Differing interpretations could derail peace pact

Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) signed an historic peace agreement, though not the first, on Monday in Helsinki, Finland. Noted lawyer and human rights activist Todung Mulya Lubis, who is on the board of the Jakarta-based Tifa Foundation focusing on empowering civil society, shared his thoughts with The Jakarta Post's Tony Hotland.

Question: In general, what is your opinion of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM)?

Answer: I personally welcome the signing of the peace accord in Helsinki. This is a new historical beginning, an essential moment for Indonesia. The challenge, of course, lies ahead and I have my own concerns.

What concerns?

If we read the contents of the MOU, there are six major points: the governing of Aceh, human rights, amnesty/reintegration of former GAM members into society, security arrangements and the establishment of the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) and dispute settlement.

My particular concern is over the possibility of multiple interpretations of the articles in the MOU by the two parties ... differences in interpretations, which could lead to different implementation on the ground.

For example, about the governing of Aceh. It says that a new law will be promulgated and will enter into force not later than March 31, 2006. This could mean an amendment to Law No. 18/2001 on Special Autonomy for Aceh or an enactment of a completely new law. It is not clear.

Another example, is when it says that Aceh will exercise authority within all sectors of public affairs, which will exclude the fields of foreign affairs, external defense, national security, monetary and fiscal matters, justice and freedom of religion. But in his speech after the signing, the GAM representative did not mention nor acknowledge these exclusions. It is possible that GAM sees this as full self-governing with the establishment of a completely new law.

It is likely that there are two different minds, and also two different objectives. We assume that the accord was signed within the spirit of a united Indonesia, but none of the representatives explicitly mentioned that spirit in their speeches. It was implicit, but not explicit. Are we then the ones who have to read between the lines?

But both parties supposedly already detailed the content and the interpretations of the peace deal during the rounds of discussion since January?

I do suppose that they must have ironed these out. But we need to remember that to implement the contents of the accord will require participation from other institutions, like the House of Representatives for amendments to laws or the various civil society groups in Aceh. Without proper and adequate involvement of these other parties, whose roles are crucial, the room for multiple interpretations becomes quite large, from which obstacles are likely to appear.

Let me take another example. The government said it would grant amnesty for GAM political prisoners, but not those prisoners charged with common criminal offenses. There are certainly gray areas here. What about those who were illegally collecting taxes? They will say that they did it as part of GAM's activities although non-political, but the police see them as common criminals.

Many consider that the Indonesian government bowed down too much to GAM's demands. How do you see this?

I can see that the government is really accommodating many of GAM's demands. I understand this as I am sure it is costing the government too much to finance the war ... over 30 years of conflict and trillions of rupiah that could have instead been spent on development projects.

The generous accommodation by the government should be reciprocated with genuine intent on GAM's part to terminate fighting or no peace will be accomplished.

What is important now is the confidence-building measures in the implementation of the MOU within the first months after the signing because although there seems to be a prevailing euphoria, there are also doubts and concerns that this too could fail just like the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA).

What do you think caused the COHA to fail in 2003, and what could be done to prevent it from recurring?

I think it was the disarmament process that did not work. There was mutual distrust between the two sides. The government even said that GAM was trying to reorganize and reconsolidate itself during the process, but not for the purpose of peace. And I am sure GAM had their own doubts about the government.

This time, both parties should be consistent in taking this MOU seriously because there are still mixed feelings in Aceh now.

With this generous accommodation by the government, do you see any chance for other areas, especially where separatist movements already exist, to make similar demands?

Sure this peace deal will be an inspiration for other regions, particularly for those where separatist movements are present, to make similar requests. So this should be seen not only as a peace deal with GAM, but also with other separatist movements.

And it would be naive to think that people in other regions would not read the contents of the MOU, which will remind them of their discontent with the economic, political and social conditions in their respective regions.

The key to stifling these movements is to be just and equal. (We need to) be consistent in implementing the regional autonomy that has been granted to the provinces, instead of trying to hamper the process, so that the central government becomes the one that supports the development process and gives direct benefits for all people equally.