The resumption of hostilities in Aceh earlier this month after a five-month ceasefire has raised questions o­nce again as to whether Asean should be playing a more prominent role in mediating for solutions to long-standing regional conflicts.

Last criticised for its perceived inaction during the 1999 East Timor post-referendum violence, the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) now faces the spotlight for its low profile position vis-a-vis the Aceh question.

But speaking to malaysiakini earlier this week, former Asean secretary-general Ajit Singh said there are good reasons for Asean not to take an outright involvement in negotiations between the Indonesian government and the separatist Free Aceh Movement (GAM).

European link

Ajit, who helmed Asean from 1993 to 1997, said the association abides by several principles which dictate that Asean can o­nly play a role in the Aceh issue if its services are requested and agreed to by both parties.

"There are a number of principles involved. First is the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs and respect for the sovereignty of another country. The second principle is that while Asean is always ready to offer its services as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator, its involvement is dependant o­n the agreement of the parties involved," he said.

According to Ajit, Switzerland's Henry Dunant Centre may have been preferred as a mediator to the peace negotiations because of GAM's European links.

"If you look at the history of the conflict, it goes way back and you have to understand that the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) has its headquarters in Sweden. They have been operating there for a number of years so I suppose they themselves feel comfortable if they have European mediation.

"If this is agreed to by the Indonesians, then of course Asean would respect that kind of arrangement," he added.

Thai diplomat's role

The former Asean secretary-general said although Asean was not directly involved in the negotiations earlier this year, it does not mean that individual member countries have not put any effort in resolving the Aceh quagmire.

"Although we may not know of these attempts to help the parties involved to negotiate, privately, member nations may be quietly doing some mediation to try and resolve the issue peacefully," he added.

Former Thai Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan has been named by the press as o­ne of four 'wise men' roped in to help negotiate the cease-fire between government troops and GAM rebels last December.

Recent reports have also speculated that Pitsuwan may have visited Indonesia again in an attempt to persuade both fighting sides back to the negotiation table.

Indonesia not 'condemned'

Elaborating further o­n the non-interference principle governing international relations, Ajit said although recent events such as the genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda had shown the willingness of the international community to intervene in cases of "crimes against humanity", the same situation does not presently apply to the Aceh conflict.

"There is the question of how grave countries in the region and outside view the conflict. o­n the question of Aceh, we have not seen the European Union, United States, Non-Aligned Movement, Organisation of Islamic Conference or Asean condemning Indonesia for having launched a campaign against the rebels.

"They do not see the situation as warranting such an action - meaning condemning Indonesia or sending troops of their own to stop the fighting," he explained.

While the former Asean secretary-general conceded that different interpretations of the non-interference have been made recently in relation to the Iraq war, he explained that this does not mean that the principle itself has been made obsolete.

"The principle of non-interference is enshrined in the 1945 United Nations Charter and it forms o­ne of the five pillars of the principles of peaceful co-existence enunciated at the Bandung conference," he said, referring to the 1955 meeting between Asian and African leaders.

For instance, Ajit said the 1979 occupation of Cambodia (by Vietnamese forces) was condemned by Asean, a position which was supported by the rest of the non-communist countries of the UN at that time.

In contrast, he pointed out that the regime change in Iraq brought about by US-led forces evoked different responses by Asean countries even though the principle of non-intervention had been violated.

"So how do you rationalise the two? The o­nly way to rationalise it from the comments made by the leaders of the countries concerned is that the war o­n terrorism is a very serious development and they had to support the US.

"In other words, these countries have acted in their own national interests rather than adhere to the principles that Asean expounded."

Bilateral solutions

Question if the lack of direct involvement by Asean in regional conflicts would its member countries' ability to cope with spill over problems such as refugee movements, Ajit said such problems have been dealt with thus far via other channels.

"No doubt, cross border refugee movements have taken place and have caused problems between the countries concerned. Very often, these problems are resolved in a bilateral context.

"However, if the issues are grave as a result of genocide or crimes against humanity as in the case of former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, then the international community has been galvanised into taking action," he added.

Since the separatist conflict started in Aceh in the 1970s, persons claiming to be refugees have fled the province for neighbouring Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

Apart from Aceh, other areas which are the source of mass refugee movements are conflict zones in southern Philippines - also the result of fighting between government troops and separatist groups - and Burma, where a decade-long standoff between the Burmese government and opposition parties and ethnic groups continues.