The 'peace' virus
God bless those who never gave up hope and are full of goodwill.
For many of this generation, the conflicts in Aceh and Northern Ireland have been a staple part of their general consciousness. For those living in these conflict areas, the antagonism that has prevailed has consumed a whole generation with hate and suffering.
The recent announcements of a peace deal in Aceh and the Irish Republican Army's (IRA) historic renunciation of violence are not directly related. Nevertheless, they are good news, inspiring hope that years of enmity can be brought to a close.
Delegates from the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian government last month drafted a peace deal that will be formally signed in two weeks' time. Meanwhile, the IRA unilaterally announced last week that it was abandoning its armed campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland.
Warmongers, critics and peace spoilers may place caveats on the chances of sustained peace, with negative news reports cynically highlighting minor snags that do not reflect the overall picture. However, this should not cloud what is an historic opportunity to prevent further unnecessary deaths.
For many years, politicians and diplomats have argued who was right, and what was wrong; about ideology and history; about higher causes, filled with a sense of their own righteousness.
As we look ahead to the challenge of a sustained peace, none of this rhetoric seems to matter as much.
These developments could prove once again that with patience, goodwill and a principal desire for peace, any political rivalry, no matter how divergent, can be negotiated and overcome.
Ideologues should also recognize that the credibility of their struggle comes not from a barrel of a gun, but success at the ballot box. Whatever their cause, its legitimacy can only be reinforced through democratic mechanisms.
True, there is no perfect system. And the inability to absorb indigenous voices often leads to upheaval. But while there is no perfect system, by working -- often painstakingly -- from within, one can hope to address long-term fundamental change. This is the political essence of what has been achieved in Aceh and Northern Ireland.
The detractors -- whether they are in GAM or the military, the IRA or the Democratic Unionist Party -- work using established processes to exact change. However, the status quo should also provide all groups with an equal opportunity to compete in a fair political process.
Without this common recognition, these momentous decisions of July 2005 will become nothing more than historical letdowns.
In the coming year, a lot of political sacrifices will have to made to ensure a true peace is realized. All sides will have to swallow some pride in order for compromises to be reached. But these sacrifices are trivial compared to what the people on the front lines of these conflicts have suffered.
Pride, over time, can be regained. Not so a life nor a limb.
Sustained peace is not only the greatest gift that can be given to the peoples of Aceh and Northern Ireland, it is also a gift to the whole world.
If the parties involved can show they can bury the hatchet and work for peace despite decades of conflict, it is an example to other areas in the world that a resolution can be sought without the pursuit of force.
Though there may be different nuances, the ingredients in the years of strife in Aceh and Northern Ireland are generally the same as those in other conflicts around the world -- they involve contrasts in religion, competing ethnicities, economic indifference, the ruler and the oppressed.
Whether it be Palestine, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, the southern Philippines or tribal rivalry in Africa, we are hopeful that the recent intent to pursue peace in Aceh and Northern Ireland will become a benign virus that will positively infect other prolonged rivalries and conflicts.