Fajran Zain, Indiana – Despite the House of Representatives' endorsement, the new law on Aceh governance is still being debated.

The Free Aceh Movement (GAM) has in strong terms indicated its rejection of the newly adopted Aceh Government Law, while some other elements in Aceh associated with the Center for Information on the Aceh Referendum (SIRA) have also declared their opposition.

The arguments opposing the law mostly focus on the extent of the central government's authority in Aceh, the role of the Indonesian Military (TNI), and the jurisdiction of a human rights tribunal. Before its passage, the law had been revised many times, with many articles added and replaced and the final form some critics believe contradicts the spirit of peace accord signed last year.

In general, the newly passed law is less progressive than three laws related to Aceh that were enacted earlier: the 2001 Aceh Special Autonomy Law, the 2004 Regional Administration Law and the 2000 Human Rights Law.

Vice President Jusuf Kalla, who has played a key role in bringing peace to the troubled province, has played down opposition to the law. Kalla says the aspirations of GAM were heard and addressed accordingly.

Legislator Ferry Mursyidan Baldan of the Golkar Party, meanwhile, says that GAM's concerns may be based on a misunderstanding based on a focus on only the most controversial points. He suggests the critics view the law holistically.

There are certainly some points that exist in the accord, but are not covered in the law. There are also some points that are absent from the accord but were added later in the bill for some reasons that only the special committee debating the bill know about.

It is not easy to convince the Acehnese people that the House has sincerely passed a bill that will create long-lasting peace because their memories are still strong about the many abuses committed in their province the name of the Indonesia government.

The intention of the government to establish a special team to promote the understanding of the law locally is laudable. However, it is much more important to first direct those interpretations to GAM in a bipartisan dialog. The goal should be to get the government and GAM to work together on the law and join the dissemination process.

It is necessary to leave open spaces for amendments if during this bi-party dialog some ambiguous or contradictory points are found. As both groups have committed to a permanent peace, these interactions should lead to the formation and solidification of the new autonomous province. The talks should be a positive reinforcing process in which the relationship between the two parties is based on trust and cooperation.

It is vital to avoid attempts at domination, because when one group dominates another, trust and cooperation are at stake. The two parties should use a mediation mechanism if there is a dispute, as they promised to do in the accord.

The situation now resembles the previous Cessation of Hostilities (COHA) agreement in 2002, where the agreement had succeeded at the initial stage but failed later during the dissemination process. In that situation, the Indonesian government and GAM had separate teams with conflicting agendas. That deal fell apart and both sides stepped up their attacks on the other.

The continuing confusion and dissatisfaction about the new law must end. The law can not be forcibly implemented, to avoid a series of rejection movements. All of these will likely lead to the possibility of uncertainty and chaos.

No one expects the law to fail this time. Should we fail to convince the people of Aceh about the genuine meaning of the bill, then they will simply judge the government as being insincere about solving the conflict.

[The writer is a postgraduate student of psychology at Ball State University, Indiana. He can be reached at fzain@bsu.edu.]