The Jakarta Post, June 18, 2002
Truth, and reconciliation
Skepticism greeted President Megawati Soekarnoputri's decision to establish a new
commission to thoroughly investigate the communal conflict in Maluku, which has
claimed more than 6,000 lives and displaced tens of thousands of people since it
erupted in January 1999.
Many people, both in Jakarta and in Maluku, have already given the thumbs down to
the commission before it has even begun its work.
President Megawati announced the establishment of the commission in a decree
earlier this month before leaving on a two-week foreign trip. The 14 persons appointed
to serve on the commission will only be installed after her return this Saturday.
Whether this delay was intended or not, the public at least have had the opportunity
to air their opinions about the commission. The least that Megawati should do now is
to take note of the public discourse and act on it where necessary.
Nobody questions the wisdom behind the decision to set up the commission. After
all, the Malino II peace agreement to end the Maluku conflict, signed by
representatives of the warring parties in February, calls for such a commission as part
of the process of bringing about a lasting solution to the conflict.
Criticism of the commission has centered on two aspects. First is the fear that this
investigation will go in the same direction that inquiries commissioned by the
President in the past have gone: Nowhere. The second fear, which is related to the
first, is that the membership of the commission does not inspire confidence -- many
doubt that those selected as members have the ability or the integrity to conduct
such an important investigation.
You can hardly blame the public for being skeptical. Most other investigations in the
past have been little more than exercises in window-dressing designed to quell public
criticism. They served to buy the government time before the issue faded from public
discourse.
The investigation into the November murder of Papuan independence leader Theys H.
Eulay, also commissioned by President Megawati, has not led to any prosecutions
against the alleged perpetrators even though it found evidence that the slaying was
carried out by members of the Indonesian Military. Other inquiries either failed to
complete their work, or when they did, their findings were not acted upon. The 1998
shooting of pro-democracy students in Jakarta, the 1984 massacre of Muslim
protesters by the Army, the human rights abuses in Papua and in Aceh in the 1990s,
have all been the subject of official inquiries. None have led to prosecutions, let alone
convictions. More significantly, these inquiries have taken the heat off the government.
The decision to appoint I Wayan Karya, a little known bureaucrat, to head the inquiry
raises questions about the credibility of the commission. He was apparently chosen
because he was neither a Christian or a Muslim, rather than on the basis of his track
record. People from Maluku of either faith care little about the religion of the
commission's head. Credibility is a far more important issue. The other 13 members
of the commission could also have been selected in a more transparent manner to
give the entire team public credibility.
Another important question that should be raised is the lack of clear terms of
reference for the commission beyond investigating the background to the Maluku
conflict. Given that this is part of an ambitious peace process, it would have been
more effective and acceptable if President Megawati had set up a truth and
reconciliation commission.
Without the promise of reconciliation or amnesty at the end of the investigating
process, the inquiry carries the risk of simply opening up old wounds and eventually
hardening the hatred and enmity between the Christians and Muslims in Maluku.
Without the promise of a general amnesty at the end of this investigation, the warring
parties will not likely cooperate on matters that could incriminate their leaders or their
own people.
A truth and reconciliation commission has certainly a much better chance of success
than a simple investigation.
Responding to the criticism of the commission, Vice President Hamzah Haz on
Sunday appealed to the public to give the inquiry a chance to work first before passing
further judgment. To this we can only say that it is the duty of the government, and
not the public, to give the commission a chance to succeed.
In the format as set out in the presidential decree, the commission of inquiry has very
little chance of success as it suffers from both a glaring lack of credibility and public
support.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
|
