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.