`GAM in material breach of peace agreement'

`GAM in material breach of peace agreement'

The withdrawal of 100 international monitoring officers from
remote areas in Aceh by the Henry Dunant Centre (HDC) following
violent attacks on its facilities is just one of the latest
disheartening developments since the Cessation of Hostilities
Agreement was signed by the government and the Free Aceh Movement
(GAM) on Dec. 9 in Geneva. The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked
to government negotiator Wiryono Sastrohandoyo on the issue. The
following is an excerpt from the interview:

Question: Given the current situation, where do we stand
regarding the agreement?

Answer: Four months after signing the agreement, we have seen
these violations. GAM continues to enunciate independence while
the starting point of the agreement is the acceptance of the Law
on Aceh's autonomy. It's been forcefully recruiting young people
(in reference to the agreement against intimidation), and
installing regents and subdistrict heads, which is tantamount to
a shadow government, smuggling guns (in reference to the
agreement against the addition of military equipment during the
"confidence-building period") and engaging in extortion, which
they cynically call the Nanggroe (state of Aceh) tax. Weapons
have also not been placed in stores yet.

GAM has been in material breach of the agreement.

Q: Is the government demanding an investigation into these charges?

A: No, we are asking for the convening of the Joint Council.

We are invoking articles 8 and 9 of the agreement. Article 8
says the council will resolve all issues which cannot be resolved
by other committees or structures established under the
agreement.

Article 9 says that if the council is unable to resolve the
matter within no less than 30 days, then the agreement will not
be able to be implemented ("either party has the right to
unilaterally withdraw from the agreement").

There have been declining casualties (from violence) since the
agreement was signed, but the pact has been destroyed by those
violations by GAM.

Q: So what is the position of the government?

A: The government prefers a peaceful solution to the problem but
it strives more for the integrity and unity of Indonesia and that
is nonnegotiable, and that's clearly the objective of the
agreement. It should be the position of every Indonesian.

Q: There are fears that a statement from President Megawati
Soekarnoputri that the Indonesian Military (TNI) should prepare
for operations if GAM ignores efforts to salvage the truce, could
be taken as authorizing the TNI to take over security matters in
those regions. Your comment?

A: There is much to be criticized about the military but one must
speak the language of the agreement.

Maintenance of law and order in Aceh will continue to be the
responsibility of the National Police, as should be the case in a
sovereign state.

The TNI is not mentioned in the agreement but it's possible
that the government will request that it help the police
implement their function.

Q: The agreement was seen as the last hope for Aceh...

A: No, it was to be followed by an all-inclusive dialog and an
election in 2004. It's a major breakthrough.

Q: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have tried what appears to
be a last ditch effort to save the agreement. Can it help?

A: It can only be saved if the above violations stop.

Q: Would it have helped if the government was more solid, or if the
leadership was more firm?

A: I am not in the position to criticize the government here.

Q: Do you think the government has done its best?

A: Yes, the government took a political risk. Legislators said it
was the wrong step to take even though the seeking of a peaceful
solution to Aceh was instructed by the People's Consultative
Assembly. There has also been criticism from (the military).

The policy of the government is right, but basically the
government of Megawati Soekarnoputri has inherited the problems
from the government before.

I think the policy is correct and needs to be supported.

We've sent a delegation to Rome to meet the Pope and appeal
for peace, we've conducted daily demonstrations all over the
country against the war in Iraq -- and here is a peace deal in
our own province, but there is a lack of support for it.

The agreement needs support and violators should be called
violators.

There were injustices in the past, yes, but this government is
trying to correct them.

The Acehnese are more advanced, they see the agreement as a
peace agreement, not merely as a "Cessation of Hostilities"
agreement.

Q: Do you feel that there is enough international support for the
agreement?

A: There's nobody who is not supportive (of the government's
position). The leaders of the European Union, the United States,
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the United
Nations Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) have sent their
congratulations.

GAM is facilitating the hawks here by behaving the way they
behave -- they've provided the hawks in government with
ammunition.

Q: Surely GAM would have foreseen such a backlash?

A: They don't seem to understand the situation. This is their
best chance to come out as an organization striving for peace.

This agreement gives them a way to be respectable.

The purpose of the agreement was to take the guns out of
politics.

Q: What should be done if the Joint Council fails and there are
strong calls for independence?

A: The agreement is already clear (based on the acceptance of the
Law on Aceh's autonomy); we're not going to change the agreement.

The agreement is not perfect, but it is good enough.

Q: How urgent is it to have the Joint Council convene?

A: Very urgent; two months after the signing (of the agreement)
there was growing confidence that GAM would begin storing its
weapons. Now it's April and not a single weapon has been placed
in weapon stores.

Q: Could different perceptions of the agreement be one of the
reasons for its perceived violations, for instance, the possible
misunderstanding on the part of GAM to just place its arms in its
own warehouse?

A: That is not a misinterpretation, that is an intentional
violation, a contradiction of the agreement.