Aceh peace agreement and the light of hope

Aceh peace agreement and the light of hope

Desra Percaya, Diplomat, New York

After a period of uncertainty, the signing of the agreement to
end the hostilities between the government of Indonesia and the
Free Aceh Movement (GAM) finally took place in Geneva on Dec 9.
This latest development rightfully reminds us of May 2000, when
the Humanitarian Pause was signed. The majority of Acehnese,
filled with high hopes that peace would soon return to the
province, had prayed for the successful implementation of that
agreement. But they were wrong.

As a consequence of their disappointment, people have
inevitably adopted a rather cautious attitude toward the Geneva
landmark as the conflict has continued unabated since May. That
unfulfilled hope has led to a dangerous distrust among the
people, in terms of the dialog process and the prospects for a
peaceful settlement.

It is to be expected that a debate will follow the Geneva
agreement, following the experience of the Humanitarian Pause.
Without thoroughly looking at the long-term benefits of achieving
peace through dialog, many of those opposing Geneva would rather
back a military approach. Thus, it is too early to see the
immediate effects of the signing, as building peace requires a
long time. What is certain, for now, is that another building
block has been laid in the construction site of peace in Aceh.

The signing of this agreement has made a significant stride
toward peace, and there are no comparisons in modern Indonesia.
With parties to the agreement claiming to be acting in the
interests of the people, it is rather difficult for ordinary
people to understand why that same concern has not engendered a
speedy accord.

Learning from the series of dialogs, it can be said that while
the signing of an agreement is a delicate process, its
implementation is undeniably more challenging. The devil is in
the details of an agreement, and both parties need to seriously
embark on follow-up actions.

The search for peace in Aceh is unique in one respect. It is
the first time that a government, armed with legitimate state
sovereignty, has conducted a dialog with a separatist movement
with the facilitation of an international non-governmental
organization (NGO). This process, which began during the
administration of former president Abdurahman Wahid, was
initially received with alarm and severe criticism from many
quarters.

This should really have come as no surprise. Having been under
an authoritarian regime, a culture of dialog was known to many
Indonesians. They were used to a system where differences or
dissent were always answered in the name of security concerns.
This is why the new approach, which employs the mechanisms of
dialog, has been seen as an anomaly.

What is the meaning of the Geneva Accord? There is no question
that Indonesia is currently facing a multidimensional crisis. The
Accord signifies that in both political and security
perspectives, the government has identified a clear road map
concerning a solution to the Aceh problem. The realization of
this road map will enable the government to channel its energy
and focus its attention toward the unfinished reform agenda of
democratization and economic recovery.

This agreement also serves the interests of the state, namely
maintaining the territorial integrity of the republic. It will
also send a message out to the nation that the demand for
independence does not necessarily lead to the creation of a new
state.

It is worth recalling that much of the failure of the
Humanitarian Pause can be attributed to GAM's inability to
deliver on its many promises. It is understandable that as a
loose separatist movement whose leaders live in Stockholm, they
do not have a strong grip and solid influence on followers in the
field, especially armed elements. Being out of touch with the
realities in the field was also partly responsible for the
failure to conclude an early agreement. The road map to peace,
therefore, will also serve to direct GAM in the right direction.

While recognizing the importance of the agreement, one should
not lose sight of the fact that a political settlement has yet to
be finalized once and for all. The transformation of GAM from an
armed separatist group into a political party and the convening
of an all-inclusive dialog involving all elements of the Acehnese
remain to be undertaken. This will be one of the biggest
challenges for GAM's leadership, which claims to be the sole
representative of the Acehnese and also maintains it receives
their wide support.

The return of peace to Aceh would certainly contribute to the
maintenance of peace and stability in the region. There is strong
evidence that the flow of small arms and light weapons to GAM
stems from countries in the region. This source of friction will
inevitably be eliminated once the conflict disappears.

Furthermore, the readiness of the government to accept
international monitors from friendly neighboring countries, such
as Thailand and the Philippines, is an unprecedented phenomenon.
Although some nationalists question the arrangement, this brave
step should be praised and regarded as evidence of the
government's genuine commitment and determination for a peaceful
settlement.

The convening of the recent international conference in Tokyo
on Aceh's reconstruction has further boosted the prospects for a
peace dividend, and will pave the way for a better future in the
province.

In the end, it takes two to tango. Therefore, both parties to
the agreement should adhere to it and make every effort toward
the sincere implementation of its contents. In view of the fact
that they both speak on behalf of the people, it is time to put
the betterment of the lives of the Acehnese at the very core of
the issue. Any progress in the dialog process will definitely
allow the Acehnese some breathing space to taste a life of
normality, which they have been missing for decades.

The light of hope has appeared in Aceh, illuminating the
mosque of lasting peace on Aceh soil.