First things first
First things first
Given the attention that is currently being paid in both
government and media circles to the Swedish court's decision to
release two leaders of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) from custody,
Indonesians are certainly right to ask how relevant events in
Sweden are to the peaceful and lasting settlement of what is
known here as the Aceh problem.
As has been reported, the district court in Huddinge, south of
Stockholm, last Friday ordered the two GAM leaders -- the "prime
minister" in exile, Malik Mahmood (64), and "foreign minister"
Zaini Abdullah (63) -- released from custody, rejecting the chief
prosecutor's request that the two exiled Acehnese rebel leaders
be detained for two weeks.
A third leader, Hasan Tiro, the 80-year-old "president" of the
movement, was spared detention for health reasons. It should be
noted that the three fled Indonesia in the late 1970s in the face
of escalating military pressure against the separatist movement.
Zaini Abdullah and Hasan Tiro have since acquired Swedish
citizenship, while Malik Mahmood has a Swedish residence permit
and Singaporean citizenship.
Jakarta had been pressuring the Swedish government for quite
some time to take legal action against the three, whom it accuses
of not only actively supporting the separatist movement in the
troubled province of Aceh, but of being linked to a number of
terrorist acts in Indonesia. To lend substance to its claims,
Jakarta has provided the Swedish authorities with what it says is
adequate proof of the three leaders' involvement in the acts,
thus forcing the authorities in Stockholm to take action.
Government authorities in Jakarta, not surprisingly, have
expressed their unhappiness over the release of the two GAM
leaders last week, although they acknowledged the Swedish
judicial authorities' full competence in the matter. Ministry of
Foreign Affairs spokesman Marty Natalegawa over the weekend, for
example, called the GAM leaders' release a mere "technical
matter" that had no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand,
which is that the three are being charged by the Swedish
prosecutors with breaching international law.
The Indonesian authorities, both in Jakarta and in the
Acehnese provincial capital of Banda Aceh, said they would
provide the Swedish judicial authorities with more evidence and,
if necessary, translators to explain the incriminating documents
that had been seized from the exiled leaders' homes. Jakarta at
the same time made it clear that it would not seek the
extradition of the GAM leaders, since Indonesia has no
extradition treaty with Sweden and thus cannot demand that they
be extradited to Indonesia.
Clearly, Indonesia has a political interest in urging the
Swedish authorities to keep up the pressure on the leaders of
GAM, which has been fighting for the province's independence
since 1976. What the authorities in Jakarta failed to mention,
but which is nevertheless no less important a point, is that not
only would asking for the extradition of the GAM leaders be a
futile attempt on Jakarta's part, it would also be irrelevant to
the lasting, peaceful settlement of the Aceh problem.
First of all, it is well worth asking what influence those
three leaders in exile still have over the movement in Aceh. It
would seem most plausible that the situation there has changed
considerably since the late 1970s when the three left their
native province. Second, it seems that the actual size and
strength of the movement is also often overrated. However, it is
interesting to note in this context that while in 1989 -- when
the Soeharto regime declared the province a Military Operations
Area (DOM) -- GAM's strength was estimated to be about 500 men
and women, by the end of Soeharto's rule in 1998, the movement
was believed to have grown to include some 3,000 men and women,
which is evidence that a military solution is not only
ineffective, but counterproductive.
What the people of Aceh need, in essence, is justice and the
right to determine their own fate and future. In part, this
desire for self-rule has been satisfied by the granting of a
special autonomy status. Sadly, in the face of continuing unrest,
Jakarta deemed it necessary to once again impose martial law on
the province, and military action resumed in the form of the so-
called "integrated operation", in which combat operations and
humanitarian assistance are supposed to go hand-in-hand. With
most of the province apparently pacified and martial law revoked,
Aceh is now being administered under a state of civil emergency.
Thus, a situation appears to have been brought about which is
conducive for the central government in Jakarta to put right the
wrongs it has for so many decades inflicted on Aceh and the
Acehnese. Jakarta must never forget the huge contribution that
Aceh and the Acehnese made to the country's struggle for
independence. Only by paying due respect to the legitimate rights
of the Acehnese can Jakarta hope to establish peace in the
province. Viewed from this perspective, secondary matters such as
the conviction and extradition of a handful of leaders in exile
appear irrelevant.
