Hoping for peace

Desperate positivism. That could be a way of describing the reactions toward the recently concluded talks in Helsinki between Aceh separatist leaders (GAM) and Indonesian government representatives.

The two-day meeting provided little substance in terms of progress on ending the ongoing hostilities. Calling the talks positive may be clutching at straws.

Many in this country, not least our respected legislators, have viewed the talks with snide skepticism. There are certainly many question marks hanging over the talks, especially the nature in which they came about, as it was initially patterned closer to a "corporate takeover" than a diplomatic negotiation. In fact, many of Indonesia's senior diplomats who took part in previous talks were left in the dark over developments in the latest talks.

But after two years of war and impasse, and on the heels of one of the worst natural disasters in history, the decision to continue talks at some point in the near future is a positive development.

At the very least, the two sides, by all accounts, did not leave the table in anger. In diplomacy, this could be what is described as "agreeing to disagree". There have been continued reports of clashes on the ground between government soldiers and rebels, however trading words among top representatives is better than exchanging gun fire. The talks show that there is goodwill among the two sides to seek a more amiable solution to the fighting, which generations of Acehnese have had to suffer through.

It is our hope that those involved in the armed clashes will finally recognize that there is a greater enemy currently threatening the lives of Acehnese. That enemy is hunger, illness and suffering brought about by the tsunami.

But even with our contentment over this initial round of talks, it is imperative that government officials hastily prepare a follow-up concept, which can be brought to the table.

One Indonesian minister was quoted as saying that "future meetings would seek a comprehensive peace settlement". This encouraging remark, we hope, can be interpreted as a desire to widen the talks to include the most relevant stakeholders in the Aceh issue. There is little point in imposing a peace that the Acehnese themselves have little dividend in.

Increasing the number of people involved comes with risks. Foremost is the danger that negotiations could descend into a cacophony of ideas and subplots rather than a simple dialog focused on stopping the gun fire. But, if managed properly, the general involvement of a wider spectrum of local leaders will also serve as peer pressure for both GAM and the government to hash out a mutually acceptable agreement.

Who better to shape the future of Aceh than the Acehnese?

Another proposal that could be considered, would be to find a role for the armed rebels in the reconstruction of Aceh. Given the scale of the devastation and massive rebuilding program, surely there is a role for these native Acehnese.

It is our hope that the next series of talks will further examine the common ground along with ways and means by which the two parties can alleviate the pain caused by the tsunami.

If either side resumes talks in the near future without bringing forth an open mind and qualified proposals for which to work on, then these talks will only have been window dressing to appease critics of the violence in Aceh.

To major political players in Indonesia, we ask that the sluggishness of the talks be given the benefit of the doubt. Do not cloud the remote chance for peace with superfluous issues of nationalistic chauvinism.

In particular, rebel forces and soldiers in Aceh should consciously make every effort to refrain from shooting each other.

Peace now needs to be the top priority, and it needs everybody's full support.