Differing interpretations could derail peace pact

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.