SECURITIZATION AND DESECURITIZATION
IN INDONESIA’S DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION:
A CASE STUDY OF ACEH SEPARATIST MOVEMENT
(DRAFT—NOT FOR QUOTATION)
YANDRY K. KASIM
UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG
Paper presented at the 8th Pan – European Conference on International Relations
18-21 September 2013, Warsaw
organized by
The ECPR Standing Group on International Relations
and
EISA
in cooperation with
The Institute of International Relations, University of Warsaw
and
The Polish Association for International Studies
Ole Wæver firstly introduced the idea of securitization in-depth in 1995 and then a
group of scholars, which later become associated with the Copenhagen School (Mutimer,
2007: 60), further developed the concept at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute
(COPRI). As an analytical tool, securitization theory received its strong intellectual following
in 1998, when Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde published their collaborative
work titled Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Since then publications related to
securitization and/or desecuritization in periodic international journals have grown in
popularity (Gad and Petersen, 2011: 316). According to one author, securitization theory is
one among the most prominent and influential post-Cold War approaches in the field of
security studies (Williams, 2003: 511). The innovative worth of securitization theory can be
found in “its usefulness for the study of the politics of security-policy making” (Knudsen,
2001: 358).
Literature on securitization, in my understanding, mostly concerns the theoretical
development of the theory (cf. Huyman, 1998; Williams, 2003 and 2011; Aradau, 2004;
Balzaq, 2005; Alker, 2006; Stritzel, 2007; McDonald 2008; Gizzini, 2011). Most of these
theoretical works largely focus on the speech act and scrutinize it from all perspective:from
linguistic studies to post-structuralism or post-modernism perspective. There are only a few
works emphasizing other dimensions of securitization, such as the extraordinary measures
and the ‘emergency-ness’ of a particular situation (cf. Knudsen, 2001; Oelsner, 2007; Floyd,
1
2011). The remaining empirical works on securitization analyze the construction of nontraditional threats to security through the speech act (cf. Roe, 2004; Gromes and Bonacker,
2007; Wilkinson, 2007; Vuory, 2008 and 2011; Hansen, 2011; Trombeta, 2011; Sjostedt, 2011).
While those works are not necessarily implausible, they might reduce the analytical value of
the securitization theory. It appears that the theory is only fruitful when it analyzes an
intangible and abstract fantasy of threat based on a discursive manner of a speech act. This
is, to a certain degree, not fully in accordance with securitization theory which also
acknowledges the military and political security of the state, respectively. Given this gap
between the theory and its applications, this study seeks to apply securitization theory to
analyze the Indonesian security dynamics during the democratic transition process. The
application of the theory in this regard emphasizes the concept of securitization and
desecuritization. By taking on securitization both from the Copenhagen School and beyond, I
develop a framework of analysis where the nature of a threat is objective, of domestic origin,
with violent episodes, the deployment of state security forces, and the unity of the state was
at stake.
Securitization: Decision Making Process in Emergency
Based on my readings, I argue that there are four keywords important in
understanding security within the context of securitization theory and three components of
securitization. These keywords for security are (1) the existential threat, (2) referent object, (3)
emergency situation, and (4) extraordinary measure. The existential threat refers to the
superiority of one issue and is so distinct compared to others that it must receive absolute
priority.1 If the relevant referent object does not successfully address it, the issue at hand
would put the existence of the referent objects in danger.2 In essence, the very next step after
invocating security is the declaration of an emergency situation. By declaring it, the state
traditionally will claim “a right to use whatever means are necessary to block a threatening
development”—that is the extraordinary measures. Therefore, the use of extraordinary
measure refers to “the invocation of security […] to legitimizing the use of force […], a way
for state for mobilize, or to take special powers” (Buzan, et.al, 1998: 21).
The three components of securitization include the speech act, securitizing actors,
audience. With regard to the first component, I adopt Vuori’s illocutionary understanding of
the speech act.
If securitization is understood in the context of emergency and
exceptionality, if extraordinary measure is translated into the use of force, then it is fair to
The existential threat is the utmost important one compared to others. Here, existential is not referring to any of
philosophical concept. Existential threat is regarded as threats to the existence of something, usually the state.
Referring to Michael C. Williams, the existential threat is “situations of maximum danger, potentially unlimited
struggle and sacrifice that need to be both retained” See, Michael C. Williams, Words, Images, Enemies:
securitization and International Politics”, International Studies Quarterly (2003) 47, p. 516.
2 The referent objects are things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to
survival (Buzan, et.al, 1998: 21). Ralf Emmers summarizes referent objects into: (1) the state, in terms of military
security; (2) national sovereignty or an ideology, in terms of political security; (3) national economies, in terms of
economic security; (4) collective identities, in terms of societal security; and (5) species or habitats, in terms of
environmental security (2004: 3-4).
1
2
limit securitizing actors on those, borrowing from Carl Schmitt, who have the sovereignty to
decide on the exception. They are political leaders, bureaucracies, and governing bodies—
just to name three (Buzan et.al, 1998: 40). With regards to the audience, they are understood
to be those who need to be persuaded and convinced by the securitizing actor in order to
gain their acceptance and legitimacy for a securitizing move (Vuori, 2008). Though the
Copenhagen School does not specifically define it, Vuori has firmly suggested that there is
not any need to specify the audience. It is better to remain flexible and leave the definition
relatively open since, different socio-political context will lead to different audiences. Rita
Floyd even proposes to downgrade the audience’s role in a securitization process.3 Here I
adopt Floyd’s argument that the speech act is the utterance of warning and promise and
securitization is completed when there is a change in the way actors behave after conducting
the speech act (2011: 428-9). To put it colloquially, a securitization as a process is completed
when the actor ‘talks the talk and walks the walk’.
Firstly, as all security debate is about survival, I limit securitization as an inherent
process involved in the context of emergency and exceptionality.4 The designation of
existential threat to a referent object of security concurrently takes place with the claim for
using the extraordinary measure. Mostly—if not always—the use of extraordinary measure
is equal to the use of force or the state’s coercive instruments. Hence, emergency relates to
the threatening situation and exceptionality relates to the use of extraordinary measure. To
be clear, I limit the definition of security in this study to the problem of violence and the
threat, use, and control of a state’s coercive force. I do however highly acknowledge the fact
that the source of threat and conflict does not always originate from the military sector. Any
possible unrest might also originate from political, social, economic sectors. But, if the
dispute and animosity does not arise from and lead to specific form of violent conflict then
they do not need to be considered as an object or problem of security.5
I thus, treat securitization as the decision making process for the use of extraordinary
measures. This argument finds a strong support in Ole Wæver 2011’s statement. He admits
that “an increasing presence of non-western voices within the discipline should help return
Some researchers perceive that the securitizing actor-audience interactions happen in an equal position. It
appears that within its structured power a securitizing actor can speak security and designate a threat. On the
other hand, with their constitutional rights an audience has the power to decide whether or not to accept a
securitizing move. Therefore, there should be some kind a balance of power between them. As the argument
goes, if the securitization speech act can be understood as the illocutionary one, then in most cases, there can
barely be equality between the speaker and the listener.
