The Aceh war in the eyes of international community

The Aceh war in the eyes of international community

Bantarto Bandoro
Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly',
Centre for Strategic and
International Studies
(CSIS)
Jakarta
bandoro@csis.or.id

At midnight on May 18, after tense talks between the
authorities and the leaders of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM)
rebels in Tokyo had broken down, President Megawati Soekarnoputri
placed Aceh under martial law and gave the Indonesian Military
(TNI) the green light to launch what could be the country's
largest military operation since the 1975 invasion of East Timor.

Hopes for a peaceful solution, as strongly desired by most of
the international community, had disappeared.

The presidential decree ordering an integrated operation in
Aceh, a combination of humanitarian, law enforcement and
governance operations, had been postponed at least three times
since its was first mooted in May. The delays were probably the
result of international resistance to military escalation in
Aceh.

Now the international community has not only expressed regret
the two sides failed to reach a peaceful solution, but also has
begun to express concern on the impact of the war on the security
and stability of Southeast Asia.

It is feared that the war in Aceh could cause, among other
things, terrorist attacks across the country and the region by
those sympathetic to GAM. Malaysian authorities have reportedly
taken measures to prevent its border with Sumatra from being
crossed by refugees from Aceh.

As the peace deal was breaking down, representatives of the
U.S., Japan, Italy and Switzerland, as well as the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, persuaded the government to
resume negotiations with GAM. The Tokyo meeting was indeed made
possible due to the facilitation provided by the Paris Club of
donor nations.

But, as anticipated by some, the peace talks in Tokyo
collapsed, freeing the government and GAM to apply their own
solutions to the conflict. The current armed conflict in Aceh
goes against the wishes and belief of the international community
that the conflict could be settled through negotiation.

Reactions from the international community emerged shortly
after the government launched the offensive against the rebels.
In New York, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan led the
international community in asking the government and GAM to
return to the negotiating table. Representatives from other
countries expressed similar sentiments, saying the war would only
drag the government and GAM further from an amicable solution.

The U.S. expressed the view that the government of Indonesia
and GAM had forfeited a rare opportunity in Tokyo to advance the
peace process. The U.S. is also of the view that the possible
avenues to peaceful resolution were not fully explored at the
Tokyo meeting, and that it does not believe that the problems in
Aceh can be settled by force. Australia and Japan expressed their
desire that Indonesia and GAM return to the diplomatic path.

The British government regretted that the Tokyo meeting
failed, but its representative in Jakarta could understand the
decision to launch military operations in Aceh (The Jakarta Post,
May 20). Our immediate neighbor, Malaysia, urged Indonesia to
restore peace in Aceh, arguing that the violence there could
undermine stability and security in the region. And New Zealand
appealed to the government and GAM to return to mediation and
negotiation, saying it felt special autonomy was a workable
solution if both sides were committed to it.

While expressing hope that the two sides return to the
negotiating table, which is very unlikely, the international
community has maintained its support for Indonesia's territorial
integrity. Not a single country anywhere backs GAM's desire for
independence. Even Sweden, the home of GAM's leaders in exile,
has voiced support for the unitary state of Indonesia.

Though the international community regrets the central
government had to take military action, there was a report that
they support such a policy provided the action is conducted
according to the laws of warfare and avoids the abuse of force.

An analyst with the School of Oriental and African Studies in
London said the timing of the government's military strike
against the rebels was significant, and that the government as
capitalizing on American goodwill after its crackdown on terror
organizations in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

For Jakarta, perhaps it is a matter of national pride not to
let what happened in East Timor happen again. The East Timor case
taught Indonesia that it should take a tougher line on any moves
or aspirations to separate from the unitary state of Indonesia.

There are reasons the international community was deeply
concerned that the military option was chosen, and is worried
about the effects of this option.

First, a prolonged military operation would certainly change
the investment climate in the country. Foreign companies
operating in Aceh in particular would face the possibility of
having to halt production if caught up in the fighting.

Second, the world does not want to see another series of
bloody wars in Southeast Asia, which would undermine the security
and stability of the region.

Third, the imposition of martial law in Aceh means that all
civilian authorities will be answerable to the military, a move
that many in the international community fear will encourage
human rights abuses, as happened in the past.

Fourth, some members of the international community remain
committed to helping develop Aceh, but the war will force them to
halt, at least temporarily, development assistance. In their
view, the relationship between the restoration of peace and
economic development is a powerful two-way relationship, but the
war has diminished it.

Fifth, the war will lead to substantial losses of life.

Now that the war in Aceh has become a political reality, even
the most powerful members of the international community cannot
step in to stop the fighting.

To the deep regret of the international community, military
action against the rebels had to be taken by Jakarta. This policy
is not only desirable, but also necessary if Indonesia is to be
seen as politically and strategically united. After all, the war
is taking place in Indonesia's national jurisdiction, and the UN,
for example, cannot become involved in the conflict as Indonesia
has sole jurisdiction over Aceh.

The principle of the unitary state of Indonesia is
nonnegotiable, and the international community can only decry
the war and urge peace.