State's sovereignty over Aceh

State's sovereignty over Aceh

Aleksius Jemadu, Bandung

Since the establishment of the Westphalian state system in
1648, the notion of state sovereignty has been a contentious
issue. The question of who has sovereignty over which
territories, and how much of it can be accepted by the concerned
subjects, continues to create controversies and even bloodshed.

The progress of democratization and globalization, which gives
high priority to individual rights through free elections and the
primacy of human security confronts us with an intriguing
question. Does it still make sense to hold a view that the state
should have an absolute sovereignty over its subjects when in
fact globalization has tremendously reduced its real power? Do we
need to develop the concept of reasonable sovereignty as the
state continues to be forced to compromise its sovereignty with
global political and economic forces?

The main objective of the Helsinki peace agreement signed by
the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) on
Aug. 15, 2005, was to settle permanently the traditional issue of
sovereignty in terms that are acceptable to both sides.
Notwithstanding the good intentions of both sides, the full
implementation of the agreement can never be easy as it
does not take place in a vacuum.

We need to take into account the existing configuration of
political and economic interests both within the Indonesian
government and GAM.

On the Indonesian side, there are at least three different
political groups with their respective perception about the
content of the peace deal.

The first political group is the government, which
enthusiastically convinces the public that the peace deal should
be seen as a success in putting an end to three decades of human
tragedy.

Both President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President
Jusuf Kalla do not deny that some important concessions have been
generously given to GAM. For instance, GAM may transform itself
into a local political party and together with other political
parties contest for power in a local election under the universal
principles of democratic rules.

The second political group consists of a coalition between the
nationalists and the conservative military figures. Former
president Megawati Soekarnoputri is the prominent leader of this
group. Megawati and other nationalists cannot accept the fact
that the peace deal has introduced some elements of the federal
state in the relations between Jakarta and Aceh. Megawati seems
to stick to the strict sense of the unitary state, which requires
a total submission of all the regions under the authority of the
central government.

The third political group is the silent public. It can be said
that the majority of Indonesian people are willing to accept the
compromise between the Indonesian government and GAM as long as
the resolving of the Aceh conflict does not lead to the
instability of the nation.

It follows that as far as the Indonesian side is concerned the
future success of the peace accord will very much depend on how
the nationalists and the conservative military leaders are going
to use their political influence so that their aspirations might
be accommodated in the implementation of the agreement.

It should be noted that the implementation of the agreement is
still in its early stage. It remains to be seen how such an
implementation will survive the tests stemming from the
unfaithfulness of both sides. The two parties need a recurrent
shared experience of cooperative behavior in order to build
mutual trust.

The implementation of point 1.1.1 of the agreement is of
particular importance if we want to see how the nationalists in
the legislature will push their agenda into the formulation of
the new law on the governing of Aceh. According to the peace
agreement the law will have to be promulgated and enter into
force no later than March 2006.

If the nationalists in the legislature continue to force the
notion of central government's absolute sovereignty over Aceh,
then the peace agreement will be in jeopardy. For the sake of
peace and the well-being of the Acehnese and learning from the
negative impact of the notion of absolute sovereignty in the
past, let us hope that the lawmakers are realistic enough to put
human worth above the de facto predatory notion of the state's
sovereignty.

The writer is head of the department of international
relations, Parahyangan University, Bandung. He can be reached at
aleks@home.unpar.ac.id.