4 This limitation probably will generate a degree of debate, but arguably it is still in accordance with the
Copenhagen School’s main tenet. The School maintains the argument that the sum of all security debate is about
survival (Buzan et.al, 1998: 21). Under such a sense of emergency, the nature of security consequently is a request
for exceptionality.
5 This is the common idea shared by epistemic security community in Indonesia. See for an instance, Makmur
Keliat, “Security and Democracy in Indonesia: The Need to Strike a balance”, in The Indonesian Quarterly, Vol. 39,
No. 2, 2011. This limitation normatively is also not in an odd position with universal principle of the statecraft.
Even the liberal tradition itself acknowledges and justifies the postponing of normal rules of game during an
emergency situation (Husyman, 1998: 571). Even more, the existence of organized violence (manifested in, but not
limited to, the military institution or armed forces) has been regarded as a sign of modernity of the statecraft in
world history (Harries-Jenkins & Doorn, 1974).
3
3
war and violence to the agenda of critical or now security studies, including securitization
studies” (2011: 475, emphasis mine). Put differently, securitization theory must not limitedly
focus to viewing the power politics within a society in naming subjective, abstract, and
physically nonviolent phenomena such as migration, HIV/AIDS, minority rights, feminism
movement and others—which most of publications have been focusing on.
Desecuritization: Back to “Normality”
If securitization is a moving an issue outside the realm of normal politics, the reverse is
also possible. Those who are responsible for securitizing the issue can move it back into the
normal political realm (Roe, 2004: 282). Hence, desecuritization is the unmaking of an
existential threat. The puzzle though is how to conduct desecuritization. In this regard,
Huysman presents two grounds for desecuritization: instrumental and ethico-political. The
instrumental ground means “a security approach is not considered to be an effective way of
dealing with the question at hand”. The ethico-political ground suggests that “one does not
oppose securitization because it is an ineffective way of dealing with the question at hand
but because one cannot ethically justify the specific organization of the political community
articulated through security practices” (1998: 589).
In order to develop a better framework for studying desecuritization, Andrea Oelsner
offers two mechanisms for desecuritization, two phases of desecuritization, and indications
of observation at two levels. Her mechanisms consist of the passive and active ones.6 In the
former change takes place naturally while in the later it occurs by designed. The phases of
desecuritization include the initiation process7, and the phase of development and
consolidation8. In order to observe whether or not the consolidation phase has taken place,
there are indicators at the governmental and societal level. On the level of government, the
indicators are coordinated positions, shared discourses, common institutions and projects,
joint declarations, cooperation protocols, and mutual visits.
On the societal level, the
indicators include a deeper and stronger interaction among societal organizations from
previously conflicting entities.
In passive mechanism, there is a shift in the nature of a particular issue or party so the securitizing actors and
audience in question no longer perceive them as a threat. Within the active mechanism one might observe that
there is a degree of qualitative change of behavior in the interaction between securitizing actors and audience on
one side and the issue or party which was perceived and defined as the threat on the other. Here, trust-building
start taking place between actors of animosity (2005: 4).
7 For her initiation process for desecuritization, Oelsner relates the explanation with two paradigmatic traditions
for giving a background on how a desecuritization move starts taking place. The first theoretical tradition is
interdependence and institutionalism. This tradition holds an argument that the conflicting parties tend to avoid the
use of force as an alternative to settle their dispute since the absolute gain from a more peaceful solution is far
better off than the former. Considering negotiation as the outcome of power, interest, and capability calculation;
the conflicting parties aware that a strategic cooperation among them should better serve their objective rather
than through a violent engagement. The next background lies in the realist tradition. The tradition suggests that
actors will change the way they behave and shift the way they see each other without necessarily being politically
defeated once they secure a considerable incentive for doing so.
8 In the phase, Oelsner rests her explanation on constructivist tradition. Constructivists stress the important role
of identity, idea, perception, and understanding which are shared and developed though repeated interactions.
They also claim that both interest and identity are not static and homogeneous in essence but they constantly
change through practices and habits; that is, through interaction.
6
4
Borrowing from Coskun (2011) my next proposal is to establish the components of
desecuritization as consist of desecuritizing actors, the (desecuritization) speech act, and
audience. As far as the question of desecuritizing actors is concerned, Oelsner suggests that
“the same actors that had previously advocated for securitization may now encourage the
process of desecuritization”. While the process of securitization stresses the important role of
state or formal authorities, desecuritization may open up wider opportunities for non-state
actors to become involved and participate in the process. Claudia Aradau strongly argues
that desecuritizing actors must include ‘the previously silenced other’ (2003: 26). Aradau’s
argument firmly grasps the reality og the peace initiation and negotiation process where civil
societies, or even ordinary individuals can really break the ice in a hostile environment.
Referring to Lane Hansen, there four outcomes of desecuritization: change through
stabilization, replacement, rearticulation, and silencing (2011). Desecuritization as a change
through stabilization refers to a situation where there is evidence of an explicit change in the
security discourse through a gradual process. This gradual change brings less militaristic and
less violent approaches in a concrete form.9 Replacement refers to a process in which one
issue is excluded from the security sphere while another is being securitized. Hence the
outcome limitedly operates at the issue level which will not bring any difference in security
discourse and, especially, in practice. Rearticulation refers to an action of moving an issue
out of the security realm by actively offering political solutions to deal with the threat in
question, and thereby addressing the very source of dispute. In rearticulation the conflicting
parties realizes that collaboration, accommodation, and negotiation will better serve their
interests and survival, than mutual antagonistic interaction.10 Finally, based on McKanzie’s
work, Hansen refers to silencing as a situation where an issue disappears or fails to register
in a security discourse.11
One weakness of this outcome however lies inherently in its conservative and system-stabilizing characters. It
means the ultimate purpose of desecuritization in this particular strategy is to bring stabilization into relations
among adversaries without necessarily addressing the very source of animosity. Hence, as the result —instead of
a rooted ethical acceptance among adversaries—there is no one who can provide a guarantee of both the direct
and long term consequences of this change through stabilization.
10 As a political vision, rearticulation is the ideal outcome of a desecuritization process. It bears no conservatism
problem as in the change through stabilization and faces no new problem as in the replacement. One challenge
for rearticulation is more the normative and political question linked to stability and desirability. As Hansen put it
ontologically, “rearticulation claims finality, yet finality is inherently impossible”. Another remark needed is that
rearticulation is anything but a smooth process. It is a result of a bitter bargaining process taking place in complex
power dynamics and in a hostile environment.
11This outcome was inspired by MacKenzie’s research on female soldiers in Sierra Leone. Mackanzie presents a
finding that international communities in Sierra Leone’s peace process categorize female soldier merely as
victims, abductees, camp follower, domestic workers, and sex slaves. In this case, the international communities
have silenced and uncategorized those women as soldiers or combatants. Accordingly, MacKanzie categorizes
this situation as a desecuritization. Though Hansen includes silencing as one of her desecuritization outcomes, it
appears only for the sake of conceptual categorization.
