The stakes were high as Indonesia held talks yesterday in Finland with separatist rebels from its tsunami-hit Aceh province, but while concerns for disaster survivors may have brought them willingly to the table, analysts see little hope for lasting peace.
Before the killer waves came crashing ashore, resource-rich Aceh at the western tip of Sumatra had been the scene of a 28-year struggle by armed guerrillas who accused Jakarta of plundering the province's wealth.
The last attempt to reconcile the two sides at talks in Tokyo in May 2003 ended in abject failure as both sides failed to agree on an agenda, plunging the region into renewed conflict that has claimed several thousand lives.
Fears that the fighting could harm the massive international relief effort in Aceh, where most of Indonesia's 228,000 tsunami dead and missing lived, have prompted ceasefire calls from both sides and brought them to talks in Helsinki.
The initial signs are good, with Jakarta showing apparent sincerity by dispatching top ministers to the talks and leaders of the Free Aceh Movement, known as GAM, indicating from exile in Sweden that it will keep an open mind.
But ahead of the dialogue, the message from Jakarta has been mixed, with the president and his deputy sending conflicting signals even as the powerful military shows reluctance to relinquish its grip on what it has fought for.
With the Indonesian government stating from the outset that independence is not an option, it has little leverage, other than the goodwill it has generated in its post-disaster assistance and amnesties for surrendering rebels.
The rebels, who were blamed by Japan and the US for scuttling the earlier peace talks in Geneva in April 2003, have yet to state if they will accept an offer of autonomy, and if they will press home earlier, seemingly unworkable, demands for a national political role in Indonesia.
With the agenda unclear, observers say the Helsinki talks, hastily convened under the watch of former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, may only help formalize ceasefires declared after the disaster rather than secure lasting peace.
Hasballah Saad, an Aceh native and former human rights minister, said he had "little expectation" that the two sides could iron out their differences in the absence of a concrete agenda.
He said a temporary truce was unlikely to blossom into full-blown peace unless offers such as rebel disarmament and a government troops withdrawal are laid on the table.
"There should be a consensus to stop hostilities in the form of a permanent ceasefire. Afterwards, they should discuss what future steps that need to be taken," he said.
Kusnanto Anggoro, a political analyst from the private Center for Strategic and International Studies, was also pessimistic saying the two sides had "very little common ground."
"There is still a major outstanding problem. Indonesia seems to seek a short-term ceasefire while GAM wants a longer one. I do not expect the talks will bear fruit since they have not been planned properly," he told reporters.
Even if the rebel leaders strike a deal with Jakarta, Anggoro said, guerrillas on the ground in Aceh "do not necessarily listen to or follow" orders from their Sweden headquarters.
"They do not have a sound and an established communication. There are too many factions within GAM in Aceh and it's quite possible that soldiers in the forests will not heed deals made by their leaders," he added.
According to one Western diplomat in Jakarta, the military too may renege on government promises as it seeks to continue a major offensive that has allowed it to turn Aceh into its personal, and highly lucrative, fiefdom.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who has previously backed a non-military solution in Aceh, this week made potentially inflammatory remarks calling for a stronger military, saying that with better firepower the rebels may now have been crushed.
His comments, Saad said, raise suspicions that Jakarta's backing of the talks is merely a cynical ploy to raise the president's profile as he marks his first 100 days in office.
Further gloom was piled on by Indonesian assembly speaker Hidayat Nur Wahid, who suggested that the failure of talks in Geneva and Tokyo showed the futility of trying to negotiate overseas through third parties while the issue lay at home.
"Since the Aceh problems are an internal matter, it would be much better if [the talks] are held in Indonesia because this would certainly generate a positive impact," Wahid said.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS