No Indonesia without Aceh

No Indonesia without Aceh

Lela E. Madjiah, Staff Writer, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Force won't solve Indonesia's problems in Aceh- U.S. Australia
concerned about loss of life in Aceh. U.S. calls for resumption
of negotiations in separatist conflict.

These May 20th headlines from Reuters, AFP and dpa news
agencies respectively reflect the view of Western governments on
Indonesia's crackdown on Acehnese separatist rebels.

These Western views, that of the U.S. and Australia in
particular, serve only to strengthen the notion of double
standards adopted by many Western governments, the U.S. in
particular. Witness the U.S. occupation of Iraq, despite global
opposition to the invasion and a lack of a UN sanction. The very
same governments that are occupying Iraq are asking Indonesia not
to wage war to defend its sovereignty and national unity.

For Indonesia, Aceh is a matter of life or death. Without
Aceh, there is no Indonesia. Similarly, without Irian Jaya
(Papua) there is no Indonesia and that is why Indonesia is
determined to keep the nation intact at all costs.

Aceh is different from Iraq. For the U.S. and its allies, Iraq
is not a matter of life or death; without invading Iraq, the U.S.
and its allies would still survive. That is how Indonesians see
the matter and feel the U.S. and its allies have been unfair in
their demands for Indonesia to avoid war in Aceh.

No government allows separatism within its borders and that is
the line adopted by the Indonesian government in dealing with
separatist movements in the country.

The Indonesian Military (TNI), too, adopts a similar view. In
fact, all Indonesia's men in uniform have pledged their lives for
their nation and country.

There is nothing unique in this because no nation will just
give up its territory without a fight. It is therefore baffling
that Indonesia's struggle to maintain unity has come under fire
from the world community as reflected by the views of the U.S.
and its allies.

In fact, countries help each other in dealing with armed
separatists within their boundaries. The U.S., for example, sent
troops to the Philippines to fight alongside their Filipino
counterparts against the Muslim Moro rebels.

Or vice versa, as in the case of Indonesia, where the U.S.
supported the PRRI/Permesta rebellion in the 1950s.

History has shown that internal wars -- wars that pit two or
more opposing sides within the same political and geographic unit
-- are terminated frequently by military victories than by
negotiated settlements. Between 1940 and 1990, 55 percent of
interstate wars were resolved at the bargaining table while only
20 percent of civil wars reached similar solutions. Instead, most
internal wars ended with the extermination, expulsion or
capitulation of the losing side. In fact, groups fighting civil
wars almost always chose to fight to the finish unless an outside
power stepped in to guarantee a peace agreement (Barbara F.
Walter, 1997).

The Indonesian government has held talks with Acehnese
separatists but as the recent failure in Tokyo has demonstrated,
no compromise could be reached because neither side is willing to
compromise their stands. For Indonesia, the Unitary Republic of
Indonesia is a final. The Acehnese meanwhile will accept nothing
less than independence.

Similar cases throughout history have shown that internal wars
end only when one of the opposing sides is completely defeated.
The Acehnese separatists have waged war for the last 26 years and
there seems no end to the conflict that has claimed around 10,000
lives, mostly civilian.

The protracted war in Aceh is a drain in Indonesia's human
resources and finances. But most of all, it is also threatening
its very existence. As a British diplomat once said, "Without
Aceh, without Papua, there will be no Indonesia."

This much is at stake.