9
5
Securitization – Desecuritization Dynamics of a Separatist Conflict in Indonesia 12
Why does Indonesia make a good subject for the study of security and securitization?
With more than 17.500 islands, Indonesia is the largest archipelagic country in the world. In
terms of population, the country is the fourth largest in the world. Also, Indonesia is the
country with the largest Muslim population, divided in hundreds of ethnic groups which
implies that Indonesia is too diverse, and such diversity might become a source of conflict.
Indeed, Indonesia’s security dynamics have been through dramatic changes since the
collapse of Suharto’s New Order Regime on May 21, 1998. Soon after Suharto left power and
the country started its democratic transition, Indonesia suddenly turned into one of the most
conflict-prone areas in the world. This fact can be seen both in the outbreak of horizontal
conflicts between different groups of society, as well as, vertical conflicts. In the latter case,
local challengers verbally and physically challenged the legitimacy of the central
government. To summarize the scene, in its earlier phase of transition Indonesia had to deal
at least with three separatist movements, three violent communal conflicts, and innumerous
riots. Such a situation provoked some observers to start predicting the breakup of Indonesia
(Aspinall & Berger, 2001; Emmerson, 2000) and state that violence was an embedded culture
of the Indonesians (Collins, 2002).
What is remarkable about the Indonesian story is that many of the nightmare
scenarios familiar in other parts of the world failed to materialize here. Indonesia did not
experience a balkanization as in a post-communist Yugoslavia or a post-USSR Georgia or
Chechnya (Mishra, 2009). In dealing with such security predicaments Indonesia has shown a
certain degree of achievements in both mitigating conflicts and democratizing the country.
The termination of the conflict in Aceh has served as a case worth studying. To a certain
degree, the peace in Aceh was not achieved by the military defeat of the separatist group,
instead peace was agreed on in a negotiated manner with the signing of the Helsinki Peace
Treaty between the conflicting parties.
In this paper, I scrutinize the case of Aceh—which represents an instance of vertical
conflict, manifested in the form of separatist movement—to explore how securitization and
desecuritization worked during the conflicts. I choose the case of Aceh also because of its
interest values. First, it was the most sustainable separatist movement in the history of
independent Indonesia. Second, the 2002’s military operation in Aceh was Indonesia’s
biggest military operation, second only to the annexation of East Timor in 1976. Third, in
terms of fatalities, the case of Aceh demonstrated a high level of violence.
Aceh is located on the northern tip of the Sumatera island of Indonesia. It has long
been known for its culture of resistance against external rule and influence. In the 1520s,
Aceh fought a war to resist Portuguese rule and influence. Later on, the region fought a war
against the Dutch colonial rule from 1873 to 1913. After becoming one of the provinces of the
newly independent Republic of Indonesia, it took up arms against the central government in
The discussion on securitization and desecuritization dynamics in the case of Aceh separatist movement in this
section is mainly based on from Rizal Sukma, Security Operations in Aceh: Goals, Consequences, and Lessons. Policy
Studies 3. (Washington, D.C.: East-West Center Washington, 2004).
12
6
1953. Disappointed with the central government’s policy, this armed movement was aimed
to separate Aceh from Indonesia and establish an Islamic state. The insurgency lasted about a
decade. In December 1976, Teungku Hasan M. di Tiro –founder and chairman of the Free
Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka / GAM)13 declared independence for Aceh. GAM was
reinvented in 1989 by committing small scale security disturbances in the province. The
government responded by creating the DOM (Daerah Operasi Militer, Military Operations
Area) in 1990, and launching a large-scale campaign against GAM and Acehnese civilians.
Only by 1992, was the whole province effectively under military control. The DOM episode
was characterized by a large number of human rights abuses cases and the military’s failure
to apply basic principles of counterinsurgency. Hence, it created even more hatred and
resistance among common people in the province. In the aftermath of Suharto’s resignation,
GAM resumed its activities in November 1998 and soon found significant support from large
segments of the society, especially in rural areas.
The causes of the prolonged dilemma in the province can be divided into four main
groups. The first cause is the unfair distribution of economic exploitation. Aceh is a rich
region, which contains plenty of natural resources such as oil, natural gas, timber. In 1992, it
was reported that Aceh provided 15% of Indonesia's total exports, and in 2003 the value of
the oil and gas fields was estimated to generate US$1.2-1.5 billion annually. However, other
contrasting examples can be found; in 2002 it was reported that Aceh was the poorest
province in Sumatra and the second poorest in Indonesia.14 For the people of Aceh, Jakarta
has done nothing but plunder, exploit, and unjustly manage their land. The second source of
the problem is Suharto's New Order politics of excessive centralism and uniformity which
brought negative consequences for local identity. The national government obsessed with
the concept of national unity and thus forced uniformity on the whole the country,
regardless of the pluralistic character of Indonesia as an entity. The third source of discontent
is the excessive military repression. Due to massive human rights abuses and the politics of
repression exercised by the military, Barber states “any tolerance of Indonesian rule was
almost entirely extinguished”. The final cause is the politics of impunity. The central
government’s inability or unwillingness to bring those responsible for human rights abuse to
trial obviously contributed to unprecedented levels of disappointment among Acehnese
(Barber, 2000). In the next part, I discuss the securitization and desecuritization dynamics in
Aceh in chronological order, according to each post-Suharto administrations.
1.1.
B. J. Habibie’s Administration (May 21, 1998 – October 20, 1999): Unprecedented
Initiative
B.J. Habibie gained power from Suharto on 21 May, 1998. Signaling a breakthrough
from the earlier regime, the new administration took desecuritizing measures for solving
problem in Aceh. Three months after Habibie’s inauguration, the then minister of defense
The official name of this organization is the Acheh-Sumatra National Liberation Front (ASNLF). Within the
territory, however, the organization is more widely known by its Indonesian language acronym.
14 Sinar Harapan, March 31, 2003.
13
7
and commander of the armed forces, General Wiranto ended the Military Operation (Daerah
Operasi Militer / DOM) status in the province on 7 August, 1998.15 In March 1999, Habibie
visited Aceh to show his determination for a peaceful solution and dialogue. There he
apologized for atrocities committed by the government and military in the past, and
promised to release political prisoners in the province and bring the perpetrators involved in
human rights violations to trial. In regards to the later, Habibie's government also
established an independent commission, which was composed largely of Acehnese, to
investigate the violations of human rights abuse in the province. Next he ordered the
withdrawal of non-organic troops which were not directly assigned to the territorial
commands in Aceh. Furthermore, Habibie’s administration also passed the Law No. 22/1999
on Regional Autonomy. Under this law, Aceh’s status as an Autonomous Region was
restored. The law grants a wide range of autonomy to the province, including the provincial
implementation of Islamic law for Muslims and compensation for past abuses by security
forces.
However, the president’s desecuritization move did not resound well since most of his
initiatives—if not all—failed to materialize. Habibie failed to fulfill his promise of
bringing the perpetrators of human rights abuse to justice. Among other obstacles was the
different interpretation among Jakarta’s elites regarding the time period of violation whereby
past offenders could be brought to trial. For instance, it was said that “there was consensus
of the government and the National Commission on Human Right that the team’s subject of
investigation would only be right violation cases that occurred over the last year”.16
Meaning, the investigation would not cover all violations committed in years prior to 1998.
