The road to peace in Aceh must start with justice
Usman Hamid, Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence, (Kontras), Jakarta
President Megawati Soekarnoputri reportedly instructed the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National Police on April 7 to ready themselves for a security operation, prompting a number of foreign representatives here to seek official clarification of the report.
Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono later stressed that a military operation would be the last resort for the government, and that a peaceful route was still open in dealing with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM).
For now, the government and GAM have agreed to meet on Friday and Saturday in Geneva where they are expected to discuss alleged violations of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA), sined in the same town last Dec. 9.
Foreign countries, particularly Japan, the United States and those in the European Union, are taking part in the planned reconstruction of infrastructure in Aceh. They have reiterated their support for an amicable solution to the Aceh issue.
Many have protested the government's stance, which appears to be in favor of a military operation. During her visit to Russia, however, the President dismissed such speculation, saying that there was only a "contingency plan".
Critics have said that a security approach would only increase collateral damage. Further, human rights violations committed during the military operation period of 1989 to August 1998 are yet to be accounted for.
The government has repeatedly urged that an emergency meeting of the Joint Council be held to evaluate the implementation of the peace pact. The Joint Council is the highest forum in the COHA. Through this meeting the government hopes to see GAM's earnestness in "returning to the original commitment". Failure to see this would surely cause the government to launch a military operation.
Meanwhile, violence has continued. A 10-year-old girl, Ina Rahmati, was killed and her friend Fitriana, 12, was seriously injured during an exchange of fire in Bireun on April 12. Earlier, Nurjannah, 54, the wife of Zulkifli Hanafia, the chairman of the Golkar Party's North Aceh chapter, was shot dead by an unidentified group in Lhokseumawe.
About 100 monitoring members of the Joint Security Committee (JSC) were withdrawn from field offices, following the damage done to the JSC office in Takengon, the arson of the JSC office in Langsa, the rejection of the JSC in a number of areas and increased threats made toward JSC members.
The agreement is in deep trouble. This has often been attributed to the fact that GAM made use of the two months in the first phase of the deal to conduct a campaign in the villages, telling locals that the agreement was the first step toward independence. The first phase was intended for confidence building.
GAM also conducted a campaign saying that UN support would be forthcoming, including the resumption of control over government- held villages in a number of areas in Aceh and the reorganization of GAM's armed forces.
All this has made the TNI lose its patience, and military members have reportedly been mobilizing an anti-GAM civilian force to attack the monitoring offices set up in accordance with the peace pact and demand that the committee be dissolved for its failure to stop violations by GAM. This pattern was visible earlier, although the military has denied any such suggestions.
What GAM did in the two months of the first phase is deplorable and cannot be justified. GAM has to be responsible for and accept all the consequences arising from the agreement. However, under whatever pretext, the anti-GAM mass mobilization by the TNI is not justifiable, either.
Of course, the two sides will blame each other for what has happened. The Henry Dunant Centre (HDC) faces a challenge as the mediator in handling this problem through a joint forum involving the government, GAM and international independent monitoring parties.
A more fundamental problem is that both sides do not seem to have a strategic interest in the peace pact. Many within the TNI may feel it is not necessary to conduct strategic negotiations with a rebel group; separatism can only be crushed with arms. As for GAM, it obviously has no interest in the special autonomy status.
GAM is still convinced that sooner or later Indonesia will collapse and that they only have to wait for that time to come. The government's efforts to make tactical compromises will only be a small incentive for GAM to take part in a political process. Megawati's administration, for example, has closed all the doors for GAM to set up a local political party.
To build peace in Aceh, it is important to ensure that the functions of accountability and the role of justice run properly. In this context, the norm of justice has to be well formulated on the basis of mutual agreement, including an agreement from the Acehnese themselves.
First, in the context of peace building, the essence of justice is truth, fairness, rectitude and requital. Truth relates to the understanding and record of the root causes of the Aceh conflict, for example, which side of the agreement is responsible for which action and which side of the agreement, including individuals, can be categorized as victims or even perpetrators (including the possibility that both sides are to be considered perpetrators).
Of course, in the future, the function of the JSC can be geared toward the realization of these aspects to ensure that the consequences to arise from each violent act or violation will be clear to all.
These aspects require an understanding and articulation of the main goal of both parties, including the third party, as well as an assessment of the interests that can generally be accepted by international practices, particularly in relation to internal armed conflict norms or Indonesia's legal instruments.
Take Law No. 26/2002 on human rights courts with jurisdiction over major human rights violations committed by the government and armed guerrillas. It is worth finding out how far Indonesia's legal mechanisms can affect the behavior of GAM and the government and how far this legal approach is compatible with the conflict approach adopted.
Meanwhile, the HDC as a third party has to show impartiality and guarantee fairness.
Second is the essence of anti-justice, the antithesis of the essence of truth. This is falsehood, which is often disseminated through propaganda. One is reminded of the propaganda machines of Slobodan Milosevic -- particularly the state television stations -- to build up Serb nationalism; of the nationalism which aroused the organizing of many East Timorese against those who were for independence; and the organization of security volunteers (Pamswakarsa) set up against the student movement after the downfall of Soeharto.
