Peace versus sovereignty

Which do we love more, peace or sovereignty?

This question came up when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono addressed the problem of Aceh last week. The chief security minister reportedly said: "Indonesians love peace, but Indonesians value their sovereignty and territorial integrity even more."

In the context of the current Aceh crisis, this statement is a pretext to the government's military campaign against the separatist movement. There is nothing wrong with this presupposition except that we know that historically, no military operation in Aceh has ever succeeded.

If this had been the 1940s, when the nation fought for independence from the Dutch, this argument -- that sovereignty is more important than peace -- would certainly hold true.

In today's context, this statement sends shivers down our spine. It tells us of the prevailing attitude in government: that it is prepared to defend its "sovereignty" over Aceh at all costs, including at the cost of the peace of the people there.

This is the line of thinking which launched many military operations in the past in Aceh, Papua and East Timor, with untold miseries endured by their civilians. This is the line of thinking that caused massive deaths and destruction, disrupted people's lives, if not dislocating them altogether. This is the line of thinking that encouraged our military to commit all kind of atrocities against our own people, all in the name of defending our "sovereignty" and territorial integrity.

While we know that it is the peace in Aceh that people like Susilo is willing to disrupt, it is also clear that he is not concerned so much about the sovereignty of the people of Aceh. He is far more concerned about the "sovereignty" of Jakarta over the territory, in other words, Jakarta's rule over Aceh.

This is pure arrogance. This is the kind of attitude of the rulers in Jakarta that has fueled strong resentment among the people in many regions, and to cause some of them later to demand separation, and to fight for their own "sovereignty".

Indonesia, lest we forget, is a common project in which the people of various regions, originally from Aceh to Maluku, and later to include Papua (albeit under controversial circumstances), decided to take part in.

Each region volunteered to join in this project not solely because of their shared history and cultures, but also because of their belief in a common destiny: together as one nation, rather than individually, we progress and prosper.

The basis of this Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia, has been and will always be voluntary. Indonesia was not a project that was imposed on these regions. At least, that was how it started in 1945, and this is how it should be today.

Although this 58-year project has not really produced the maximum desired results, many people continue to believe in its future enough to sustain it.

Problems always started when some of us tried to impose our "sovereignty" over the other regions for this usually means the use of force.

The people of East Timor, who never shared a common history with the rest of Indonesia in the first place, saw Indonesia as simply another colonizer. Papuans have been critical over what they perceive as the "Javanization" of their land.

And the people of Aceh, who made significant contributions to Indonesia's independence struggle in the late 1940s, have long complained about the raw deal and unfair treatment they have been getting from the central government in Jakarta.

We lost East Timor through our own arrogance. Surely, we should have learned something from that episode and not want to commit the same mistakes in our dealings with Papua and in Aceh. You do not keep people in the republic by force. You keep them by making them feel part of the republic.

As much as we wish that the Aceh people remain in the fold of the republic, no one should ever impose that will on them for that decision should be in the hands of the people of Aceh, and nobody else. We in Jakarta can only try to make the people of Aceh feel at home with the republic so that they will stay.

Pak Susilo was way out of line in claiming to speak on behalf of all Indonesians to suggest that, today, we love sovereignty more than we love peace. And he is even more wrong in suggesting that Jakarta could impose its sovereignty over the people of Aceh, at all costs.

The government should make peace in Aceh its overriding concern. In other words, peace at all costs.

It should give the existing peace process in Aceh, brokered by the Geneva-based Henry Dunant Centre, another chance to work. Because for most of the people in Aceh, as it is for most Indonesians, peace is not negotiable.