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.