November 5, 2024
OSLO – In late September 2003, I had a rare opportunity to visit Yangon, Myanmar, for the first time, accompanying foreign minister Ali Alatas, who was also a special envoy of president Megawati Soekarnoputri.
Alatas, a world-renowned veteran diplomat, was assigned at the time to persuade the ruling Myanmar military junta to release opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Suu Kyi’s detention of became a thorny issue during Indonesia’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2003, and there was a genuine concern that it would overshadow discussions during the summit.
In Yangon, the Alatas-led delegation met with many high-ranking officials, including Senior Gen. Than Shwe.
While transiting in Singapore on his way back to Jakarta, Alatas received encouraging news that Suu Kyi had been transferred to her house and was no longer being held at the detention center.
Twenty years later, hearing the news that Suu Kyi was now back in detention after enjoying freedom and leading Myanmar under a parliamentary democracy, caused a flashback.
Today, Myanmar is experiencing armed conflicts and widespread turmoil under the current military government. This deadly armed confrontation occurring in Indonesia’s immediate concentricity has led to an influx of refugees in the region.
Over 1 million displaced Rohingyas are now living in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Some of them are risking their lives by taking boats, mostly to Malaysia, and in doing so, falling victim to human traffickers.
If I could borrow and tweak the famous quip of the late Alatas, Myanmar’s debacle can be likened to “a pebble in our shoes”. Wherever we go, we can feel the pain of the sharp objects in our feet and this hurts the collective pride of ASEAN, which has yet to find a remedy to this thorny issue.
Since 2021, Indonesia has been investing in peace efforts in Myanmar in the context of ASEAN-led initiatives.
Two years ago, the government was set up an ad hoc office at the Foreign Ministry to sustain Indonesia’s engagement.
At the end of president Joko Widodo’s administration and in an effort to consolidate diplomatic initiatives prior to October’s ASEAN Summit in Laos, Indonesia hosted a stakeholders’ engagement in Jakarta on Oct. 4-5.
A wide range of parties in the Myanmar conflict attended the meeting, except Myanmar’s ruling military.
Various stakeholders who have an interest in peacemaking and conflict resolution also participated in the two-day meeting. Furthermore, some countries that have appointed their own special envoys for Myanmar contacted Indonesia for an invitation.
The Jakarta meeting proved Indonesia’s unyielding commitment to find a peaceful resolution to the ongoing armed conflict in Myanmar.
I gained insights from Indonesian Ambassador to Switzerland Ngurah Swajaya’s reflection on the meeting, and sensed a mixed response on his part.
Swajaya noted that all participants expressed their appreciation for Indonesia’s leadership and commitment, and applauded its capability in convening the meeting. He also mentioned that parties to the conflict were now convinced of ASEAN and Indonesia’s altruistic intentions.
Indonesia therefore managed to build trust among relevant parties to the conflict. Indeed, trust is key in any conflict resolution and peacemaking efforts.
However, the absence of representatives from Myanmar’s ruling military at the meeting – a key variable to resolve the conflict – indicates that the actual peace process will be arduous.
Their absence could be a case of either regime survival wariness or deep-seated paranoia of equating peace with surrendering. This inclination, according to former foreign minister Retno Marsudi, like it or not, has also transpired among various parties to the conflict.
Yet at one point, the conflicting parties in Myanmar, including the ruling military, will need a reliable partner or third party to help them end their conflict and animosity.
This is often the case when conflicting parties are not willing to sit together and negotiate peace, so a third party is needed to break the stalemate.
The question therefore arises as to whether Indonesia would be an ideal partner for attaining peace in Myanmar. Can Indonesia help the conflicting parties comprehensively overcome the root causes of the debacle?
I would argue that there are at least four factors that would situate Indonesia in a better position to offer Myanmar good offices.
First, the two countries share a similar history of gaining independence through armed and diplomatic struggles against colonial powers; hence, they are both strong, nationalistic firebrands.
Second, the two nations are comprised of many ethnicities with different languages and dialects, as well as distinctive cultures. Consequently, they must invest greatly in nation-building.
During its nation-building process, Indonesia encountered challenges including rebellions, separatism and armed insurrection. It employed a wide range of instruments to deal with those challenges and accepted the offers of good offices from a third party.
In the case of the decades-long Aceh conflict, Indonesia appreciated the role of former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari as a third party. He played a meaningful role in that conflict, with the full trust and support of the administration of then-president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Third, geographically, Indonesia and Myanmar are situated in a region with a plethora of confluence of interest. Major powers are competing for spheres of influence and access to resources, including by the use of proxies.
Fourth, Indonesia went through long years of experimentation in governance and decided to re-embrace democracy in the late 1990s after three decades of a military-led government.
As a footnote, during the New Order government, especially at the height of the dwifungsi (dual function) role of the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI), the two countries’ military brass cultivated a special bond.
The abovementioned factors and the diplomatic investment that Indonesia has been making thus far should serve as good foundations for the government of President Prabowo Subianto to offer further good offices with regard to Myanmar’s debacle.
It might be the case that a fresh outlook can be explored in approaching the Myanmar crisis. Then again, the only expected endgame is to see unity restored in Myanmar.
At the end of the day, what we all want to see is a nation-state that can stand on its own feet and be a part of a robust Southeast Asia.