On 9 December 2002, an agreement on cessation of hostilities in Aceh was concluded in Geneva, bringing hope that an end to the 26-year-old conflict between Indonesian government forces and guerrillas of the pro-independence Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka or GAM) was in sight. Since then there have been many positive developments, most strikingly, a dramatic drop in the level of violence.

The agreement, however, is not a peace settlement. It is rather a framework for negotiating a resolution of the conflict, and it remains extremely fragile. The first two months were supposed to be the confidence-building phase of the accord, but far from generating confidence, they may have actually reinforced each side’s wariness of the other’s long-term intentions.

On 9 February 2003, the two sides moved into a five-month implementation phase with major differences unresolved. These include how the Indonesian military will relocate as GAM places an increasing percentage of its weapons in designated locations. The leadership of GAM may have accepted the concept of autonomy as a starting point for discussions but not as a political end, and there remains little incentive for the guerrilla group to reinvent itself as a political party working within the Indonesian electoral system.

The Indonesian army is not likely to sit quietly indefinitely if the reduction of violence leads, as appears to be the case, to more organising in support of independence, whether or not that organising constitutes a formal violation of the agreement. The provincial government of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD) also constitutes an obstacle to lasting peace because it has such low credibility and is so widely seen as corrupt. As long as it is seen to embody “autonomy”, as granted to Aceh under an August 2001 law, many Acehnese will continue to see independence as a desirable alternative.

The 9 December 2002 agreement, brokered by the Geneva-based non-governmental organisation, the Henri Dunant Centre (HDC), was the outcome of three years of tortuous negotiations and interim efforts to end the violence that worked briefly and then collapsed.

This agreement is different from all those that preceded it. It has international monitors in place. Its structure for investigation and reporting of violations is already far more transparent than those in the previous accords. It is backed at the highest levels of the Indonesian government and by a broad range of international donors. It is the best – and maybe the last – chance that the 4.4 million people of Aceh have for a negotiated peace. It may also be their best chance to get international backing for local government reform and substantial post-conflict reconstruction aid. If the agreement holds, not everyone wins, but if it fails, everyone loses.

The consequences of failure would be grim, and intensified military operations would be all but inevitable. The outpouring of enthusiasm that the agreement has generated across Aceh should be reason enough to for all parties involved to do their utmost to ensure its success.

Jakarta/Brussels, 27 February 2003