I read with great interest the report on the initiative of the Asean MuslimYouth Secretariat (Amsec) to facilitate a non-military, long-term solution to the conflict in Aceh.

According to the report, Amsec will help to convene a council comprising of "intellectuals and religious scholars representing the Acehnese people, Indonesian government and countries in the region".

Since martial law was imposed on May 19, over 140 civilians have been killed and another 75 reported missing; systematic rape has been used as a weapon of war, and hundreds of schools have been burned to the ground.

Amsec's call for end to the military operation in Aceh thus deserves urgent support. But while Amsec's commitment to finding an alternative to the brutal military operation should be commended, many questions still remain regarding the terms and impartiality of the proposed council.

Firstly, it is surprising that while Amsec chairperson Mahfuz Omar went to Jakarta to hold meetings with Hamzah Haz and Am Fatwa (both zealous supporters of the current military operation), he has yet to consult directly with representatives of GAM.

If Amsec is serious about engaging GAM and other elements of Acehense society in this initiative, it seems that these Acehnese groups should themselves be allowed to set the terms of such a council in its formative stages, along with other parties involved.

The implications of a one-sided interpretation of the conflict are clear in Mahfuz's assumptions that "GAM''s main struggle is for the formation of an Islamic state".

A little bit of homework into GAM's position would reveal that their political leadership in Sweden has categorically rejected the offers to establish an Islamic state, precisely because they do not consider the conflict to be a religious one, but rather a political one that requires a political solution.

In a 1999 letter to the Agence France Press , GAM criticised the frequent portrayal of their independence struggle as a religious conflict: " AFP has misinterpreted the objectives of GAM by giving religious overtones to it, as if GAM were established on the basis of religious schismthe question of Aceh is never a question of religion, but it is an issue of the right of self-determination of the people of Aceh. Furthermore, the question of 'Islamic state' has never been raised by GAM."

While this position is clearly unacceptable to the Indonesian government, any genuine effort to foster trust between the two sides must begin by securing the equal participation of all parties

involved.

But even before the process of dialogue can be rebuilt, Amsec appears to have already come to definitive conclusion about the terms of the conflict and its resolution, urging GAM to accept autonomy from Indonesia, which would enable them to "establish an Islamic state that could be a model Islamic state in the region".

It would be wise for Amsec to consider how they might unwittingly compromise the very impartiality of their initiative if they were to predetermine what a viable resolution would look like even before consultation with all affected parties.

An approach attentive to the aspirations of Acehnese society in all its diversity would reveal that calls for self-determination are not a simple matter of 'separatism', but have more to do with a brutalised population demanding justice for military impunity and reclaiming the right to control their own lives.

This brings us to the second question, concerning the selection of Acehnese "representatives" who will participate in the proposed council. Amsec is right to push for a platform that would involve members of Acehnese civil society alongside GAM and Indonesian officials. But the scope of these participants should be broadened beyond "intellectuals and ulamas".

Hundreds of civil society organisations have emerged in Aceh since the fall of Suharto, including human rights organisations, students associations, women's rights organisations, forums on political democracy, farmers' and fishermen's co-operatives, and groups providing humanitarian and community support in situations of internal displacement. Such groups reflect the dynamism of Acehnese society and should be given a key role in the formulation of a regional council.

In particular, Amsec should engage those groups who have already been working tirelessly to develop mechanisms for civil society participation in the official peace negotiations.

In July 2000, for example, the Simpul Monitoring Independen was established to monitor the Humanitarian Pause, which came into implementation in June 2000.

The alliance, comprising of six Acehnese NGOs (Kontras Aceh, Lemabaga Bantuan Hukum Banda Aceh, Koalisi NGO HAM, Yayasan Anak Bangsa, Yayasan Cordova, People's Crisis Center, and Komite Independen Pengembangan Demokrasi), was to critically assess the implementation of the security and humanitarian policies, as well as to conduct independent investigations and reports on the work of the committees.

An even more important mechanism is the all-inclusive Acehnese Civil Society Task Force that was elected in September 2001 to represent civil society in the advancing peace negotiations in Geneva.

Amsec should also be aware that many efforts of these pro-democracy civil groups have been systematically undermined by the Indonesian military and police.

Not only have police banned public forums assessing the peace process, Acehnese activists have been systematically targeted by the security forces, with many falling victim to arbitrary detention, kidnaping, torture, and killing.

The violent crushing of civil spaces has thrown many Acehnese, particularly the young, into cycles of vengeance and dependency, creating, as Dr Damien Kingsbury recently warned, "a new

generation of GAM".

Thus, in aspiring to facilitate a democratic and non-violent resolution to the conflict, Amsec should be resolute in upholding principles of justice and democracy at every stage of the process.

A first step toward winning the confidence of the Acehnese would be the immediate withdrawal of the current military operation, and an end to impunity for past and on-going abuses.

A peaceful and democratic resolution to the conflict is not in the interest of Acehnese alone, but of all those who support social, economic and political justice in Indonesia, Southeast Asia and throughout the world.