Hoping for peace

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.