The plan for withdrawing the troops also had to be abandoned. The increasing number of
riots and the escalation of violence were two major reasons behind this failure. Even the
national police requested later that military troops should not be withdrawn from a number
of unrest-prone areas. Instead of troop withdrawal, Jakarta planned to establish military
command in the province.17 Facing protests by Acehnese leader and observes, the
government delayed the plan as a response to “people aspiration”.18 As for dialogue it was
the first time Indonesia’s government made such an offer to the rebel group. The meeting
was planned in Bangkok from 24-25 July 1999 and would include the rebel’s highest leader,
M. Hasan di Tiro, top Acehnese figure Hasballah M. Saad, Aceh Governor Syamsuddin
Mahmud as well as a top Indonesianist figure, Benedict Anderson of Cornell University.
However, the key figures expected to attend the dialogue—Syamsuddin Mahmud, Hasan di
Tiro, Hasballah M. Saad—either declined or were unable to make a physical appearance.19
The very first dialogue initiative turned to ash.
Disappointed with the unfulfilled promises of the new government and with the
military’s defensive attitude, GAM began to step up insurgency with a number of attacks
Atjeh Post, August 7, 2012.
The Jakarta Post, July 3, 1999.
17 The Jakarta Post, August 27, 1999.
18 The Jakarta Post, August 31, 1999. It was finally established in the later administration.
19 The Jakarta Post, July 22, 1999.
15
16
8
against security personnel. On 2 November, 1998, encouraged by a few members of GAM,
hundreds of youths in Kandang, a Northern Aceh district, carried out a raid, burned the
Indonesian flag, and tortured two military members. In response, 23 people were arrested by
the military in the area. On 15 November, a state-owned radio station (RRI) was burned and
the police arrested some 43 civilians accused of aiding the escape of the perpetrators. On 29
December, a group of GAM members abducted and later executed seven military personnel
(Barber, 2000). In July 1999—amid the meeting in Bangkok—a group of separatist rebels shot
five of the security personnel and injured a number of others.20
All in all, the government’s first effort at peace talk had already failed before they even
got started. The incidents mentioned above became the basis for justifying the act of
securitization in redeploying of troops in Aceh. The act of securitization was finally
materialized by early January 1999, when Jakarta launched a new security device called
Operasi Wibawa (Operation Authority). To support this operation, the security forces sent
2,000 personnel of PPRM (Pasukan Penindak Rusuh Massa or Riot Prevention Force) to Aceh,
consisting of both military and police troops (Sulistyanto, 2001). A number of incidents
familiar to the Acehnese began to occur. Such incidents caused serious damage to the
already tainted image of the military. At this point, the effort to desecuritize the Aceh’s
separatist problem initiated by B.J. Habibie faced major obstacle. The government switched
into emergency mode and extraordinary measure was installed.
1.2.
Abdurrahman Wahid’s Administration (October 20, 1999 – July 23, 2001): Aborted
Desecuritzation
In the high of violent conflict, attempts for peaceful resolution began to be put on the
table again as Abdurrahman Wahid was elected president in October 1999. Initial contacts
between the conflicting parties, facilitated by a Swiss’s base humanitarian NGO, the Henry
Dunant Center (HDC), led to the first round of confidential talks between the conflicting
parties on 27 January 2000. The official to the UN in Geneva, Hasan Wirayuda, represented
Indonesia and GAM was represented by its minister of health, Zaini Abdullah. Central to
HDC’s approach was to “achieve a cessation of hostilities first and to move on to substantive
political issues later” (Aspinall, 2005b). The first talks resulted in an agreement between the
two parties to stop all forms of violence in Aceh. In addition to the talks in Geneva, the first
meeting between the commander of GAM’s military wing, Teungku Abdullah Syafi’i, and a
high official of Wahid’s government, State Secretary Bondan Gunawan, was held on 16
March in the movement’s headquarters in Pidie. Given that in the past Abdullah Syafi’i had
maintained a hard-line position, the meeting strengthened the hope for a quick agreement.
Indeed, even though the dialogue continued to be marked by a worsening security situation,
both sides were determined to bring about concrete results (Sukma, 2004).
The second talk was held on 24 March 2000 and shortly followed by the third meeting
on 14–17 April, which reached a substantial agreement, subsequently announced by
20
Ibid.
9
Indonesia’s government officially on 4 May. On 12 May, a “Joint Understanding on
Humanitarian Pause for Aceh” was signed by both sides in Davos, Switzerland. Rather than
calling it a cease-fire agreement, both sides maintained that the primary objective of the pact
was to create a pause in the violence enabling them to begin working toward a peaceful
political solution to the conflict. Toward this end, both sides agreed that the agreement,
which would be in effect from 2 June to 2September, 2000, would facilitate the delivery of
humanitarian assistance to the Acehnese affected by the conflict while at the same time
promoting confidence-building measures toward a permanent peaceful solution (Sukma,
2004).
Even though the accord presented the first opportunity to begin a peace process,
reactions in Jakarta military circles were ambiguous. On the one hand, military leaders
expressed their support of the agreement and pledged that the TNI would implement the
Joint Understanding consistently. On the other hand, government initiatives to reach a
negotiated political settlement did not receive enthusiastic support from the security
leadership. Therefore the agreement did little to stop the hostilities. It failed to reduce
violence and end the conflict in Aceh. Even when the agreement was extended to 15 January
2001, it failed to reduce, let alone stop, the violent and armed clashes in Aceh. In fact, the
degree of violence during the second phase was far worse than the first(Sukma, 2004).
Despite making a point of not sending troops against the separatist, Wahid later had
no better option. The president let the military deal with the problem in Aceh and a new
security approach was initiated.21 The nature of security operations in Aceh became clearer in
April 2001, with the issuance of Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 4 of April 2001. As a
result, the structure of security forces in Aceh was reorganized, with the national police and
the military commander in Aceh given equal responsibility for operations. From a baseline of
5.000 to 6.000 regular police and 4.000 to 5.000 territorial troops in the ‘Humanitarian Pause’
period, the government deployed some 25.000 troops to the region by April 2001 (Rabasa
and Haseman, 2002).
As a consequence of Presidential Decree No. 4/2001, a new OKPH (Operasi Pemulihan
Keamanan dan Penegakan Hukum or Operation for Restoring Security and Upholding the Law)
was launched to coordinate the actions of the police and the military in Aceh. The overall
operational command was headed by the chief of the National Mobile Police Brigade
(Brimob—the police paramilitary force), Major General Yusuf Manggabarani. There are two
field commands with equal importance under this OKPH. The first one is the military
command based in Lhokseumawe. The other is the police command based in Banda Aceh.22
Global Intelligence Update, Indonesia’s Military Grow Impatient with Wahid, Asia Times Online, June 8, 2000.
