JVP and JHU want Aceh-style Unitary Constitution
Far-reaching provisions in Aceh MoU is conveniently ignored
By Austin Fernando
The unitary nature of the Constitution has been incorporated in Prime Minister
Mahinda Rajapakse's Manifesto released yesterday. SLFP's federal solution to the
national issue has gone with the election wind.
After the Aceh MOU was signed, Champika Ranawaka and H.M.G.B. Kotakadeniya
have gone public that power sharing is possible under a "unitary state". They
prescribe the Aceh MOU model- a guide to power sharing. Premier Rajapakse may
have been heavily influenced by the JVP and JHU to accept the Aceh style power
sharing.
The temptation has been to have it duplicated in Sri Lanka for peacemaking little
realizing its far-reaching provisions.
Aceh and Unitary State
The second paragraph of the preamble to the Aceh MOU states, the commitment of
the Aceh rebels (ARs) and the Government of Indonesia (GoI) in "creating conditions
…within the unitary state and constitution of Indonesia." This goes along with the
Premier, the JVP and the JHU.
According to Article 1.1.2 of the MOU "Aceh (i.e. ARs) will exercise authority within all
sectors of public affairs, which will be administered in conjunction with its civil and
judicial administration, except in the fields of foreign affairs, external defense, national
security, ……" Even these exceptions are public affairs! Applied to the Sri Lankan
context the LTTE will exercise the same authority.
They will reserve the right for internal defense, meaning the engagement of LTTE
cadres. However, if Aceh is replicated, here the LTTE with their political administration
and court system will have to be accepted. Is the JHU willing to accept the LTTE courts
and police?
According to Art. 1.1.2 (b) of the Aceh MOU, even "international agreements entered
into by the GoI, which relate to matters of special interests to Aceh will be entered in to
in consultation with and with the consent of the legislature of Aceh." We welcome the
interpretation of "special interests" by LTTE's Political Head Tamilselvam, as we know
that the north and east legislature will be controlled by the LTTE and as we know how
he reacts to such issues.
This brings us into another area, which has been objected to by the JHU, i.e. LTTE
possessing legislative authority through a legislature. As proposed by them, if power is
shared in Sri Lanka under a unitary structure, in the Aceh Style, with a separate
legislature controlled by the LTTE, are we to believe that JHU supports the unitary
character and dual legislative bodies- in Colombo and Kilinochchi? Is it not a
confederation that goes beyond a federal structure, which the JHU opposes?
Art. 1.1.2 (c) of the MOU further complicates matters for the JHU. It says "decisions
with regard to Aceh by the legislature of the Republic of Indonesia will be taken in
consultation with and with the consent of the legislature of Aceh." The word "consent"
is important again. In other words, the GoI is obliged to take note of the Aceh
legislature. Applied to Sri Lanka, it will mean under the influence of the Kilinochchi
legislature. Is this what JHU stood for?
Art. 1.1.2 (d) goes far beyond this by saying "Administrative measures undertaken by
the GoI with regard to Aceh will be implemented in consultation with and with the
consent of the head of the Aceh administration." This means in the Sri Lankan context,
the JHU's reluctant acceptance of the LTTE led legislature [Art. 1.1.2 (c)] and the
personal authority of Prabhakaran's administration. These JHU leaders have
unbelievably changed a hell of a lot!
If Ranil Wickremesinghe had stated that he was willing to pattern his solution on the
Aceh MOU, the JHU and the JVP would have had a field day.
Sensitive issues
The Aceh MOU states that the "borders of Aceh be the borders, as of 1st July 1956". If
we follow the Aceh MOU to draw the northern and eastern borders, the LTTE may
suggest borders of the past (e.g. 1948), which will create problems for the settlers of
the DS Senanayake era. Does the JHU stand by these settlers or not?
In addition, Art. 1.1.5 gives power to the Aceh people "the right to use regional
symbols including a flag, a crest and a hymn." In the Sri Lankan context it is
acceptance of the LTTE's flag, crest and a LTTE anthem.
By advocating the Aceh MOU to be the model, Ranawaka and Kotakadeniya would be
forced to accept all these.
Art. 1.2.4 in the Aceh MOU says that "Until 2009 the legislature of Aceh will not be
entitled to enact any laws without the consent of the head of the Aceh administration."
This "head" is to be elected by the Aceh people under Art. 1.2.3. In the Sri Lankan
context, the reality is that it would be the LTTE Leader Prabhakaran, unless he wishes
to be the Sun God, leaving dealings with the GoSL to his nominee. Will the JHU go
along with this?
