December 24, 2002	Tuesday	Shawwal 19, 1423

BANGKOK: In two corners of Asia — Aceh and Sri Lanka — the international community has found a foothold to reclaim some political ground to prove its relevance in addressing conflicts.

In both cases, the international community’s role has been similar — that a peace broker to bring warring parties to the negotiating table.

For Aceh, the Geneva-based Henry Dunant Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue worked behind the scenes to strike a deal between the Indonesian government and Aceh’s separatist rebels, the Free Aceh Movement, known also by its Indonesian acronym GAM.

This week, international peace monitors, led by a Thai military commander, arrived in Aceh, on the northern tip on the Indonesian archipelago, to help breathe life into this deal. Their primary task is to monitor security and investigate violations of the accord.

On the Sri Lankan front, Norway has taken the lead to help broker talks between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil rebels, aimed at ending 19 years of ethnic conflict.

Lending support to the Norwegian effort are Scandinavian countries — helping monitor a ceasefire agreement between Colombo and the Tigers since February —- and other members of the international community, like Japan, to help fund the rebuilding the country’s war-ravaged regions.

But it will take more than these twin developments for the international community to be rid of the growing cynicism about its usefulness in light of US unilateral behaviour during the past year.

In any case, peace activists assert that the international community as a whole cannot claim credit for fostering a culture of peace in Sri Lanka and Aceh.

“It is very difficult for the international community to restore its credibility as a useful and neutral player because of US pressure since Sept 11,” says Sunai Phasuk, a political analyst at Forum-Asia, a Bangkok-based regional human rights watchdog. “The UN system, for instance, has been abused by the United States wanting to get its way.”

The turn of events in Sri Lanka and Aceh, he points out, has little to do with a multilateral approach. “What we have are the efforts of individual actors on the world stage,” Sunai adds.

“In Sri Lanka it is the initiative of one country supported by a few others,” he explains, “while in Aceh, it is the work of a humanitarian group.”

Two factors helped usher in peace in these two places after decades of war — the willingness by the warring parties to trade the battlefield for the negotiating, and, as important, a willingness to seek help from a neutral and international third party.

“The parties have to desire peace and also be confident with the people who are going to mediate the peace process,” said Surin Pitsuwan, Thailand’s former foreign minister and a member of group of ‘wise men’ helping broker the Aceh peace deal.

Lending weight to the Swiss humanitarian group’s credentials as a trusted third party was not being a UN body or the official agency of representative of a country, says Surin.

Part of the Aceh peace process included the maintenance of a delicate diplomatic balance by mediators to “be present but to maintain non-interference,” he explains.

The peace process in Aceh and Sri Lanka would not be working had the international community tried to impose itself on the conflicting parties and force them to the peace table, says Hewa Palihakkara, Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Thailand.

Once invited, international mediators serve as an “important catalyst to move the peace process forward,” he adds. “There is no universal model that such conflict resolution efforts have to follow. Each situation is unique.”

The pause in the Sri Lankan conflict began with last year’s Christmas ceasefire, when the LTTE announced they would stop fighting and push for peace.

During this nearly two decades that the Tigers have fought Sri Lankan government troops in a bid to carve out the separate state of Tamil Eelam, close to 64,000 people have been killed.

The key difference in the latest peace effort in Aceh - past efforts had ended in failure — lies in the first-time involvement of a party like the Henry Durant Centre last year. “Till then there had been no international involvement,” Surin says.

In this conflict raging between GAM and Jakarta since 1976, close to 12,000 people have been killed.

Set against these early achievements of the international community in conflict resolution is its glaring failure in another corner of Asia: Burma, ruled by military leaders.

A high-profile international attempt to resolve the internal conflict in Burma - led by the United Nations through a special UN envoy, former Malaysian ambassador Razali Ismail — has failed to make significant inroads so far.—Dawn/The InterPress News Service.