Ethnic or nationalist conflicts are very part of the globalisation process. In fact, it could be argued that the integrative mechanisms of the globalisation process are indeed giving rise to ethnic, social and religious conflicts in the uneven global order. Coming to terms with globalisation also means trying to resolve such conflicts.

The case of Sri Lanka and Aceh provides examples of situations of extreme forms of conflicts.

The attempts by the governments in Sri Lanka and Indonesia to introduce and systematise homogenous policies in congruent with the globalisation demands have gave rise to ethnic or nationalist conflicts.

In these places, such conflicts have raged for more than two decades causing immense suffering to ordinary people.

Major parts of the north and east Sri Lanka have been devasted by war. More than 60,000 people have lost their lives in the conflict between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the government of Sri Lanka. In Aceh, the conflict between Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM, or Free Aceh Movement) and the government of Indonesia has caused the death of more than 10,000 people, the destruction of many physical structures and cessation of development plans.

Recent developments in both these conflict regions provide some hope that peace could be attained. Third party interventions have finally brought some measure of confidence that intense conflicts in these places could be halted and some form of permanent peace could be derived.

Political positions matter

In the case of Sri Lanka, the mediation provided by the government of Norway resulted in the signing of peace agreement between the LTTE and the government of Sri Lanka about a year

ago. Similarly in the case of Acheh, the initiative taken by the Henry Dunant Centre, Switzerland, resulted in the peace agreement between GAM and the government of Indonesia December last year.

The cessation of hostilities in Sri Lanka as result of the peace agreement has allowed the slow return of normalcy to areas affected by the civil war. More than a year has passed and despite minor breaches of the peace agreement, both the parties have maintained that they would honour the agreement.

Five rounds of peace talks have been held so far and more peace talks are planned for the near future. The LTTE has agreed to go for a federal political solution provided if the Sinhala state could ensure substantial autonomy for Tamil areas in the north and east.

In the ultimate sense, whether permanent peace could be attained in Sri Lanka will depend o­n the political positions of the parties to the conflict.

The LTTE would be agreeable to adopt a federal structure if Tamils are recognised as a nation, certain areas in the country are designated as Tamil homelands, and that they be given the right to self-determination. Beyond this, for a federal political structure to take shape in Sri Lanka, there is need o­n the part of the government to recognise certain existing Tamil institutions and for the mainstream Sinhala political parties to reach a consensus in respect to amendment of the country's constitution.

The situation in Aceh seems slightly more complicated. Although GAM and the government of Indonesia are committed to the peace process provided by the terms and conditions of the peace agreement, it is not very clear what kind of political solution that would be eventually adopted.

GAM's principal argument is simply this: that the government of Indonesia should allow the people of Aceh to determine their future political status.

Testing GAM's patience

In this respect, GAM has been emphasising that the government of Indonesia should allow for a referendum in which the people of Aceh could declare their true intentions. However, the government of Indonesia seems not too keen to allow for the process of referendum to take place. There is a realisation o­n the part of the government that referendum would pave the way for Aceh to declare its independence from Indonesia.

What is offered by GAM is quite democratic. The movement is not very keen o­n allowing for elections that would merely maintain the status of Aceh within the greater Republic of Indonesia. As it is, there is hardly any autonomy for Aceh; economic, social and political administration are still in the hands of officials responsible to Jakarta.

Aceh is an oil rich province, but the Acehnese are hardly the beneficiaries of this resource. Moreover, the long years of civil war, the high handedness of the Indonesia armed forces have caused untold sufferings to the Acehnese. Thousands of them have fled to other countries to escape the prosecution of the Indonesia authorities.

Thus, under these circumstances, GAM will not dilute its political stand. It is an armed movement that has grown from strength to strength; it would be impossible for the government of Indonesia to defeat it militarily.

While the peace agreement hatched recently is significant, there are too many problems. The Joint Security Committee set up to monitor violations of the agreement has not been able to stop the Indonesia armed forces from engaging in killings and arrests of Acehnese. The creation of peace zones as provided by the provisions of the peace agreement has been rather slow; the Indonesia

armed forces are not fully cooperating with the ceasefire monitoring committee.

GAM has been very patient; but there are definite limits to what it can do and cannot. If the Indonesia armed forces are not going to respect the conditions of ceasefire, there is likelihood that GAM might be force to retaliate. If this takes place, there is possibility that the peace agreement might not hold in preventing major forms of conflicts between the parties involved.

Sincerity counts

Peace agreement is not a substitute for permanent peace. It merely provides an avenue for parties in the conflict to engage in dialogue, negotiations and compromise so that ways and means could be found to derive permanent peace.

In Sri Lanka, the commitment o­n the parties to the conflict seems much higher in advancing the peace process.

However, in the case of Aceh, it is the lack of sincerity o­n the part of the government of Indonesia that seems to be the main obstacle. Unless and until the government of Indonesia agrees to respect the democratic rights of Acehnese to decide their own political future, the peace process might not advance.

The case of Sri Lanka and Aceh illustrate vividly that nation-states cannot simply impose certain homogenising requirements o­n their social or ethnic segments. Globalisation might require certain forms of homogenisation for purposes of economic integration, but then this homogenisation could not be imposed in a authoritarian or arbitrary manner.

Alternatively, what is required for nation-states is ensure that certain social and ethnic segments are involved democratically in the globalisation process o­n the basis of equality and dignity.

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. His writings are currently focused o­n conflict management in Sri Lanka.