The OKPH forces comprised four key elements. The first element, the police, consists of two forces: the regular
police force which performs standard police functions, and Brimob which functions as a force to counter the
military wing of GAM. The second element is the army territorial forces based throughout Aceh under two subregional military commands in Banda Aceh and Lhokseumawe. The third element is made up of non-organic
military reinforcements drawn primarily from other army territorial commands, army strategic reserve command
(Kostrad), and army special forces (Kopassus), including a special counterinsurgency unit called Rajawali Force.
The fourth element is the Navy and the Air Force, especially the Navy’s Marine Corps and the Air Force’s Special
Forces (Paskhas).
21
22
10
This OKPH aimed to bring all security forces in Aceh under a single command headed by a
police major general. Although the official commanding role was given to the police, it has
been noted that “in practice, the police lack the training, equipment and manpower to cope
with counterinsurgency operations and the real operational power lies with TNI Brigadier
General Zamroni based in Lhokseumawe” (Sukma, 2004).
1.3.
Megawati Sukarnoputri’s Administration (July 23, 2001 - October 20, 2004): Stick and
Carrot
The political change in 2001 finally impeached Wahid and his deputy, Megawati
Sukarnoputri, replaced him until 2004. Like her predecessor, Megawati continued the
combination of security and negotiation approaches to cope with the conflict in Aceh. First of
all, Megawati apologized to the people of Aceh for the excesses of the past. Later, she signed
Law No 18/200 which granted a wide range of autonomy to the province (Rabasa and
Haseman, 2002). Megawati’s administration also pursued a non-military solution by
resuming talks with GAM leaders in Sweden. A new round of peace talks began in February
2002, and eventually both sides reached a Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA) on 9
December (Sukma, 2004).23 As of 9 February 2003, the first part of the agreement was
implemented and seven peace-zones were established in Aceh. During the first half of 2003
some progress was made during talks between the GAM and the Indonesian government.24
The act of securitization in dealing with the problem occurred at the same time as
government’s effort to desecuritize the problem. For instance, by the beginning of 2002, the
government’s military campaign had succeeded in breaking up the GAM units into isolated
bands. According to their sources, Rabasa and Haseman argue that these bands were not
under unified central control but still held a common commitment to Acehnese
independence. However, some appeared to have degenerated into criminals (Rabasa and
Haseman, 2002). Furthermore, the army’s presence in Aceh significantly increased as the
government reestablished Aceh Military Command25 in February 2002. This command had
previously been closed down in the mid-1980s. The following days witnessed repeated
armed clashes between the government’s troops and GAM rebels. Despite the reopening of
the new command, the military was still unable to end the conflict in Aceh.
There was a degree of optimism at the time that COHA would succeed for three main reasons. First, unlike the
Humanitarian Pause, COHA offered a better mechanism for implementing and monitoring the agreement
through the establishment of a Joint Security Committee that included peace monitoring teams from the
Philippines and Thailand, alongside representatives of TNI and GAM. Second, COHA provided for the
establishment of, “peace zones” in the province expected to increase the incentive for peace among the warring
parties. And third, there was stronger international backing. Japan, the United States, the European Union, and
the World Bank promised they would provide substantial financial support for reconstruction in Aceh if the
peace deal succeeded. Indeed COHA did bring a drastic reduction of the number of casualties (Rizal Sukma,
op.cit., p. 20.
24 Conflict Database, Uppsala University. Available at
http://www.pcr.uu.se/database/conflictSummary.php?bcID=201
25 Military Area Command, the first and the highest level of the territorial Army command structure (Wandelt,
2009)
23
11
Facing such a situation, the Indonesian government became increasingly impatient.
They accused the GAM of violating the COHA. Jakarta was also upset by the lack of progress
in the disarmament process. Furthermore, the government also accused GAM of recruiting
new members, strengthening its weapons stocks, committing extortion, and continuing to
advocate Acehnese independence. In fact, around this period, hopes were high that Aceh
would soon secede from Indonesia In one popular slogan from those days, independence
was sebatang rokok lagi—only “a cigarette away”. At the other camp, GAM accused the
military of being insincere in implementing the provisions of COHA, especially regarding
the withdrawal of its troops. The military, on the orders of President Megawati in April,
began to prepare for a military showdown in Aceh (Aspinall, 2005a).
The Indonesian government, nevertheless decided to give peace one last chance when
it agreed to come to Tokyo in May 2003, to negotiate with GAM’s Sweden-based leadership.
This last effort to save the peace process, however, ended in failure. As predicted, Jakarta’s
three demands—that GAM must recognize the Unitary Republic of Indonesia, accept the
special autonomy arrangement for Aceh, and agree to immediate disarmament—were
rejected by GAM representatives. As the meeting in Tokyo faced a dead-end, it was a time
for the police to exit and the military to get in (Sukma, 2004).
The government, through Presidential Decree No. 28/2003, decided to impose martial
law across Aceh and initiated a military operation called Operasi Terpadu (Integrated
Operation) in the province. The government declared that the political goal of the operation
was to resolve the Aceh problem by attaining two specific objectives: to eradicate GAM and
to curb Acehnese support for independence by, “winning the hearts and minds of the
people.”26 The military operation was officially launched on May 19, 2003 and it was the
largest Indonesian military operation since the annexation of East Timor in 1975 (Yamin,
2003).27 While this operation was initially intended to last for six months, by early November
2003 the government had stated it clear that it would be extended for another six months.
Despite some problem in its implementation, this time the government has made it
clear from the outset that the main objective of the campaign was to win the hearts and
minds of the people. To achieve this purpose, currently the military operation is only one
element together with a humanitarian mission, law enforcement, and governance. The
legitimacy of the current operation is also enhanced by strong support from the Parliament,
all political leaders, and the non- Acehnese Indonesian public at large. Furthermore, it was
the first time the military had allowed its operation to be covered by the media. Using tactics
inspired by the US Military during the war in Iraq, the media has in principle been allowed
to report what it finds and sees on the ground, despite some restrictions imposed by Law
No. 23/1959 on National Emergency. According to Major General Sjafrie Sjamsuddin, the
26
27
Presidential Decree (Kepres) No. 28/2003.
Kafil Yamin, Jakarta Offensive in Aceh Drags On, Asia Times Online, June 27, 2003.
12
then chief of the military information center, the guidelines were sent by the US Pacific
Command and have been adopted in accordance with the local environment.28
1.4.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Administration (October 20, 2004 - July 23, 2009):
Desecuritization Prevails
The 2004’s election brought a victory for President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and
Vice-president Jusuf Kalla. The greatest achievement of Yudhoyono’s administration is its
success in desecuritizing the longest vertical conflict in the country. Soon after the
inauguration, the new administration gave peace talks another chance. By and large, the
peace brokering in the new administration was led by the then Vice President Jusuf Kalla— a
leading national businessman, who served as the minister of people welfare in the previous
presidency, and the then head of the country’s largest political party. The Indonesian
government and GAM agreed to appoint Finnish ex-President Martti Ahtisaari’s Crisis
Management Initiative (CMI) as the mediator. In the first round, the Indonesian government
was again stressing its initial stance that every agreement must be based on the unitary state
of Indonesia. Historically surprising, GAM eased of its previous stance and accepted the
government’s conditions but added the term ‘self governance’. Their demand for ‘nothing
but independence’ was finally excluded from the negotiation scene (Aspinal, 2005b).
