The Law on Governing Aceh (LoGA) violates the Helsinki MoU

"GoI and GAM will not undertake any action inconsistent with the letter or spirit of this Memorandum of Understanding."(The Key and Last Paragraph of the Helsinki MoU).

The Law on Aceh Government (LoGA), which the Parliament of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-RI) enacted on 11 July 2006 in Jakarta, should have been not only a law product but must have related as well to the commitment of GoI and GAM to a peaceful, comprehensive, sustainable solution to the conflict in Aceh, with dignity for all, as stipulated in the very first paragraph of the Helsinki MoU. The hope for a lasting peace in Aceh will depend on the Law on Governing Aceh (MoU) that complies fully with the MoU. If the said LoGA complies fully with the Helsinki MoU, God Willing, peace, justice and good governance will certainly hold in Aceh. On the contrary, a law that deviates, in letter or in spirit with the Helsinki MoU will threaten peace that is clearly taking root today in Acheh, and will not produce good governance and justice, but will perpetuate the status quo of corruption and mismanagement.

Critically and legally analyzed, one will find in the LoGA that was enacted in the plenary session of the DPR-RI on 11 July 2006; a number of basic principles, contents and points (articles, phrases, and letters) which are not only in contravention of the Helsinki MoU but in some cases in contradiction with one another, creating anomalies and confusion in its implementation later. Examples of such violations and contradictions are given hereunder:

1. The exclusion, in the Reference and Consideration of the LoGA, of the Helsinki MoU as a philosophical and political basis of the LoGA to create a lasting peace in Aceh; that the creation of the LoGA is indeed for the purpose of making it possible to implement the MoU.

2. The exclusion of geological and political boundaries of Aceh, that clearly stated in the Artcile 1.1.4 of the Helsinki MoU, being corresponding to the map of Acheh dated 1 July 1956; it is stipulated in the LoGA (Article 3)as in the coordinate of 20 - 60 north-latitude and 950 – 980 south-latitude.

3. Under the LoGA, the government of the Republic of Indonesia will still be able to intervene in the governing of Aceh by the Government of Aceh through the formation specially designated areas in Aceh (Article 4 of the LoGA and point 1.1.2 (a) of Helsinki MoU); The limitation of the powers of the Central Government in Aceh to the 6 points mentioned in this article of the MoU has been ignored.

4. The inclusion of several authorities held by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia in addition to the 6 authorities stipulated in the Helsinki MoU (Article 7 (2) of the LoGA and point 1.1.2 (a) of Helsinki MoU).

5. The changing of the word "consent" in the MoU to "consideration" in the LoGA on the policies taken by the Central Government and Parliament with regards Acheh (Article 8 of the LoGA and points 1.1.2 (b), (c) and (d) of the Helsinki MoU); This is one of the fatal modifications as far as compliance of the MoU is concerned.

6. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia will still be able to intervene in the governing of Acheh and to interfere in the authorities of the Aceh Government by imposing the "national norms, standard, and procedures" of control. Such regulations and control set the stage for the proverbial "freeing the head but holding the tail". (Article 11 of the LoGA and point 1.1.2 (a) of the Helsinki MoU). This article of the LoGA would place too broad authority on the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to control the authorities of Aceh government as stipulated in the subsequent articles of the LoGA.

7. The management of natural resources as stipulated in the Helsinki MoU should be in full control of the Aceh Government and not just on an authority rendered to the Aceh Government that could be withdrawn later at the will of the Central Government as stipulated in the LoGA. (Article 156 of the LoGA);

8. The management of gas and oil resources is stipulated in the Helsinki MoU to be under the full authority of the Government of Aceh and not to be jointly managed by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and Aceh as stipulated in the Article 160 of the LoGA;

9. The role of TNI under the LoGA is not defined in accordance with the stipulation of the MoU as being for external defense but blurred with the term 'state defense'. This is a clear and dangerous violation, it being the core principle of the peace process. Any possible interference in the civilian life in Aceh by the military will undoubtedly create tension in the population that has been living in deep trauma of military oppression (Article 202 of the LoGA and point 4.11 of the Helsinki MoU).

10. The stationing of TNI troops at their bases (no longer at subdistrict, district, combined-districts regiments and provincial headquarters) only for the purpose of external defense, is not stipulated in the LoGA (Aticle 202 and point 4.11 of the Helsinki MoU);

11. It is clearly defined in the MoU that civilian offenses by the military will be referred to civilian courts. This stipulation has been omitted in the LoGA. (Article 203 of LoGA and point 1.4.5 of Helsinki MoU);

12. The position of the Wali Nanggroe is defined only as a traditional and cultural institution, which is against the spirit of the stipulation of the MoU (Article 96 of the LoGA and point 1.1.7 of the Helsinki MoU);

13. The human rights court defined in the LoGA is even less authoritative than stipulated in the Law no. 26/2000 for the whole of Indonesia; in the LoGA, retroactivity is not allowed, as it covers only offenses after the signing of this law. Such stipulation is clearly military inspired in order to free the serious crimes against humanity perpetrated by the military during the conflict in Aceh (Article 227 of the LoGA and point 2.2 of the Helsinki MoU);

14. The LoGA does not stipulate any guarantee for civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that is in accordance to the International Conventions of the United Nations as clearly stipulated in the Helsinki MoU (point 2.1 of the Helsinki MoU);

15. The old terminologies such as "province" of the Special autonomy Status system that have been clearly excluded in the Helsinki MoU are being re-introduced in the LoGA. Such usage is in contradiction with the stipulation of the LoGA itself that the name of Aceh will be determined by the local parliament in 2009, and meanwhile any reference to Aceh should use the word Aceh only without any other epithet.

16. The status of the Qanun that will be the local law in Aceh enacted by the local parliament is vaguely defined, and always accompanied on every clause and article by the phrase "based on the law in force and the constitution" of the Republic of Indonesia, giving the Indonesian Government the power to abrogate it at will if it feels that a Qanun law is against any Indonesian law, without the necessity of referring the matter to the Supreme Court. Such stipulation is a step backward compared even to the rejected "Special Autonomy Status" stipulation under the Law No.18/20001.

Other than those examples mentioned above, there are many more which are less important violations that rendered the LoGA even less autonomic for Aceh than under then provided by Laws No. 18/2001 on Special Autonomy of Aceh, No. 32/2004 on Regional Government and No 26/2000 on Human Rights Court.

It is understood that the GAM has signed the Helsinki MoU in good faith, believing the assurance of the Government of Indonesia's side that the Party in power that it represents (GOLKAR) is in majority control of the Parliament and that any proposal it made would be accepted by Parliament. In fact it would have appeared indeed to be so; the violations of the MoU were already there the LoGA Bill (RUU-PA) before being presented by the Government to Parliament. In at least one case, it is the Government that overruled the wish of Parliament.

The Parliament wanted to give full controlof the oil and gas resources to Aceh, but it is the Government that opposed this, stipulating instead a joint control. It is not the question of "democractic _expression" of the Parliament that is the problem, but non-compliance by the Government itself. If the government of Indonesia remains unwilling to revise or amends these violations of the MoU by the the LoGA in order to agree fully with the stipulations of the Helsinki MoU, it is then become a matter of necessity for the people of Aceh to take a firm decision to reject the UU-PA (LoGA).

Furthermore, the effort to refer this matter to the Dispute Settlement mechanism as stipulated under the Mou, for GAM and GoI to renegotiate the solution under the mediation of the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) and the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI), in order to find a good way out in order to safeguard the peace process, must be supported by the entire people of Aceh and the international community. ============================

Nasruddin Abubakar Presidium Council of

SIRACell:+6281360551966eMail:NAmaun@gmail.com

http://us.f600.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=nashbenabubakr@yahoo.com

Website:www.sirareferendum.org