That doesn`t mean peace is safe. On the contrary, there are several major threats to them. First, the political agreement enshrined in the agreement could indeed be much narrower than a cursory reading suggests. Many of the most important provisions are ambiguous and vague and are interpreted very differently by both parties. THE members of the GAM consider the provisions relating to the Aceh government to be broad and give Aceh almost unfettered powers to determine its own affairs. On the other hand, some in the government provide, at best, a minimum extension of the agreements already provided for by a special law of 2001 on autonomy. The final act of Helsinki was an agreement signed by 35 nations that closed the conference on security and cooperation in Europe in Helsinki (Finland). The multifaceted law addressed a number of important global issues and had a significant impact on the Cold War and US-Soviet relations. After five difficult negotiations between January and July, the two sides finally agreed on the Helsinki programme. This agreement is much more likely to succeed than the peace agreements reached so far.
It is a fundamentally different type of agreement. Both the humanitarian pause and COHA have called for a ceasefire and demilitarization that lead to an open dialogue on the political status of Von Aceh. Both sides remained far removed from the central question of whether Aceh should become independent or remain part of Indonesia. In these circumstances, it proved impossible for both parties to trust each other. In particular, military and government officials believed that THE GAM was using peace to intensify its separatist struggle. However, the civil rights portion of the agreement served as the basis for the work of Helsinki Watch, a Western secret service non-governmental organization created to support dissidents in Eastern Europe, supported by Western business media and Western governments under the umbrella of monitoring compliance with the Helsinki Accords (which developed into several regional committees and eventually formed the Helsinki International Federation and Human Rights Watch). While these provisions applied to all signatories, the emphasis was placed on their application to the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact, including Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary, Poland and Romania. Soviet propaganda presented the final act as a great triumph for Soviet diplomacy and for Brezhnev himself. 65 After a meeting of foreign ministers in Helsinki in July 1973, the committees met in Geneva to draft an agreement that lasted from September 1973 to July 1975. The main interest of the Soviet Union was to implicitly recognize its post-war hegemony in Eastern Europe through guarantees of inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.
In return, the United States and its Western European allies pushed the Soviet Union to engage on issues such as respect for human rights, expanded contacts between Eastern and Western Europe, freedom of movement and the free cross-border flow of information.