The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the government and GAM
representatives on 15 August 2005 in Helsinki, Finland ended the conflict in Aceh that has
operated at varying levels of intensity since 1976. The process of negotiation showed that
both sides made significant compromises in order to reach an agreement. While GAM made
the major strategic concessions by abandoning its demand for independence, the
government eventually also conceded on several key issues.
Despite its success, the desecuritization process still faced challenges from inside the
government. At least there are two major spoilers in this regard, the civilian politician from
the Parliament and the hard-liner military officers. Hard-line views on how to resolve the
Aceh conflict had dominated talks since the later months of Abdurrahman Wahid’s
presidency. As Harold Crouch and Aspinall observe “those who supported negotiations
were always in a minority in the government and faced constant criticism from those who
favored military action” (Aspinall and Crouch, 2003). With the civilian political elites, their
paranoia regarding peace settlement stemmed from the traumatic loss of the former East
Timor province. Hence, they had been tough on separatism and, “foreign intervention” in
internal conflicts. The typical complaints were that by negotiating in a foreign country and
with the mediation of a foreign organization, the government was charged with
However, it was not easy for the media to cover the whole true story. The reporters could not rely on what the
military says, they could not trust what GAM says either, and they could not see for themselves. The reporters
could not rely on what the military says, they could not trust what GAM says either, and they could not see for
themselves. See, Lin Neumann, Indonesia Military Hems in Press on Aceh, Asia Times Online, 22 July, 2003. However,
it was not easy for the media to cover the whole true story.
28
13
“internationalizing” the conflict and recognizing GAM was recognized as a legitimate actor
with a status equal to the Indonesian state.
Responding to such tough criticism, Vice-president Jusuf Kalla, frequently spoke to the
media to defend the negotiations in his characteristically direct style. For an example, when
some members of Parliament criticized the government negotiated outside the country, he
said “GAM wanted guarantees from foreign countries, either ASEAN or the European
Union, We had no choice. This goes back to the arrest of GAM negotiators by the police in
May 2003. That was a fatal mistake. Negotiators cannot be arrested. The element of trust
would be lost. It was like the Dutch East Indies Company which arrested Indonesian
negotiators in Indonesia”.29 It was extraordinary for any Indonesian official, especially for the
Vice President, to compare the actions of the government to that of the former Dutch
colonialists. In another occasion he maintained that, “If there is no peaceful resolution,
doesn’t it mean we’ll have endless war? . . . Is that what the people want? If we don’t want
war we’ve got to hold negotiations, or meetings. It’s funny isn’t it—people ask why are we
talking with GAM, but they also ask why is there a conflict?”30 Or, in his response against the
other critics in Parliament, in June 2005 Kalla suggested that those tough-talkers should go to
Aceh and fight the war themselves.31 Overall, although the government and political groups
in Indonesia were divided on the process of negotiations, the balance shifted in favor of the
peace camp. This was not because of any fundamental shifts of thinking of past conducts, but
rather because those who had always favored negotiations had been elevated to more
powerful positions (Aspinall, 2005a).
Concluding Analysis
So far this paper has chronologically explained the dynamics of securitization and
desecuritization as the acts taken by post-Suharto’s governments in dealing with
insurgencies in Aceh. Except for government abuses, insurgency is generally the most
sensitive issue for the integrity and unity of a country. For Indonesia, Aceh’s insurgency
movement was a ‘real’ existential threat where the unity of Indonesia was the referent object
in this case. Given its cognitive prior, the unity of the state is one of the cardinal concerns
shared by Indonesians in general. Colonial trauma, the Japanese occupation during the
Pacific War, the people’s struggle during the war for independence, local rebellions in the
1950s, and Western’s hypocrisy during the Cold War have become the major tenets in
modern Indonesian history. The political impact of the Asian Crisis in the late 1990s led to
the East Timor debacle, an empowered separatist rebellion, to internal violence conflict, and
to the establishment of terrorist groups. Such historical trauma and crisis—which almost
brought Indonesia to the verge of becoming a failed state—have spurred nationalist
sentiments. Even moderate observers, legislators or scholars and government officials have
never completely ruled out the use of military forces should other means fail to placate—in
Tempo, February 8–14, 2005
Serambi Indonesia, July 7, 2005
31 Tempo Interaktif, June 11, 2005
29
30
14
this case—the insurgents (Rüland, 2011). Furthermore, there was a time when hard-line
views dominated public discussion on how to resolve the Aceh conflict (Aspinall, 2005a).
Desecuritization moves—manifested as points of agreement in peace dialogues, e.g.
cease fire, demobilization of rebel’s troops, withdrawal of military forces, repatriation of
victim, political settlement—failed in the first attempts due to several factors. The most
fundamental one is the lack of common understanding and interpretation on the agreements.
The Indonesian government strongly held onto a position that every agreement must be
within the framework of the unitary state of Indonesia and law on Aceh’s special autonomy.
The government’s stance was ‘everything but independence’. For its part, GAM treated
peace dialogues as means for internationalizing the conflict and gaining the independence.
There was a common believe that GAM exploited the peace process for its military
consolidation, fund rising, weapons procurement, and recruitment of new members. GAM’s
stance was ‘nothing but independence’ (Aspinall, 2005b; Schultze, 2004).
Departing from the government and GAM own stance which is at odds which each
other, it was no surprising that the second reason for the failure of peace talk was lack of
confidence between the two. GAM accused the Indonesian government of a lack of sincerity
in implementing some earlier agreed upon points. The government failed to establish
working committees, kept postponing subsequent meetings, detained GAM’s negotiators,
maintained security operation in the province, and stood by as against human rights
violations kept recurring. Hard-line elements within the government, both civil and military,
also recurrently expressed their unsympathetic opinion on the peace talks in public, and
threaten to use military force crush the rebel group. Being indifferent, GAM’s leading figures
also frequently made public statements about their readiness and willingness to resort to
violent means. With regard to cease fire, GAM frequently stressed that "not using weapons"
was not the same as "not possessing weapons". Altogether, both the government and GAM’s
threat to use of force were equally aimed at boosting its bargaining position once they meet
up at the negotiation table (Schultze, 2004).
The third factor which led to the collapse of desecuritization moves prior to 2005 was
the mediator’s failure in bridging gaps between conflicting parties. As I mentioned earlier,
HDC mediated peace dialogues took place between the Indonesian government and GAM
from 1999 until its totally got shutdown in May 2003. HDC’s idea was stopping the violence
first, and then slowly solving more fundamental (political) issues. In this line, the peace
dialogue started with a cease fire then should be followed by the establishment of a zone of
peace, GAM’s disarmament, the withdrawal of Indonesian troops, and the establishment of
“all inclusive dialogues” involving wider elements in Aceh’s society in order to formulate a
mechanism for long-lasting peace (Aspinall, 2005b; Schultze, 2004). The following dynamics
showed that such an approach was too ideal and did not suit the situation where trust had
yet to be developed between the conflicting parties.