Economy and Aceh MOU
In case of the economy, powers have been vested by Article 1.3.1 of the Aceh MOU to
include the right to raise funds with external loans and to set the interest rates beyond
that set by the Central Bank of Indonesia. There are no controls of such action in the
Aceh MOU, which could be detrimental to investment; inflation etc and these may be
acceptable to Rajapakse, JVP and JHU.
The Aceh administration will have the right to set taxes to fund official internal activities
and conduct trade and business internally and internationally, and, to seek foreign
direct investment and tourism in Aceh. (Art. 1.3.2) The JVP / JHU did not show leniency
when ISGA and P-TOMS had somewhat similar conditions.
But now they are keen to support power sharing Aceh style, only to save the unitary
character of our Constitution.
While obtaining the powers to tax in Aceh, the Aceh administration reserves the right
to enjoy free trade within the Republic of Indonesia, without "taxes, tariffs or other
restrictions", according to Art. 1.3.6. Applied to the Sri Lankan scenario, the LTTE
legislature will reserve the right to tax and to expect no taxation, duties or tariffs etc.
elsewhere. P-TOMS was less problematic though the JHU opposed.
Rev. Omalpe Sobhita Thero, MP, who went before the Supreme Court against the
Regional Fund may find the "alms" offered by Ranawaka and Kotakadeniya
unpalatable and indigestive. He might even venture for a hunger strike, as he did
against the P-TOMS agreement.
It might have to be against his own party stalwarts holding positions of Head of Policy
Making and Treasurer respectively.
When the Norwegians proposed the ISGA and P-TOMS, many eyebrows were raised
particularly regarding the manner in which the LTTE was allegedly trying to have
control of the sea. The JVP/JHU and even moderates like us were skeptical about such
demands.
The Aceh MOU gives powers such as jurisdiction over living natural resources (Art.
1.3.3), entitlement "to retain 70% of the revenue from all current and future
hydrocarbon deposits and other natural resources in the territory of Aceh, as well as
in the territorial sea surrounding Aceh" (Art. 1.3.4), development and administration of
all seaports and airports within the territory of Aceh (Art 1.3.5) and "unhindered
access to foreign countries by sea and air" (Art. 1.3.7).
By accepting the Aceh style for power sharing, the JHU top brass will have to support
similar provisions even though they were going hammer and tongs over ISGA, P-
TOMS, the LTTE airstrip, transfer of LTTE cadres by air and lately even the transfer
of a dying LTTE cadre from Batticaloa.
Aceh MOU and Security
Another important matter highlighted by them is that the ARs' agreement to
decommission. They demand the same in Sri Lanka. I agree that this should
compulsorily happen one day. However, ARs have agreed on the basis of demobilizing
their total cadre of 3,000 (Art. 4.2) and handing over 840 arms (Art. 4.3). The Aceh
MOU dictates the number of GoI organic military forces and police that have to remain
in Aceh (Art. 4.7). In responding, the GoI will withdraw all elements of their non-organic
military.
If the non-organic military are the "irregulars" this does not create problems for our
forces as all are "regulars" and "volunteers". If the demand is made for reduction of
regulars, then the Aceh style would create problems for the JHU and Sri Lanka. Of
course, this will not be a problem for the JVP, as its leader Somawansa Amerasinghe
has already demanded the disbanding of the Army!
If the Aceh MOU is seriously offered, LTTE leader Prabhakaran may even agree to
start with, as it is more than ISGA and P-TOMS! It is time Ranawaka and Kotakadeniya
read the Aceh MOU and speak the truth, rather than placing Premier Rajapakse in an
awkward position on the national issue.
Aceh MOU's positive features
There is also the positive side in the Aceh MOU. The process of democratization by
engaging political parties (Art. 1.2.1), free and fair elections (Arts. 1.2.2, 1.2.3 and
1.2.6) and elections campaign management (Art. 1.2.8) are some notable features.
The rule of law contents of the Aceh MOU too could be considered positive features of
good governance as stated in Art 1.4.1. Valuing human rights as in Art. 1.4.2, impartial
court system (Art 1.4.3), establishment of a Human Rights Court (Art. 2.2),
establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Art. 2.3), release of political
prisoners (Art. 3.1.2), the reintegration measures and land alienation under Art. 3.2
etc are more positive developments, from which we could learn.
The Writer is a former Defence Secretary [Courtesy: Daily Mirror]