Why reduce violence?

Why reduce violence?

An article in The Jakarta Post on Feb. 12, 2001 (page 1),
Indonesian and GAM strike accord to reduce violence, caught my
attention and I would like to offer my comments.

First of all, what is the use of reducing violence, because we
have no exact figures of how major the violence is in Aceh and
how much reduction is needed.

In my opinion, the accord should be on "stopping" or
"abolishing" violence, not reducing it. If what is written is
true then this is more proof of how little courage and
decisiveness our government has. But as we continue reading this
article, we find, surprisingly, the following, which is really
confusing.

In column two we find: "Under the pact, both sides agreed to
halt the violence ..." What is the truth -- "reduce" or "halt"?
Even with an accord -- reducing or halting -- the government
should remain careful and suspicious. I remember what kind of
interpretation the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) gave when the first
humanitarian pause was signed. It clearly said that they agreed
because this constitutes the first step to Aceh's independence.
They continued causing trouble and attacking the security forces.

In Suara Pembaruan, Jan. 13, 2001, our foreign minister said,
among other things, when talks in Switzerland were underway that
this does not mean that GAM has to stop its military activities,
but the activities should be balanced with the progress of the
political talks.

So while the talks are going on the Indonesian government has
no objection if GAM continues its military activities. Do you
understand this policy? I don't. Although the agreement has been
reached the government should remain alert because agreeing to
reduce instead of to stop military activities on the part of GAM
can put our security forces in a very difficult position. If they
act, they would be accused of violating human rights. If they
don't, it indicates their impotency.

On top of that the government should be careful appreciating
the agreement. An agreement alone is not sufficient. It should
have an annex, an official interpretation of the agreement signed
by both sides. Besides, the government should not forget the
challenge from the local commanders who said loud and clear that
if the Indonesian Military (TNI) wants GAM weapons they should
come and collect them if they can, because GAM has surrounded all
military posts.

The government should remain suspicious because some Aceh
civilian leaders put GAM armed forces, the TNI and the police on
the same level. One of Aceh's prominent figures said: "I hope
that ultimately both sides will be prepared to lay down their
weapons". How can the TNI and the police lay down their weapons
while it is standard equipment. Putting government security
forces and the rebels on the same level is indeed a tragedy.

The right step for the government to take is to act according
to the existing law and not to mix politics with law enforcement,
as stated by the new Minister of Justice and Human Rights,
Baharuddin Lopa. Another important thing is to have the courage
to act and not be drowned in indecisiveness.

SOEGIH ARTO

Jakarta