An integrative negotiation between govt and GAM

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Center for Strategic and International Studies, bandoro@csis.or.id

The conflict in the restive province of Aceh has reportedly killed more than 10,000 people in the past 26 years, with fresh killings occurring almost daily. Ceasefires have been agreed on but never kept. A series of talks between Jakarta and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) has also been initiated, but has so far failed to reduce violence.

The development in Aceh is moving towards unprecedented danger as the central government considers declaring a civil emergency or even martial law to end the war.

In an apparent hardening of the government's position Coordinating Minister for Political, Social and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declared the separatist GAM movement as terrorists, signaling a fundamental shift from the government's diplomatic approach.

The idea that civil emergency or martial law be imposed in Aceh has created strong opposition from all quarters in Aceh.

For Acehnese, imposing such an idea would only drag them away from a final political solution. Besides, it would also refresh in their memories the launching of the 10-year military operation beginning in 1989.

The imposition of a state of emergency may cause GAM to increase its attacks, triggering anarchy. A state of emergency would be disastrous and would mean further military operations, more casualties and even greater resentment.

Aware of the adverse impact of Jakarta on the Acehnese, many have urged the two sides to the only option: Return to the negotiating table. Intermittent dialog between the government and GAM have not led to lasting agreements.

A meeting between the two sides was held in Geneva on Feb. 2 during which it was agreed that political solutions were to be discussed. In their last meeting in May both sides agreed to work with all speed toward an agreement to cease hostilities with an adequate mechanism for accountability of the parties to such an agreement.

Both also agreed that the autonomy package would be a starting point for negotiations on political settlement. But the situation in Aceh has hindered the enforcement of the agreement.

The armed conflict in Aceh has clearly revealed that the conflict is between Jakarta and GAM. The conflict between the two sides is an expensive business because both have to consume enormous amounts of time, energy and even money. From the perspective of distributive justice, the Acehnese have become distressed, frustrated and angry, because they perceive they are not receiving a fair slice of something they value.

Although GAM does not represent Acehnese in general, its military maneuvers have triggered the launching of a massive military operation. This has worsened the situation, creating an image that for the government, despite the agreement reached, military action is still the predominant tool.

What is perhaps needed is for the government and GAM to seek an integrative negotiation that would eventually lead both sides towards recognizing each others interests. Integrative negotiation is a constructive, problem solving process, the goals of which maximize the interests of the government and GAM while protecting their relationship.

Integrative negotiation does recognize differences in interest and position. But the government and GAM must not focus on their positions only. It may be difficult to persuade GAM to change positions in demanding a totally independent state as they have been fighting for this for more than two decades. But perhaps through intensive contact and dialog involving all components in Aceh, including GAM, GAM's demand can be pressed to a point where they would agree to accept the maximum offered by the government. Besides, the goal both sides have decided to pursue should be to direct the talks toward underlying concerns, needs, fears and interests.

What is needed in such a framework is to rebuild trust that has been the basis of previous talks between the two sides. If the current situation forced the government and GAM to have another round of talks, then both have to recognize the need not to achieve goals at the expense of the other, meaning that both parties see that it is in their best interests to secure whatever agreement reached and to help others achieve their goals. Both must recognize the fact that the prime problem in Aceh is not the war and how to achieve things in the future through armed contacts, but the absence of distributive justice.

Indonesia's chief negotiator for Aceh, Wiryono, urged the government not to give up hope on the negotiations, meaning that the government, despite the growing tension in Aceh, could not distance itself from the current situation in the province. Thus, the key word the government of Indonesia and GAM should now adhere to, thus creating an image that both are serious about solving the problem politically, is negotiation.

This is a peaceful procedure which reconciles and or compromises differences that have distanced both sides from each other. But the perpetuation of peaceful procedure will mostly depend on the good faith and flexibility both sides can demonstrate. The rejection by the majority of Acehnese of civil emergency or martial law, and strong opposition from certain human rights groups, could be instrumental in drawing GAM and the central government to the negotiating table.

If negotiation indeed comes into being, many will see this as a continuation of a process that would shape future agreements between the government and GAM, an agreement that hopefully enables both sides to end a decades-old feud, and that enables people in Aceh, including GAM and the Indonesian Military (TNI), to live and work together harmoniously.

In short, an integrative negotiation must not detach itself from the stands both have agreed to during previous talks. Most importantly is the cessation of hostilities.