Hedman, Eva-Lotta E.

English

Research Papers in Economics

    FMR 25 70
I
n August 2005 a Memorandum 
of Understanding (MoU) was 
signed between the Indonesian 
government and the separatist 
Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan 
Aceh Merdeka - GAM). The Aceh 
Monitoring Mission (AMM)1 has 
successfully overseen relocation of 
Indonesian troops and police and 
decommissioning of GAM weap-
ons. GAM has publicly disbanded 
its military wing and is to take part 
in forthcoming local government 
elections. Human rights violations 
have drastically declined.
In this context, it is all the more 
striking that the lives of IDPs have 
remained, in important respects, 
defined by their displacement. 
Only a small fraction of the more 
than half a million people dis-
placed by the tsunami in Aceh and 
Nias Island have become active 
participants in reconstruction. At 
the end of 2005, some 80% remain 
in some form of temporary shelter. 
Sanitation is often poor and the 
isolated location of many shelters 
makes it hard to access jobs and 
heath and education services. 
A recent survey of IDPs in host 
families suggests that such ar-
rangements, which predominantly 
involve living with relatives, have 
become more permanent than 
many had hoped. More than half 
of those IDPs surveyed have been 
living with the same host commu-
nities or families since the tsunami 
struck.2 The destruction and/or 
unfinished reconstruction of their 
house were the most commonly 
cited reasons for staying so long 
with host families.
Prior to the tsunami an estimated 
120,000 IDPs were forced from 
their homes by counter-insurgency 
operations. In the context of post-
tsunami Aceh, conflict-induced 
IDPs have remained largely invis-
ible. In the aftermath of the peace 
agreement and demilitarisation, 
however, some have taken action 
to return to central Aceh where 
militia groups – not included in 
the MoU – still enjoy the backing 
of local businessmen and both 
civilian and military officials. On 
10 December, a collective effort 
was launched by some 5,000 con-
flict IDPs in Pidie and Bireuen.3 As 
transportation promised by local 
government officials failed to ma-
terialise, IDPs turned the planned 
return into a protest march before 
eventually boarding trucks and 
buses for the central highlands 
where they established camps 
along the main road.  
These conflict-induced IDPs in 
central Aceh have suffered from 
food shortages and experienced 
intimidation and forced reloca-
tion at the hands of military and 
police, as well as interventions by 
government officials seeking to 
undermine their collective voice. 
There have also been reports of 
violence targeting returning IDPs 
and/or their property, as well as 
cases of fighting with local youth 
or (former) militia in places where 
local leaders have refused to 
provide security guarantees. Im-
mediate concerns remain as to the 
overall conditions in make-shift 
camps, which have become more 
difficult to reach and monitor on 
account of their proliferation and 
relocation to villages in the central 
highlands. There are also concerns 
about the broader issue of secu-
rity – or lack thereof – especially 
in communities where no security 
guarantees have been agreed with 
local officials. 
The Guiding Principles on In-
ternal Displacement assert that 
authorities have a primary duty 
and responsibility to establish 
the conditions, as well as pro-
vide the means, to allow IDPs to 
return voluntarily, in safety and 
with dignity. At a minimum, lo-
cal government officials should 
declare commitment to uphold-
ing and strengthening the peace 
process, offer security guarantees 
and, where desired, host peusijuk 
(traditional ceremony of welcome 
or forgiveness) to foster reconcili-
ation. Safe return and reintegra-
tion cannot be achieved without a 
greater measure of transparency 
and participation.
As elections approach, AMM and 
other concerned groups are work-
ing to provide space for the Gov-
ernment of Indonesia, GAM and 
communities to debate their views 
of the MoU. However, the entire 
peace process could be derailed by 
a proposal to redraw administra-
tive boundaries in Aceh which is 
being debated in the national leg-
islature. Conflict IDPs who wish to 
return to their communities in the 
central highlands of Aceh view this 
development with great anxiety. 
Government officials pushing for 
this division of the province may 
not only be jeopardising the peace 
process but may also be in viola-
tion of the Guiding Principles.
Eva-Lotta Hedman is a Senior 
Research Fellow at RSC. Email: 
eva-lotta.hedman@qeh.ox.ac.uk  
A longer version of this article is 
online at: www.fmreview.org/pdf/
hedman.pdf  
For more information, see the World Bank’s Aceh 
Conflict Monitoring Update www.conflictand-
development.org/Home.php and a report from 
the International Crisis Group: www.crisisgroup.
org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=4049 
  
1. A project of the EU, Norway, Switzerland and 
five countries of the Association of South-East 
Asian Nations (ASEAN). www.aceh-mm.org 
2. ‘IDPs in Host Families Sample Survey Summary 
Report’ www.humanitarianinfo.org/sumatra/re-
liefrecovery/livelihood/docs/doc/UNORCIDPsin-
HostfamiliesSampleSurveySummaryReport-
140206.pdf’  
3. According to the Center for Humanitarian and 
Social Development, a local NGO in Pidie working 
with IDPs, some 5,000 names were collected at 
the outset of the return march. Author’s inter-
view, 11 January 2006.
The right to return: 
IDPs in Aceh  
by Eva-Lotta E Hedman www.rsc.ox.ac.uk
Refugee Studies Centre
Political changes are underway in Aceh but only a small 
fraction of those displaced by the December 2004 tsunami 
or by earlier conﬂict with insurgents have returned home.

The right to return: IDP's in Aceh.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics