Tiarma Siboro, Jakarta – Two weeks after the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) signed a peace deal in Helsinki, many continue to question its legitimacy, particularly House of Representatives lawmakers, which may pose a stumbling block to its implementation.
Politicians opposed to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the peaceful settlement of the Aceh conflict have claimed that many points in the agreement are vague, which leaves room for multi-interpretations, especially those on the governing of Aceh and the powers of the local legislature.
Vice President Jusuf Kalla, who was involved in the peace process since the onset, had called for a halt to the debate over the peace accord.
Member of the GAM negotiating team Mohammed Nur Djuli, however, said delegations of both parties had sought every avenue to bridge differences of view while formulating the MOU. He was convinced the MOU, which wrapped up six months of talks, was the best arrangement the negotiators could reach to end almost three decades of armed struggle in the province.
The negotiation was facilitated by the Helsinki-based Crisis Management Initiative (CMI).
"We both agreed upon a self-government system and picked the term 'Aceh Administration' for it in the MOU because GAM can't accept special autonomy, while the Indonesian government could neither accept a referendum nor independence for Aceh.
"It is quite fair that we (Acehnese) talk about governing our own territory, albeit still within the Republic of Indonesia. The debate stopped then and there," Nur Djuli told The Jakarta Post on Friday.
According to the MOU, the new government arrangement in Aceh will require the House to seek the Aceh legislature's consent for all international agreements, administrative measures and policies concerning Aceh. House members consider the condition undermines their power.
Concerns have also been raised over human rights issues as the House legislators have said the government and GAM had given conflicting interpretations of the retroactivity principle of the planned human rights tribunal, which will be established in accordance with the MOU.
Nur Djuli suggested that both sides leave the matter to international principles of law, which give the sole authority to the UN to establish the rights tribunal to hear cases of crimes against humanity during the conflict in Aceh. "The UN holds the full authority to establish the rights tribunal in Aceh to try either Indonesian soldiers or GAM fighters who are accused of perpetrating atrocities. The establishment of the human rights tribunal in Aceh was not based on what we (GAM) or Indonesia asked for," he said.
Nur Djuli admitted that many parties were not altogether happy with the peace process. Disputes in many ways could disrupt the implementation of the MOU, he added. "That's what the foreign monitoring team is for," he said, referring to the around 200-strong Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM).
When the AMM cannot resolve a dispute through a dialog involving representatives of both the Indonesian government and GAM, the top political leadership of the two sides and the CMI will be invited to step in, with the knowledge of the EU Political and Security Committee. The CMI will issue a ruling, which will be binding for both sides.
Nur Djuli said the dispute settlement arrangement would prevent the peace accord from faltering. "The previous Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA) in 2002 failed because the monitoring team lacked the power to enforce its policy. We should not repeat the same mistake, and complying with AMM decisions has nothing to do with sovereignty. It is merely about the involvement of international arbitration," he said.
He suggested that debate over the MOU would be counterproductive and could backfire on the peace process. "Let's just begin to build the trust," he said.