does this correspond to the way in which outsiders view this conflict?
Outsiders always ask, "But is there really any difference between Acehnese and
Indonesian? Is there a racial or ethnic difference or a religious difference?"
They think that a desire to have your own country has to be based in biology or
in the divide that has become so important in the world today, Muslim vs.
Christian. But I would guess that most 'separatist' conflicts are not about
race or religion, but about different histories, or about a large number of
things, many of them historically generated. Americans in 1776 had far fewer
reasons for separation than the Acehnese have today; Americans were far less
united in their desire than the Acehnese too. You look at Sweden and Norway,
and it's hard to see much difference. But the history was there.
The Acehnese are aware of their prior well-recognized sovereignty during
several hundred years. People who wanted to regain that sovereign status
founded the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Of course, many other things, included
broken promises of autonomy, resource exploitation, and political and military
repression, have fueled the movement.
As you point out, the US first supported the Acehnese, financially and
militarily-even providing military training for rebels-against the Indonesian
government during the Sukarno years, and later turned against the Acehnese
under Suharto. What is the US position now on Aceh? And what do you think it
ought to be?
The United States wants Indonesia to remain one country. If Aceh or West Papua
became independent, the US fears that it will inspire other communities in
other countries to fight harder for their own independence. The rules of the
post-colonial international order would break down. That's the fear. It's not
that Acehnese independence is a bad thing in itself, it's the effect.
If the Dutch had administered their colony/colonies differently, the Dutch East
Indies would have likely become several countries instead of just one,
Indonesia. They centralized administration in Batavia/Jakarta.
The French maintained several administrative centers. French Indochina became
three countries and two of their large colonial territories in Africa, French
Equatorial Africa and French West Africa became four and eight respectively.
The difference was due largely to how they administered.
We do perhaps need new criteria for who should have a right to their own
sovereign country. There are international legal scholars making the argument.
The criteria are several: people must have a distinct and unified identity
(whether on the basis of distinct ethnicity, a different history, or oppression
as a people); they must have been subjected to exploitation and/or oppression;
they must have consistently fought for their independence and their
independence must not interfere in the operation of the original country (for
example, by blocking or taking the only ports, or taking away the bulk of key
resources); minorities in the new country must have strong legal protections;
and a referendum must be held.
Aceh deserved its independence, especially after the tsunami. Instead Jakarta
used the tsunami to force the Acehnese freedom movement to sign a new autonomy
agreement. The Free Aceh Movement had been badly hurt by the preceding two
years of military operations. People were already tired of the conflict and the
suffering. The Free Aceh Movement did not want to continue the struggle if
people were not willing to support it. The agreement is not a good one for the
Acehnese, but it's probably the best they could get because they were the far
weaker side at that point.
Stepping back and just speculating, I do believe that after 10 years, no one
but the Acehnese would have cared whether Aceh was independent.
Is the government in Indonesia aware of the extent to which GAM continues to
enjoy popular support in Aceh? How, if at all, have attitudes in Indonesia
changed since Suharto's overthrow?
The government or people in the government must know. In fact, they are banking
on GAM having the ability to keep the Acehnese in line, keeping the Acehnese
from starting a new independence or referendum movement. Indonesia is hoping
that GAM's leadership will develop enough stake in the new Aceh - still under
Indonesian rule - that even if things go wrong, the conflict won't restart.
I should say something about Indonesians, not just their government. What's
amazing is the ability of people - whether in Indonesia or America - to fool
themselves about what their government is doing and has done. To fool
themselves also about what other people - under the boot of their government -
believe and want.
I'm always surprised by how little Indonesians, especially those in Jakarta,
including the most liberal journalists, know about what the Acehnese felt and
still feel. Indonesians simply don't want to confront what their governments in
the post-Suharto years have done in Aceh. When I tried to get archival footage
for my film, no television station would sell me anything that contained
Indonesian violence against the Acehnese. They want to sweep it under the rug.
They told me, "The Acehnese want to forget about it, it was so painful for
them." I responded, "Perhaps they want to forget about it, but they want you
and the rest of the world to remember."
Why is the experience of Aceh so different from that of East Timor? Is it
impossible to imagine that Aceh will be granted the right to a referendum on
independence, as East Timor was? Why, or why not?
East Timor was a Portuguese colony and so was entitled to a separate
post-colonial sovereignty than what became Indonesia. That is how the
post-colonial world map was drawn. It's international law. The East Timorese
had standing at the United Nations, a standing that helped keep their hope
alive and kept a few other countries on their side during more than two decades
of Indonesian rule.
Everyone recognized that the East Timorese had been denied their justified
self-determination. If not for the monetary crisis in Southeast Asia in the
late 1990s, however, and the subsequent demonstrations throughout Indonesia and
the fall of Suharto, there would have been no referendum in East Timor. Even
then it almost didn't happen. The Indonesian military actually thought that the
East Timorese might vote to remain part of Indonesia. If they hadn't, a vote
might not have taken place. (And of course, Indonesia killed thousands in East
Timor immediately after the vote).
At about that time, Indonesian President Wahid dared to say that perhaps the
Acehnese should be allowed a similar referendum. But the Indonesian military
leadership was already regaining its bearings and power and the generals told
Wahid to shut up. And he did. The general got rid of him anyway; he was just
too impulsive and compassionate for them.
What projects are you working on now?
I am working as a print journalist and photographer again, in India. I've had
offers to make more documentaries and I'm considering them.
Interview conducted by Nermeen Shaikh of AsiaSource.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