Given the attention that is currently being paid in both
government and media circles to the Swedish court's decision to
release two leaders of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) from custody,
Indonesians are certainly right to ask how relevant events in
Sweden are to the peaceful and lasting settlement of what is
known here as the Aceh problem.
As has been reported, the district court in Huddinge, south of
Stockholm, last Friday ordered the two GAM leaders -- the "prime
minister" in exile, Malik Mahmood (64), and "foreign minister"
Zaini Abdullah (63) -- released from custody, rejecting the chief
prosecutor's request that the two exiled Acehnese rebel leaders
be detained for two weeks.
A third leader, Hasan Tiro, the 80-year-old "president" of the
movement, was spared detention for health reasons. It should be
noted that the three fled Indonesia in the late 1970s in the face
of escalating military pressure against the separatist movement.
Zaini Abdullah and Hasan Tiro have since acquired Swedish
citizenship, while Malik Mahmood has a Swedish residence permit
and Singaporean citizenship.
Jakarta had been pressuring the Swedish government for quite
some time to take legal action against the three, whom it accuses
of not only actively supporting the separatist movement in the
troubled province of Aceh, but of being linked to a number of
terrorist acts in Indonesia. To lend substance to its claims,
Jakarta has provided the Swedish authorities with what it says is
adequate proof of the three leaders' involvement in the acts,
thus forcing the authorities in Stockholm to take action.
Government authorities in Jakarta, not surprisingly, have
expressed their unhappiness over the release of the two GAM
leaders last week, although they acknowledged the Swedish
judicial authorities' full competence in the matter. Ministry of
Foreign Affairs spokesman Marty Natalegawa over the weekend, for
example, called the GAM leaders' release a mere "technical
matter" that had no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand,
which is that the three are being charged by the Swedish
prosecutors with breaching international law.
The Indonesian authorities, both in Jakarta and in the
Acehnese provincial capital of Banda Aceh, said they would
provide the Swedish judicial authorities with more evidence and,
if necessary, translators to explain the incriminating documents
that had been seized from the exiled leaders' homes. Jakarta at
the same time made it clear that it would not seek the
extradition of the GAM leaders, since Indonesia has no
extradition treaty with Sweden and thus cannot demand that they
be extradited to Indonesia.
Clearly, Indonesia has a political interest in urging the
Swedish authorities to keep up the pressure on the leaders of
GAM, which has been fighting for the province's independence
since 1976. What the authorities in Jakarta failed to mention,
but which is nevertheless no less important a point, is that not
only would asking for the extradition of the GAM leaders be a
futile attempt on Jakarta's part, it would also be irrelevant to
the lasting, peaceful settlement of the Aceh problem.
First of all, it is well worth asking what influence those
three leaders in exile still have over the movement in Aceh. It
would seem most plausible that the situation there has changed
considerably since the late 1970s when the three left their
native province. Second, it seems that the actual size and
strength of the movement is also often overrated. However, it is
interesting to note in this context that while in 1989 -- when
the Soeharto regime declared the province a Military Operations
Area (DOM) -- GAM's strength was estimated to be about 500 men
and women, by the end of Soeharto's rule in 1998, the movement
was believed to have grown to include some 3,000 men and women,
which is evidence that a military solution is not only
ineffective, but counterproductive.
What the people of Aceh need, in essence, is justice and the
right to determine their own fate and future. In part, this
desire for self-rule has been satisfied by the granting of a
special autonomy status. Sadly, in the face of continuing unrest,
Jakarta deemed it necessary to once again impose martial law on
the province, and military action resumed in the form of the so-
called "integrated operation", in which combat operations and
humanitarian assistance are supposed to go hand-in-hand. With
most of the province apparently pacified and martial law revoked,
Aceh is now being administered under a state of civil emergency.
Thus, a situation appears to have been brought about which is
conducive for the central government in Jakarta to put right the
wrongs it has for so many decades inflicted on Aceh and the
Acehnese. Jakarta must never forget the huge contribution that
Aceh and the Acehnese made to the country's struggle for
independence. Only by paying due respect to the legitimate rights
of the Acehnese can Jakarta hope to establish peace in the
province. Viewed from this perspective, secondary matters such as
the conviction and extradition of a handful of leaders in exile
appear irrelevant.