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.