Aceh peace, a challenge before the world

Desra Percaya, Permanent Mission of Indonesia to UN, New York

The series of discreet contacts, led by Hasan di Tiro based in Stockholm, Sweden, between Indonesian government officials and the separatist Free Aceh Movement (GAM) appears to have resulted in the imminent signing of an agreement to end the conflict in Aceh. This latest development has given a rare hope for all Acehnese that peace would soon return to this restive province, provided that GAM does not repeat a unilateral retraction at the last minute.

Indeed, the dialog process has been going on since January 2000 with its dynamics of progress and shortcomings. Despite the government's good faith and sincere efforts to resolve the issue by adopting a comprehensive approach, in particular the enactment of special autonomy laws, the light at the end of the tunnel is yet to be seen.

Nevertheless, the process has provided a firm basis for resolving differences peacefully. Dialog should, of course, provide opportunities to understand the underlying concerns of the respective parties, and to instill trust and confidence among the concerned parties towards achieving a political settlement.

Unfortunately, the expected progress has failed to materialize. GAM leaders even continue to maintain an unrealistic and rigid stance, namely a condition of "independence and nothing but independence", which has been unhelpful.

In fact, figuring out GAM's approach to negotiations has been one of the most difficult obstacles, as its leaders fail to differentiate between rhetoric and reality. Their belated readiness to enter into a substantive political dialog, for instance, has shown that they have a real problem with translating their demands for independence into a clear political agenda.

The problem seems to lie at the heart of GAM leadership, particularly the ailing and hardline leaders, who only repeat a rhetorical assertion that goes back centuries. These leaders are unquestionably living an illusory existence and seem to be out of touch with contemporary realities. They mistakenly believe that the international community is fully behind them in their struggle to break away from the Indonesian republic.

While there is no longer international support for GAM, this separatist group should try and demonstrate that it is worthy of any. It is merely wishful thinking that, under current global conditions, a separatist movement practicing terror against a legitimate government would receive international support. Concerted support should instead be extended to Indonesia -- a country committed to promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law -- which is presently fighting the terrorist phenomenon.

GAM should take the opportunity to participate in the reform process, rather than ignore the many opportunities that have been extended to it. Instead, GAM has intensified military activities and increasingly expounds upon the linkage between racial hatred and opposition to the central government.

Recent developments in the field attest to the fact that GAM maintains its practice of terror, and the evidence is strong enough to classify GAM as a terrorist organization. This intolerable situation has forced Indonesia to take firm action in upholding law and order, as is the legitimate right of any country in the world.

What role can the international community play at this particular juncture? While the government of Indonesia is making every effort to bring prosperity and justice to the people of Aceh, the international community should contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to peace by "enlightening" GAM leaders about their unrealistic demands and putting some kind of direct pressure on them to abandon violent practices.

Regrettably, some countries that have championed democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, continue to harbor and tolerate GAM leaders who have been waging terror in Aceh. Although some of their hosts may argue that these people are not directly involved in acts of terror, surely they have a certain degree of control and authority in fomenting fear in this province. This is a test case to show how serious the international community is about the dialog process; speeches are definitely not enough. The latest summons of the Swedish emissary in Jakarta needs no further explanation.

Repeated expressions of support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Indonesia would be meaningless if they are not accompanied by concrete action directed at the leadership of GAM, particularly in light of the forthcoming meeting in Geneva.

The above views are personal.