The fourth factor is that Aceh’s local government and the elites had always been
burdens in conflict settlement. Among the Acehnese, the credibility of local government was
incredibly weak due to corruption. In addition, the fact that Aceh had been suffering from a
15
protracted conflict with a dominant military presence and central government, also
contributed to the local government’s lack of performance. Increasingly, during the highest
presence of GAM from 1999-2001, the local government in Aceh was almost entirely crippled
and more then few local officials stated setting up networks with GAM (Schultze, 2004).
All together, these factors provided the grounds for either hardliners or decisionmaker, or both, to recurrently opt for securitization moves. Normally, the objective behind
all the securitization moves (designating a threat, declaring emergency situation, executing
extraordinary measure manifested in military operations) for settling conflict in Aceh, had
always to establish stability and order in the region, to eradicate the rebel group, and to curb
support for independence. In the period from 2001-2003, the central government’s dominant
approach was the combination of a stick and carrot in order to put conflict to an end.
Operation Restoring Security was combined with political movements such as peace
dialogues, economic development, social rehabilitation, and law enforcement. Therefore,
there was an additional objective of securitization, which was to address the problem
comprehensively. In this vein, and concerning the threat and level of violence, as well as the
absent of rule of law in Aceh at the time, I argue that there was a solid background for
Indonesia as a state to move beyond ‘normal politics’ of negotiations and compromises.
Every state has a legitimate right to monopolize and to use coercive forces when facing
actual violent threat coming from internal or external security environment. Hence,
Indonesia is not difference from other states.
The problem, however, did exist on how securitization was carried out rather than on
normative decision of securitization. First, there were unclear policies, incoherent strategies,
a weak chain of command and conflicting agendas of the government. Second, there was
indiscriminate use of coercive measures which led the increasing level of violence and
unsurprisingly caused human rights abuse. Finally, the very core of the problem was not
rooted in military matters. It was all about economic exploitation together with centralism
and uniformity. The situation moved from bad to worse when the Acehnese expressed their
grievances about the uneven central-local politics of governance. The central government
answered it with the use of violence. In the post-New Order era, the Acehnese’s demand to
bring human rights violators to justice failed to spur Jakarta’s attention (Sukma, 2007). After
all, the then military commander Gen. Chief Endriartono Sutarto gave a frank assessment
when addressing the Parliament’s Commission I on Defense and Foreign Affairs saying that:
“It is true that the number of GAM has declined because of the efforts taken by TNI. But it
will not mean that it will become zero. Because of that, I hope that the Commission will
understand. It seems we have not been able to do what we hoped, so we apologize. . . . So
long as the basic problems are not resolved, it will be like one dies, another takes his place,
two die, four take their place. The problem in Aceh has arisen because of disillusionment.
And it is not the role of the military to resolve that” (Aspinall, 2005a; Media Indonesia, June 9,
2005).
While desecuritization moves from 1998 to 2005 always faced a thick wall until they
finally collapsed, the last move in 2005 ended up with fruitful results. There are several
16
factors involved in the success of desecuritization in Yudhoyono’s administration. The first
factor is there was a strong figure on the side of desecuritizing actors, namely Jusuf Kalla.
Jusuf Kalla had initiated contact with several of GAM’s top figures since 2004 and the CMIfacilitated peace dialogue was the result of it. For better or worse, Kalla sent some members
from his inner circle as main negotiators representing the government—namely, Hamid
Awaluddin, as the minister of law and human rights and Farid Husain, as the deputy
minister of people welfare. Publicly, Kalla actively pushed the idea that dialogue was the
only solution for conflict settlement in Aceh. He actively convinced the public in general, as
well as, national elites who shared a more hard-line view on the settlement of the conflict
(Aspinall, 2005b).
The second factor was internal development within GAM. After years militarily
engaging with the central government, GAM finally exhausted it fighting capability. While
militarily decreasing, GAM also learned that the central government might freeze
negotiations and turn again to military solutions. There was also a widespread belief at the
time that GAM was looking to transform itself into a local political party. Therefore the most
plausible bid for GAM was dropping its ‘nothing but independence’ stance and start
focusing on the ‘self governance’ demand (Aspinall 2005b; Drexler, 2007).
The third factor was the peace the mediator’s approach. Taking a different route from
HDC’s approach of mediation, CMI’s approach was ‘nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed’. While including some negotiated points during HDC-facilitated dialogues such as
cease fire, demobilization, and other, CMI’s framework also included a design of
implementation together with a wider political settlement. This approach provided a better
general picture of how to solve political disputes between the two parties before they can
agree on it. As the result of the process, CMI succeeded in mediating an agreement on a
comprehensive and creative peace agreement, which reflected a strong willingness from both
sides to compromises. The peace agreement is creative since it provided a formula to deal
with difficult issues in an indirect way, and avoid the birth of splinter groups (Aspinall,
2005b; Sukma, 2007. Ahtisaari’s personality, as the head of CMI, also played an important
role during the mediation.
His straightforwardness in expressing his opinions and
maintaining his stance was able to placate and bridge Indonesian and GAM negotiators. As
one of Indonesian delegates admits that “he was very authoritarian, decisive and sometimes
even openly angry, which felt strange to us at first. But his directness made an impression
[…]. He in no way attempted to coax us to the table. On the contrary, we get the feeling that
[we] should be grateful that he agrees to spend time with us” (Ali, Monoarfa, and Effendy,
2008).
There are two important lessons learned from the dynamics of securitization and
desecuritization in the case of Aceh’s separatism. I started by arguing that the
desecuritization move taken by Yudhoyono’s administration signifies an outstanding case of
a peaceful settlement of internal conflict in a democratizing country. Indeed, the
implementation of the terms of the peace process as envisaged in the MoU has been
relatively smooth. For one, violence has significantly decreased across Aceh since the
17
dialogue was concluded. Furthermore, the implementation of the points of agreement has
been completed in due time and due process as agreed upon by both sides. Acehnese
political prisoners and combatants have also received state’s amnesty and economic
incentives as part of reintegration program. The national government has issued Law on
Governing Aceh (LoGA) on 11 July 2006. More important that providing detailed framework
for re-building and governing Aceh, LoGA has served as “a testimony to the presence of a
constituency of peace in Jakarta” (Sukma, 2007).
As the conclusion, the main message of this paper is to show that states in the process
of democratic transition are more likely to be shrouded by conflict situations, which mostly
originate from internal threats, rather than by a state of stability. Therefore, especially in
Weberian perspective, the state has the responsibility to manage these threats by developing
institutional and policy frameworks that provide the security actors with a scope of duties in
order to address threats and maintain stability. The securitization framework serves this
purpose. However, opting for securitization in states undergoing democratic transition can
be very vulnerable and cause negative consequences since the real challenge is to re-arrange
its security governance system. Amidst the absence of strong democratic institutions, the
politicization of security issues during a conflict period could lead to the domination of the
political and military actors. Hence, desecuritization should be an ideal option. This
framework has the potential to function as an early warning mechanism for the decisionmakers to wisely consider a conflictive issue before it escalates into a full security question.
In this view, a ‘referent object’ can only be considered a security matter if it is proved that it
poses a clear existential threat to the existence of and the territorial sovereignty of the nation.
The military engagement could be considered as an option when the threat is within
the category of armed violent acts and there is an assurance that the state has already
considered all other non-violent solutions. The use of extraordinary measures (e.g. the
deployment of military forces) must be temporary in nature, aimed to stop violent conflict, in
order to provide room for a peaceful conflict solution mechanism to work, and in accordance
with universal principles. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that there is no military
solution for any domestic unrest. The main source of many internal conflicts do not stem
directly from the military sector but more in a political, economic, and socio-cultural ones.
The use of the military in solving unrest should be regarded as a series of failures from
civilian institutions to acknowledge the problem, to manage it, to prevent it from becoming
escalated, and to solve it within the normal political bargaining process.
18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alker, Haywar R. (2006) “On Securitization Politics as Contexted Texts and Talk, “Journal of
International Relations and Development 9 (70-80).
Ali, F., Monoarfa, S. and Effendy, B. (2008) Kalla dan Perdamaian Aceh, Jakarta: LSPEU.
Aradau, C. (2004) “Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation,”
Journal of International Relations and Development 7 (388-413)
Aspinall, E and. Berger, Mark T. (2001) “The Break-up of Indonesia? Nationalisms after
Decolonisation and the Limits of the Nation- State in Post-Cold War Southeast Asia”,
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 6, The Post-Cold War Predicament.
Aspinall, E and Crouch, H. (2003), The Aceh Peace Process: Why it Failed, Policy Studies 1,
Washington, D.C.: East-West Center Washington.
Aspinall, E. (2005a) The Helsinki Agreement: A More Promising Basis for Peace in Aceh?, Policy
Studies 20. Washington, D.C.: East-West Center Washington.
Aspinall, E. (2005b) Aceh/Indonesia: Conflict Analysis and Options for Systemic Conflict
Transformation. Prepared for the Berghof Foundation for Peace Support
Balzaq, T. (2005) “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and
Context,” European Journal of International Relations 11; 171.
Balzaq, T. (2011) Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve, New York:
Routledge.
Barber, R. (Editor) (2000) Aceh: The Untold Story. Bangkok: Asian Forum for Human Rights
and Development.
Barthwal-Data, M. (2009) “Securitising Threats without the State: A Case Study of
Misgovernance as a Security Threat in Bangladesh,” Review of International Studies, 53,
277-300.
Buzan, Barry, Wæver, O. and Wilde J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis,
Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publisher, Inc
Collins, E. F. (2002) “Indonesia: A Violent Culture? Asian Survey, Vol. 42, No. 4 (July/August
2002).
Coskun, Bezen B. (2011) Analysing Desecuritisation: The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace
education and Water Management, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Drexler, E. F. (2007) “The Social Life of Conflict Narratives: Violent Antagonists, Imagined
Histories, and Foreclosed Futures in Aceh, Indonesia,” Anthropological Quarterly,
Vol. 80, No. 4 (Fall, 2007).
Emmers, Ralf, 2004, Non-Traditional Security in the Asia Pacific: The Dynamics of Securitization,
Singapore, Marshall Cavendish International.
Emmerson, D. K. (2000) “Will Indonesia Survive?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 79, No. 3 (May - Jun.,
2000).
Floyd, R. (2011) “Can Securitization Theory be Used in Normative Analysis? Towards a Just
Securitization Theory,” Security Dialogue 42: 427.
19
Gad, Ulrik P and Petersen, K. L. (2011) “Concepts of Politics in Securitization Studies,”
Security Dialogue 42: 315.
Gizzini, S. (2011) “Securitization as a Causal Mechanism,” Security Dialogue 42: 329.
Gromes, T. and Bonacker T. (2007) The Concept of Securitisation as a Tool for Analysing the
Role of Human-Rights-Related Civil Society in Ethno-Political Conflicts, SHUR
Working Paper Series
Hansen, L. (2011) “Reconstructing Desecuritisation: the Normative-political in the
Copenhagen School and Direction for How to Apply It,” Review of International
Studies.
Huyman, J. (1998) ”The Question of the Limit: Desecuritisation and the Aesthetics of Horror
in Political Realism,” Millennium - Journal of International Studies 27: 569.
Knudsen, Olav F. (2001) “Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization,”
Security Dialogue 32: 355.
Lin Neumann, Indonesia Military Hems in Press on Aceh, Asia Times Online, July 22, 2003
McCulloch L. (2001), Indonesia Must Confront the Terror Within, Asia Times Online,
November 29.
McDonald, M. (2008) “Securitization and the Construction of Security,” European Journal of
International Relations, 14; 563.
Mishra, S. (2009) A nation in transition: Are we prone to violent conflict, The Jakarta Post.
Oelsner, A. (2005) (De)Securitisation Theory and Regional Peace: Some Theoretical
Reflections and a Case Study on the Way to Stable Peace. Badia Fiesolana: European
University Institute, Working Paper RSCAS No. 2005/27.
Rabasa, Angel and Haseman J. (2002), The Military and Democracy in Indonesia: Challenges,
Politics, and Power, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Cooperation.
Roe, P. (2004) “Securitization and Minority Rights: Conditions of Desecuritization,“ Security
Dialogue 2004 35: 279.
Rüland, J. (2011) Constructing Regionalism Domestically: Local Actors and Foreign
Policymaking in Indonesia. Freiburg: Southeast Asian Studies In University of
Freiburg, Occasional Paper No. 6.
Schultze, K. E. (2004) The Free Aceh Movement (GAM): Anatomy of a Separatist
Organization, Policy Studies 2, Washington, D.C.: East-West Center Washington.
Snyder, Craig A. (Editor) (1999), Contemporary Security and Strategy, London: McMillan
Press
Stritzel, H. (2007) ”Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond, “European
Journal of International Relations; 13, 3.
Sukma, R. (2004) Security Operations in Aceh: Goals, Consequences, and Lessons. Policy Studies 3,
Washington, D.C.: East-West Center Washington.
Sukma, R. (2007) Resolving the Aceh Conflict: the Helsinki Peace Agreement. Background
Paper 4a.
Sulistiyanto, P. (2001) “Whither Aceh?” Third World Quarterly 22(3).
20
Wandelt, I. (2009) Dictionary on Comprehensive Security in Indonesia: Terminology, Jakarta:
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES).
Wilkinson, C. (2007) “The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization
Theory Useable Outside Europe?” Security Dialogue 38; 5.
Williams, Michael C. (2003) “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International
Politics,” International Studies Quarterly (2003) 47, 511–531.
Williams, Michael C. (2011) “Securitization and the Liberalism of Fear,” Security Dialogue 42:
453.
Wæver, O. (2011) “Politics, Security, Theory,” Security Dialogue 42: 465.
Vuori, Juha A. (2008) “Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the
Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders,” European
Journal of International Relations 14; 65.
Yamin K. (2003) Jakarta Offensive in Aceh Drags On, Asia Times Online, June 27.
21