Respite for Aceh

Respite for Aceh

There never was a good war or a bad peace. Despite the
incremental pace of negotiations, the positive mood at the
conclusion of a second round talks in Helsinki between the
government and representatives of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM)
should be welcomed by all.

People in tsunami-ravaged Aceh do not need politics. They are
still focused on simply surviving and attempting to rebuild some
semblance of a normal life.

Any formula that extends peace and defers open conflict in
Aceh, even if only temporarily, is welcome.

A flicker of light now seems to be appearing at the end of the
tunnel after decades of violence.

But we have been down this road before. Hopes have been
shattered and promises broken. It is not surprising that the
reaction at home to the talks so far has been guarded.

We fear that the flicker may not be the light at the end of
the tunnel, but instead a speeding train come to smash the dreams
of peace once again.

This is a delicate time in the negotiations. GAM has shown
good faith in entertaining alternatives to independence, while
Jakarta, to the anger of some, has displayed courage by sending a
high-level delegation to the talks.

What is now needed is tact and quiet diplomacy. Senior
Indonesian figures should refrain from summarily derogating the
position of GAM in public. Critics must not inflame what has been
a relatively cooperative mood.

There is still much to be worked out, therefore we should
allow the elaborate wheels of diplomacy to proceed accordingly.

We understand that timetables and targets must be set to move
the talks forward. However, unduly applying pressure at this
early juncture, such as Vice President Jusuf Kalla suggesting on
Thursday an agreement could be reached by the middle of the year,
is unnecessary.

This initial sit-down phase of talks is probably the easiest
part of the negotiations. The hard work is about to begin.

Defining a role for GAM within the context of the unitary
state will require exhaustive exchanges, creativity and immense
goodwill.

It is also important to remind both parties that the "real"
stakeholders in peace in Aceh -- the Acehnese -- should, at some
juncture, be actively brought into the process. They must not be
treated as passive objects. Without the consent, support and
participation of those who actually live in the province, any
agreement reached will be in vain.

Regardless of the development of peace talks in Helsinki, we
strongly believe there should also be a parallel review of the
concept of autonomy in Aceh.

An egalitarian Indonesia, whether in Aceh or elsewhere,
depends on the extent of freedom accorded to its people to
determine their own path within the parameters of the unitary
state.

While jurisdictional control is ceded to the regions, there
are questions about whether the current body of laws regulating
regional autonomy has truly succeeded in transferring power, not
just authority, to the regions.

Without authentic recognition of the rights of regions to be
autonomous, local discontent will continue to fester. Aceh is
just one example of how such local discontent has evolved into a
rebellion.

That, in essence, is the big question facing Jakarta. Is its
peace initiative designed to resolve a perpetual headache in a
far-off province, or does it truly have the well-being of the
people there in mind? The central government needs to ensure that
its offer truly has the good interests of the Acehnese in mind,
and is not a means to score a diplomatic success.

Similarly, GAM needs to ask who and what they are fighting for
when their own people are content simply to regain some normalcy
in their lives.