An Indonesian ministerial team departs for Finland today to meet Free Aceh Movement or GAM's leadership-in-exile, but though both sides expressed optimism, there is scant hope the talks would end decades of conflict in the province.

The dialogue, the first formal contact between separatist rebels and the government since a truce broke down 20 months ago, was organised after both sides urged peace in the wake of the tsunami disaster. Ahead of the talks, there were few signs the rebels and Jakarta would be able to do more than formalise a post-tsunami ceasefire.

Indonesia's Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda has said that the government would reject any demands for independence and progress could only be made if the rebels were willing to accept an offer of special autonomy.

Meanwhile, Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono helped fuel doubts of progress in the talks by telling defence officials that his country needed a stronger military, insisting more firepower could have helped it crush Aceh's rebels.

For more on this, Bharati Jagdish (BJ) spoke to Sidney Jones (SJ) from the International Crisis Group.

SJ: "The Indonesian side says it's prepared to talk about anything short of independence and this would include questions of an amnesty for GAM fighters, it might include questions of participation of GAM in local government or the local parliament and it might include various aspects of a ceasefire and hovering in the background, is the possibility of some kind of economic concession, but it's not clear how all of this will be conveyed. If all of GAM has to swear allegiance to the Indonesian republic before any of this takes place, everything could be off the agenda from the beginning."

BJ: Some analysts say that the GAM rebels on the ground in Aceh may be more willing to agree to be content with special autonomy at this time especially after the military operation and the tsunami disaster. Do you think this is even possible?

SJ: "I think that if there were no GAM leadership in Sweden, it might be possible to think of field commanders taking a more pragmatic approach, but it seems to me that it would be unlikely that the field commanders on the ground in Aceh will deviate very much from what the political leadership in Sweden decides to do, so I think a lot is still going to hinge on the attitude and stance of the GAM leadership-in-exile."

BJ: Do you see the government being more willing to make concessions to the GAM rebels at this stage, short of independence, of course?

SJ: "I don't know. One of the sticking points during the last round of talks in May 2003 was the issue of political participation because the Indonesian government wasn't willing to allow for the possibility that GAM could turn itself into a political party because there are no regional political parties in Indonesia. There are only national political parties and without the option of becoming a party rooted in Aceh, it doesn't seem likely that there would be a way for political participation to take place, unless it's on a completely non-party base and then the question would be whether GAM would be interested in that and I don't know what the answer is."

BJ: But how far would you say the government is willing to go in terms of concessions or is there this feeling amongst the government's ranks that they could just easily resume military operations to crush the GAM?

SJ: "The problem is that I don't think we're dealing with a united government. I don't think the government in Indonesia is speaking with one voice. We're getting one view put forward by President Yudhoyono, another view from the Vice-President, Jusuf Kalla and yet another from the head of the military in Jakarta. Then there's a fourth view put out by the local military commanders on the ground in Aceh. It's not clear that everybody's operating on the same wavelength, so it's difficult to fathom what the government's viewpoint is."

BJ: Would you say then that these talks are more of a confidence-building measure than anything else?

SJ: "I think neither side has anything to lose by taking part in these talks. I think it's useful that they're taking place. It's not clear what the prospects are, that they're actually going to make significant progress.

They could undermine confidence as well as build it. It depends on the attitudes that both parties bring to the talks in the first place."

Sidney Jones (SJ) from the International Crisis Group, speaking to Bharati Jagdish BJ).