New peace deal greeted with caution
Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post/Jakarta
Doubt and joy have been the alternating feelings since another milestone toward ending the decades-long armed conflict in Aceh occurred on Monday with the signing of a historic peace accord.
Applause and tears of joy have been juxtaposed against raised eyebrows and mounting questions, particularly when people -- Acehnese in particular -- look back and take history into account.
Monday's signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) was the third effort in the last five years to terminate one of the world's longest-running wars after previous ones were short- lived.
In May 2000, the Joint Understanding on Humanitarian Pause was signed in Davos, Switzerland. It failed shortly thereafter as the parties could not agree on the creation of a steering committee to facilitate dialogs.
In December 2002, the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA) was signed at the Henry Dunant Center headquarters in Geneva.
It also faltered (in May 2003) as the parties failed to agree on the mechanism for demilitarization. Indonesia's negotiation team chief was diplomat and former ambassador Wiryono Sastrohandoyo, while GAM's was Zaini Abdullah.
So when the current MoU was churned out over five rounds of talks and eventually signed, it was naturally logical to wonder whether this one would really work.
"I wish everything well. But looking at the process and the results, I still have concerns," Wiryono told The Jakarta Post on Tuesday.
"Everybody's happy. It also happened back then (December 2002 for the CoHA) because it was a euphoric moment. But the thing is, most people think that this automatically means peace. They don't know the compromises and political considerations behind it, which are usually the source of any failure," he said.
This time around, said Wiryono, that source could be from the House of Representatives, because the negotiations had been carried out without proper consultation and seemed to be secretive.
"During the CoHA process, I consulted with them on every single word and I was stern. It failed because GAM didn't abide by the agreement and kept demanding independence. But this MoU was not made public until after it was signed," he argued.
Moreover, he said, many elements of the agreement would need House approval.
"I also think we (the central government) gave away too much. The fact that GAM wanted to sign was because they got their demands, while now the central government is basically powerless with the planned presence of the very powerful provincial legislative body," he argued.
Wiryono said there was no explicit statement about giving up their independence ambitions, nor about accepting the Special Autonomy Law, while the previous agreement openly used the law as its basis.
"The real commitment is missing here. But if it is to proceed, I hope all parties will be rational about the peace commitment," he said.
Acehnese legislator Tgk. Imam Suja, who was the head of the Muhammadiyah's Aceh branch when CoHA was conceived, was more optimistic.
"This agreement is very detailed. There are no more gray areas, and was signed by two high-ranking officials. The two parties are really committed this time," he asserted.
Imam explained that there were not any references made to the creation of "peace zones" in this MoU, but there were in the CoHA. In addition, all GAM weapons would now be surrendered, rather than just stored as the CoHA ordered.
"The monitoring mission (in the MoU) also has more power now (than the CoHA) to ensure that neither parties break their commitment," he added.