On signing of MOU
On signing of MOU
The Indonesian government announced that on May 12 or May 13 a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be signed between the
Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) in Geneva.
Signing for Indonesia will be Indonesian Ambassador Hasan
Wirayuda, and somebody called Zaini Abdullah will represent GAM.
This looks like a signing ceremony involving two sovereign
countries, taking place in a neutral foreign country.
Why is the projected signing not in Jakarta if GAM is
considered a rebel organization? Worse still this ceremony will
be attended by two Cabinet ministers, namely the foreign minister
and the state minister of human rights affairs.
The presence of the two ministers is really a boost to the
morale and honor of GAM. Is the attendance of those two ministers
really necessary? If the government thinks that the GAM is just a
rebel organization which is trying to achieve something illegal,
like separation from the republic, then this signing ceremony is
purely a domestic affair.
The government has appointed an ambassador to sign the MOU,
and if that is not enough the government can send a not too high-
ranking official from the ministry of home affairs. The Republic
of Indonesia is an internationally recognized sovereign country,
while GAM is an unlawful political organization which goes
against the 1945 Constitution.
If we follow the explanation of the state minister of human
rights affairs, we will become more confused. The minister has
called this signing a historic moment because both sides will
agree not to use violence any longer, which means that both sides
will lay down their arms (The Jakarta Post, May 5, 2000). How
could a minister give such a statement? He should understand that
the Indonesian Military and the police are legally armed and
hence it is not possible for them to lay down their arms. Arms
are the official equipment of a soldier and a police officer. It
is the illegal armed forces of GAM who should lay down their
arms.
According to President Abdurrahman Wahidm, an incorrect
statement could turn the whole thing upside down. The
interpretation given by GAM spokesman Ismail Syahputra about the
MOU should be carefully examined. The spokesman said the armed
wing of GAM backed the peace plan as it constitutes the first
step toward gaining independence. Is the Indonesian government
aware of this?
Ismail Syahputra explained further the details of this MOU.
First, it calls for a cease-fire between GAM and the country's
security forces. Second, the withdrawal of troops from Aceh.
Third, the laying down of arms. Fourth, the prosecution of human
rights abuses in the province.
It seems that the mature republic in this case has lost the
battle with the infant GAM, but thanks to our foreign minister,
Alwi Shihab, we still can win the war. Our foreign minister is
more mature in politics than our state minister of human rights
affairs, Hasballah.
Alwi Shihab's interpretation of the MOU is more logical and
acceptable. By telling the truth, the foreign minister is pouring
cold water on the Aceh plan (Post, May 6, 2000). According to
Alwi Shihab, the MOU is neither a peace agreement, a cease-fire
and certainly not a political settlement of the Aceh problem, but
a humanitarian pause. This is purely an earnest effort to create
peaceful conditions, and the involvement of the government in
this MOU is certainly not a recognition of GAM as a state. GAM
has been disturbing stability and causing the Aceh people to live
in chaos.
This statement from the foreign minister is loud and clear,
and leaves no place for illusions in GAM for an independent Aceh.
Aceh is part of the unitary Republic of Indonesia, which was
proclaimed on Aug. 17, 1945, and, with God's help, it will remain
that way.
SOEGIH ARTO
Jakarta