Government has no intention of negotiating in Aceh: Activist

Government has no intention of negotiating in Aceh: Activist

The signs are that the government has no plans to come to the
table to seek a peaceful settlement on Aceh, sociologist Otto
Syamsudin who is also the director of Cordova, a non-governmental
organization focusing on human rights, told The Jakarta Post last
week in a long-distance interview from Banda Aceh:

Question: The government has sent different signals, with
security ministers and generals saying "there is a limit to
dialog" and the President saying that more emphasis will be
placed on negotiations with the Acehnese. How do you see this?

Answer: The reality is that it's impossible (that the
government would not use force). Until today violations of human
rights against civilians here continue. The government does not
seem to pay any attention to this continuous violation. All it's
done is make the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) a scapegoat; although
it is true that GAM could also be involved in such violations.

But I think the possibility for GAM's involvement is far less
than that of the soldiers because the Acehnese can be said to be
a part of GAM. GAM's philosophy is that the people and GAM are
like fish and water.

But to soldiers, mainly during the 10-year military operation
(which ended in 1998), the people should be attacked if they are
to overcome GAM because the people are like GAM's social
fortress. They tried to destroy the "fortress" through violence,
terror, kidnapping, and public executions.

Q: Is there a difference in the type of violence today?

A: Today we see a new type of violence in the style of mysterious
murders (petrus), such as those committed during the Soeharto
years which were then applied on suspected criminals.

Suddenly now in Aceh we have bodies placed deliberately in
public areas. It is these actions that make it difficult for us
to believe the government when it says the violation of rights
here can be stopped.

Our experience shows how hard it is to ask for the cooperation
of the police and the military assigned here.

In the case of arrests, they aren't open to dialog at all when
we try to have the arrestees released.

In the case of the August arrest of three activists of
(British aid organization) Oxfam working in Jambo Dalim in South
Aceh, the activists had permits and were known to the
authorities. Yet they were arrested and tortured. When they were
released, one of them had some 25 stitches on him.

Early this month, three volunteers of the Rehabilitation
Action for Torture Victims (RATA) in Aceh were publicly executed.
RATA is a NGO with funds from the government of Denmark working
to rehabilitate victims of kidnapping. They were arrested,
tortured and killed.

Until now we have not been able to bring home their bodies.
Mohammad Nazar, head of the Aceh Referendum Information Center
(SIRA), has not been released either (since his arrest on
Nov.22). He has been treated as a criminal detainee instead of a
political detainee although the charges against him are political
(creating disorder during a rally on Independence Day of Aug.
17). However he has not been tortured.

Q: So the humanitarian pause has not reduced the intensity of the
violence?

A: That's right. Instead since June we've been seeing more petrus
cases, in which the victims are mostly civilians. The joint
committee for security modality representing GAM and the
government, cannot negotiate on the field; they cannot even stop
the violence conducted by field commanders. They rarely appear on
the field.

This shows the absence of a solid command within the
Indonesian government. So we find it hard to believe that the
violence will stop although President Abdurrahman Wahid has
stressed the need to end the violent approach.

Q: The government has said it would impose a civilian emergency
rule in Aceh, and then if necessary, impose a military emergency
rule if the humanitarian pause ends without results. Your
comments?

A: First, we should return to the essence of the humanitarian
pause which is to enable the provision of humanitarian aid to the
Acehnese, not to end armed conflict.

So I think Susilo (Coordinating Minister for Political, Social
and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) has misunderstood
the pause.

To end violence in Aceh, what must be done is to draw up a
political deal with GAM, instead of burdening the end to violence
on the humanitarian pause.

The government should face the Aceh case through two channels;
First, a humanitarian channel, to rehabilitate humanitarian
problems. Second, a political channel, through which GAM and the
Republic of Indonesia could seek an agreement to end armed
conflict.

If the government wants to impose martial law, it shows that
it has no intention of negotiating because it has already started
on a framework of the republic's unitary state.

Maybe the government does not care about the humanitarian
situation here. Susilo has often mentioned law enforcement in
Aceh but until now there has not been any trial on those who have
committed violence here.

Law enforcement has only been used to make GAM the scapegoat;
hence the government is using the ways of the New Order which
used the law as a weapon against its political enemies. The
government has never really acknowledged violations of human
rights here, it has only said that there have been murders by
"irresponsible" personnel.

Q: Which party has mostly violated the humanitarian pause?

A: Maybe both parties are guilty of violating the humanitarian
pause. But what is more important is that if both the government
and GAM respect human rights in Aceh, both parties must be open
to a transparent and comprehensive examination of rights
violations.

Such an "audit" can be done by foreign NGOs like Amnesty
International or the United Nations. We have a model in the case
of East Timor, in which the UN was involved but where it was the
National Commission on Human Rights which set up the independent
commission investigating rights violations in East Timor.

So far GAM's response toward the proposed examination has been
more "gentlemanly."

Q: How large is the possibility for Aceh, and also Irian Jaya, to
become an international issue?

A: The possibility is small in the political dimension but
sympathy toward rights violations in Aceh in the international
fora has been larger than in Irian Jaya simply because of the
more known victims in Aceh.

Recently special rapporteurs from the UN's human rights
commission urged the examination of rights violations in Aceh.

Q: Do you see any prospect of a peaceful settlement for Aceh?

A: There must be a comprehensive settlement comprising
humanitarian and political aspects. So it depends on the
government on whether it has such a comprehensive package.

I see the government does not have a clear concept on Aceh.
They are only asserting that the unity of the republic must be
preserved but they don't know how. Maybe all they know is the
military approach -- but actually in each violent incident it is
the republic which stands to lose in the eyes of the Acehnese.

And the reality is that GAM has managed to win the hearts of
most Acehnese because of the government's approach in which many
people have become victims.

Maybe it's true that many don't agree with GAM's demands but
it's also true that almost all Acehnese hate the government for
its violations of human rights.

Q: What are your comments on the plan to apply Islamic law in
Aceh to fulfill the Acehnese people's demands?

A: That has not helped much to win over the Acehnese, not to say
that it was futile. Acehnese are devout Muslims, what was the
purpose of having them read the syahadat statements
(acknowledging Allah and the Prophet Muhammad)? That was only the
demand of a fraction of the elite, mainly in the local council.

The main demand of the Acehnese is a referendum (to determine
if they want to secede from Indonesia). (Asip A. Hasani)