The obligation of sovereignty

Lesley McCulloch, School of Asian Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

According to Richard Haass, director of policy planning in the U.S. State Department sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory.

But it seems that this new interventionist style of foreign policy being promoted by the U.S. applies only to some states, and not to others. For example, there is every indication that the U.S. intends to intervene in Iraq, but not in Indonesia. Yet in places such as West Papua, Maluku, Aceh and elsewhere, many civilians are losing their lives at the hands of the state sponsored security apparatus. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in Aceh where more than 400 have died already this year.

Recent peace talks have produced a somewhat vacuous statement committing both sides to the continuation of dialogue, and to "agree to work with all speed on an agreement on cessation of hostilities." That this process of dialog is even taking place at all is quite remarkable. The dialogue must however, translate into meaningful change for the Acehnese who have already suffered so much. But it seems the government is reluctant to prioritize a break in the fighting, preferring instead to continue to focus on the political issue of autonomy versus independence. Hence the rather bland and meaningless outcome of the talks.

Evidence of the lack of political will to solve the problems in Aceh can be seen in the statements of the political and military elite. The Jakarta Post on May 11, quoted Minister of Foreign Affairs Hassan Wirayuda as stating that if there is no seriousness on the part of the independence movement in finding a solution to the problem then he would have to agree with the idea of stopping (further negotiations). With whom would Wirayuda be "agreeing"? It is a little worrying to think that within a day of the closure of the talks in Geneva the government is already thinking of pulling out of further dialogue.

There are many among the political and military elite who would prefer that the dialogue be abandoned and that a military solution be openly pursued. Wirayuda is not alone in his belief that the political "project" that is Indonesia can only be maintained by the use of force.

Former Kostrad commander Lt. Gen. Ryamizard Ryacudu was quoted by the Antara news agency as saying that more human resources and better infrastructure was required to quell separatist elements around the archipelago. He is reported as saying "We (the military) are ready to maintain and defend the unitary state of Indonesia to the last drop of our blood." Such an inflammatory statement in the wake of the peace talks on Aceh run counter to the spirit of dialogue so keenly pursued by the international community.

Further evidence of lack of commitment to peace is the death on May 11 of Tgk. Zakaria bin Yahya (Ayah Sofyan), spokesperson for GAM Aceh Rayek. He was shot by police from the local precinct at his home near Banda Aceh. Witnesses say he was taken alive to the police station where he was visited by a doctor, but then pronounced dead. A press statement released by Sofyan Dawod, GAM military spokesperson said "this event has marred the mutual understanding to stop the fighting between RI and GAM that took place in Geneva on May 10."

The government's contradictory statements and actions pass almost unnoticed by the international community whose attention appears to be focussed on the seemingly meaningless "agreements" brokered in Geneva. In Aceh, the TNI continues to pursue members and supporters of the independence movement with increasing brutality. The result, to borrow key words from Haass, is both a "massacre" and "terrorism."

The "terrorism" is state-sponsored. The alleged perpetrator is the military that has in the past been trained and armed by the U.S. government -- just one of many ironies in U.S. foreign policy. The skills and equipment garnered from previous military to military co-operation have provided the resources that have turned Aceh into just one of Indonesia's killing fields. But there is no sign that the U.S. will employ its new interventionist foreign policy here.

Spokesperson for the independence movement's central bureau of information, Ibnu Isnander said "the mantra of the Indonesian government that the integrity of the state must be maintained at all costs is merely a political ploy. They have waged a propaganda war against the Acehnese for decades, and the international community has fallen into their trap. This argument is merely a diversion. Both GAM and civil society in Aceh want a cessation to the violence. This is a priority but has been 'lost' in the mantra of territorial integrity."

There are contradictions in both the Indonesian and international response to what is happening in Aceh. At the domestic level the parallel process of dialogue in Geneva while pursuing a military solution in Aceh are poles apart. And at the international level, declared concern about continuing violations of human rights is forgotten in the desire to support Indonesia in its quest to maintain the unity of the world's largest archipelago. The human cost of this political goal has been, and is set to continue to be, very high.

In Aceh the massacres continue. It seems quite legitimate to view this as a form of state-sponsored terrorism. But the international community is unlikely to intervene; preserving any "intervention" for the "rogue" states who have been less adept at convincing the international audience of their "democratic" credentials.