The anti-GAM mass mobilization resulting in the damage and arson to JSC offices also brings to mind the prevailing pattern in the 1998 mid-May riots in Jakarta.
Violence bred under this pattern will never bring peace. Justice has to be really enforced. Alternatives abound: the establishment of a mechanism of individual responsibility and avoidance of collective mistakes; avoidance of discrediting an institution and leaders responsible for a crime; accurate historical documentation; a victims catharsis and deterrence.
Unless justice is enforced, violence can never be stopped. Instead, violence will continue to be used as an instrument and a means to reach an objective.
2. 6PRO24 -- The atlantic divide in black and white 2 x 26
The transatlantic divide in black and white
Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi Project Syndicate
Relations between Continental Western Europe and the US have never been so strained in recent decades as they are now. Is the cause a short-run disagreement about a specific issue, the war in Iraq? Or is the transatlantic ideological divide deep, pervasive, and unlikely to disappear anytime soon?
Before diplomats and pundits begin to paper over the two sides' differences, it is necessary to reflect on their sources. For we believe that the transatlantic divide does mirror fundamental differences in values -- with the immediate caveat that these differences do not, and should not, bring the two sides into conflict.
The profoundly different values that America and Europe hold can best be viewed by examining how each perceives poverty, inequality, and the welfare state. According to the World Value Survey, a respected attitudinal study conducted in about 40 countries, 60 percent of Americans believe that the poor are "lazy," a view shared by only 26 percent of Europeans. Nearly the exact opposite proportions (60 percent of Europeans and 29 percent of Americans) believe that the poor are trapped in poverty.
Similarly, evidence drawn from surveys about well being indicates that Americans are much less bothered by inequality than Europeans. In fact, even the American poor do not mind inequality, which they see as a social ladder that they can climb. The European poor view inequality as an insurmountable social obstacle.
These basic differences lead to obvious consequences for social polices.
Europe spends twice as much as the US on social programs, and total government spending in Europe is close to 50 percent of gross domestic product. In the US, government consumes about 30 percent of GDP. These numbers are not just about social spending, but have implication for issues like defense and foreign policy.
If Europe wants to play a more active role in international affairs it must become a military power: The US spends about 4 percent of its GDP more than Europe for military purposes.
But this is difficult for Europe to achieve, let alone contemplate: Looming deficits and exhausted taxpayers make it hard, if not impossible, to divert several percentage points of GDP to military spending.
But where do these differences in attitude toward fundamental issues like inequality come from? One explanation is that America is a more mobile society where the poor are not trapped and can seemingly get out of poverty if they really try. If the poor remain poor, Americans conclude, it must be because they are lazy. The European poor do not have such mobility and thus lack the supposed chance that poor Americans possess. Even if they try hard, they feel trapped.
The alternative, and much more likely, explanation is that these differing views reflect profound ideological differences that pay little attention to economic reality. In other words, the ideological differences across the Atlantic are much larger than actual differences in social mobility and the supposed laziness of the poor.
European culture remains profoundly affected by the Marxist intellectual tradition in which classes are viewed as cast in stone -- which implies that it is almost impossible for a poor person to become rich, or, apropos the tradition, for a "proletarian" to become a "capitalist."
Marxism assumes social immobility to justify the concept of "class." In many European countries, political institutions were shaped in revolutionary periods in which socialist parties and ideas enjoyed mass support. European constitutions often reflect an emphasis on equality and redistribution.
In America, the Marxist cultural influence was very limited. Indeed, outside of universities, it scarcely ruffled American life. Instead, the culture (or myth) of the "self-made man" provides the ideological tool for America's social conservatives to justify limited government intervention.
The US Constitution, though reshaped, amended, and adapted to fit changing times, reflects its origins as a document written and designed to protect private property against the predations of the State.
The second source of the transatlantic divide in attitudes toward fundamental issues like inequality has to do with racial bias. The US is a racially fragmented society, so it is convenient for the majority of wealthy whites to view the poor (many of them black) as different and lazy compared to hard- working whites.
Indeed, even controlling for income, whites are much less receptive to redistributive policies than non-white Americans, precisely because they perceive them as favoring racial minorities. Even poor whites oppose redistributive policies, owing to racial distrust, if not downright animosity. Historically, America's racial and ethnic divisions also inhibited the development of a homogeneous working-class culture and movement, which empowered socialist and Communist parties across Europe in the 20th century.
In more homogeneous European countries, the differences between rich and poor are much less obvious: In Sweden, rich and poor are all white, often tall and blond. Not surprisingly, the European right is beginning to use immigration as a tool to attack the welfare state. As Europe becomes increasingly multi- cultural, political pressures against the welfare state seem certain to grow.
For now, Americans and Continental West Europeans remain very different in their basic attitudes concerning poverty, inequality, and the welfare state. It remains to be seen whether these attitudes will persist in their current form, and whether the transatlantic divide widens or narrows.
Alberto Alesina is Professor of economics at Harvard University and Francesco Giavazzi is Professor of economics at Bocconi University, Milan.