Kompas
4 September, 2003

by Todung Mulya Lubis

Around a week ago someone asked "Can we not put aside human rights considerations in order to complete the military operation in Aceh, in the interests of the Integral State of the Republic of Indonesia?". The question implies that among human rights activists there are many that have lost the spirit of unity and nationalism. More than this, the question can be taken as an accusation that human rights activists are not really concerned about the continuing existence of this integral state of Indonesia. Frankly I feel very sad that such a question should be asked. Nowadays, in the discourse of human rights all over the world there is a tendency to say "My nationalism is humanity"- meaning that what is most important is people, regardless of national differences. When someone is murdered or tortured, their agony is the same, whether their nationality is Japanese, Croatian, Burmese, East Timorese or Indonesian. It's not surprising, then, that organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regularly criticise human rights violations in every country of the world. I think there is not one state that has escaped the criticism of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. But can we therefore accuse people who work for these two bodies of lacking nationalism, of not loving their homelands? 

I think we are trapped in an old paradigm that prioritises the state above all else, including human beings. Nationalism doesn't need to be opposed to human rights because no state can develop without a sense of respect for human rights. When criticisms of human rights violations in Aceh are made, the aim of the criticisms is to investigate and improve the human rights situation in Aceh. The fact is that in almost every conflict zone there are human rights violations by the conflicting parties, and I think human rights violations in Aceh are not only perpetrated by TNI, but also by GAM. Reports that are circulating show that there are civilian casualties, murders, torture, detention without legal basis, kidnappings and rapes. Besides this we can see that many public facilities such as schools have been burnt. These are all human rights violations that are creating a disturbing culture of fear. 

When we look at Aceh, it's best that we look at it from the perspective of the victims, not just from the perspective of the state. The Acehnese people, who are not all members or sympathisers of GAM, have human rights, that are acknowledged and guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution and its amendments, which are full of clauses defending human rights, and are strengthened by Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights. Among these basic rights are the "right to life", the "right to not be tortured", and "the right to a fair and just trial": rights that belong to the category of rights that cannot be removed or put aside in any case, including military emeregency (non-derogable rights).

Please don't forget that even though the war in Aceh is not a war between states, wars within states are also covered by the Geneva Convention, whose essence is to strengthen respect for human rights. The military operation (although accompanied by law enforcement operations, operations to increase welfare, and so on) has already lasted more than 100 days and there are as yet no signs of it nearing completion. We don't know how high the cost we will bear for this war to destroy GAM if the war is protracted. We don't know how much human and material destruction will take place. What is clear is that this war will be long, and this is exactly what we experienced with the war in East Timor. In the end we will never be able to win the hearts and minds of the Acehnese. On the contrary, there will be deep wounds that perhaps will never be healed. The door of negotiations will, it seems, not be opened again, and even if it is, I am worried that there will be nothing that can be called genuine negotiation. It is for these reasons that French President Jacques Chirac was right in his opposition to the war on Iraq when he said "War is always the admission of defeat, and is always the worst of solutions." War is the admission of the failure of dialogue and reason. The military operation in Aceh has already lasted a long time, at least since the era of the Military Operations Zone (DOM), not to mention the military operation to defeat Daud Beureuh's movement in the days of the Sukarno government. These wounds have been there for a long time. 

But we had a golden opportunity when the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA) was signed on December 9 2002. CoHA was not a peace agreement, but could have become a basis for creating peace and solving the Aceh problem. It must be admitted that CoHA was a clearcut case of different interpretations on the part of Indonesia and GAM. Indonesia considered broad autonomy as a final objective, whereas GAM considered it only a first step. Between these two interpretations there was in fact a formula that could have been discussed, in order to move towards a solution, similar to how England solved the question of [the north of] Ireland or how Canada solved the Quebec question. These lessons were not taken on board by decision makers in Jakarta, although the political process in Aceh should have opened the door for GAM to participate in determining Aceh's future. In the electoral context an idea had arisen for local elections where local political parties could participate. Local parties could win positions as Governor, Regents or local parliamentarians before later participating in national elections. But this idea was categorically rejected by the political elite in Jakarta

Thus, even if GAM was prepared to transform itself into a political party, the current political system was not prepared to accommodate them. Again the dominant fear was the destruction of the unitary state. But did they never consider that the current "military operation plus" could in the end destroy the unitary state? I am very worried when I see the deep political and economic wounds of the Acehnese people. Perhaps this is not the place to criticise CoHA, but if we are prepared to be introspective for a moment, we must acknowledge that the discussions that led to the formulation of CoHA were not very forward-thinking. There should have been tough and detailed discussions that could have become a more permanent peace agreement. But domestic political considerations demanded a quick result that could be used as a political commodity. Thus we saw GAM freely using loopholes in CoHA. I see that the Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam autonomy law (UU NAD) had already given a strong legal basis for a very broad autonomy. If the law was implemented, then, although this is not a federal state, a federal arrangement would have begun to operate. The question is, why did the CoHa discussions not discuss this issue comprehensively? For Aceh in general and GAM in particular, the results of the implementation of UU NAD would definitely have provided many options and fundamental changes. Aceh could have become a model of an extremely autonomous province within the framework of the integral state. UU NAD was not a perfect law in all respects. GAM would definitely have wanted changes to it and I think changes should have been possible. The international community could have played a key role in the process of refining UU NAD. Unfortunately this opportunity is practically already lost. We are perhaps already sunk into the abyss of a war that will take a long time and create who knows how much material and immaterial cost that we will have to bear. If previously it was aimed to complete this military operation in six months, I am not brave enough to say now that this is possible. That means there will be more and more victims that are wounded or killed, from the TNI, from GAM, and from civil society. It is in this context that we regret the failure of the Tokyo talks and the burial of the CoHA. The International Crisis Group in its report "Aceh: A Fragile Peace" clearly stated : " If the Agreement (meaning CoHA) holds, not everyone wins, but if it fails, everyone loses." And that has what has taken place.

Todung Mulya Lubis Board Member of International Crisis Group (Brussels)