What explains the success of the Helsinki agreement in securing a peaceful settlement of the Aceh conflict? This article from the journal International Negotiation uses interviews and first-hand accounts to analyse the political context that surrounded the Helsinki negotiations. It finds that the conventional explanations for the agreement’s success fail to capture the complexity of the process and underestimate the beneficial influence it has had on Indonesia’s democratic development.
In August 2005, representatives of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Government of Indonesia signed an agreement in Helsinki, ending nearly thirty years of conflict in Aceh. This was not the first effort to resolve the conflict, and, amidst celebrations, there remained an undercurrent of scepticism. For decades, Aceh had been in a seemingly permanent state of unrest, and with each failed peace effort, the gap of suspicion had grown wider.
Yet, despite the disappointments of previous efforts, the negotiations in Helsinki succeeded. Eighteen months on, the agreement seems to have achieved something even more remarkable: a lasting peace settlement. Given the prior persistent distrust, this positive and seemingly sustainable outcome is extraordinary.
Existing analyses point to the devastation of the tsunami, GAM’s military weakness, and the involvement of Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla as critical factors in bringing about the successful completion of the Helsinki negotiations. While these conventional factors are not incorrect, they do not capture the richness of the political, institutional and personal forces at play in the peace process. A more nuanced analysis of the wider political context reveals two key findings:
- In many ways, the national government in Jakarta faced bigger challenges and a more complex environment than GAM. While GAM made the difficult and risky decision to relinquish their aspiration for independence, for Jakarta the path to Helsinki was significantly more difficult and the consequences of failure greater.
- The way in which the national government responded to these challenges has important implications for Indonesia’s future political development. It marked a significant achievement in Indonesia’s democratic governance in general and in asserting civilian control over the military in particular.
The political importance of the Helsinki agreement may be the most far-reaching dimension of the settlement and, yet, it has been largely underappreciated. Highlighting the internal dynamics of the government in Jakarta rather than those of GAM underscores the extent to which government policy was subjected to the scrutiny of the press, parliamentary oversight, and analysis by foreign observers. Issues were openly debated and options actively discussed as part of an increasingly vigorous democratic system.
Since Helsinki, the increased discipline of the government has been matched by the gradual fraying of the coherence of GAM. Each side now faces a very different set of dynamics, and how effectively they respond to the new challenges will be important in determining whether peace in Aceh will endure and whether Indonesia’s democratic system will flourish. Some issues of concern for each side include:
- GAM: With the disarmament and demobilisation of its forces GAM lost its structure of command and control. Its inability to develop a coherent political platform or organisation may diminish its role in future.
- The Government: The Aceh success has increased its leverage in the ongoing struggle to bring the military firmly under the control of civilian authorities, but the institutional reforms necessary to build upon this progress remain elusive.
