Govt lacks resolve in settling Poso conflict

The prolonged communal conflict in Poso, Central Sulawesi has yet to be entirely settled despite government efforts in sponsoring the Malino peace deal. Sulaiman Mamar, a professor of anthropology at the Tadulako University in the province capital of Palu spoke to Jakarta Post contributor Badri Jawara about the root causes of the conflict which originated five years ago.

Question: Many peace deals have been made between the warring factions, either sponsored by locals or the government. However, the conflict continues. What is the cause of this?

Answer: The conflicts in Poso and Ambon, Maluku province, could not be partially dealt with. The government and those who insist that the conflict end cannot act like fire fighters. There must be a systematic and comprehensive plan.

Before the Malino agreements were signed, Poso local leaders had signed a deal witnessed by then president Abdurrahman Wahid. But, after that fresh clashes erupted here and there, claiming several lives.

The Malino deals were the result of a comprehensive plan; unfortunately, actions to follow up the deals have been too slow. Take the building of temporary houses for victims. Twelve thousand houses were devastated and the Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure prioritized 6,000 new temporary homes. However, only 1,000 were built in eight months. Aid arrived too late. These factors could trigger new clashes.

Religion and ethnical problems could spark conflicts everywhere. But don't forget that economic, political and socio- cultural problems have also played major roles.

The Minister of Home Affairs had promised to provide training to local civil servants on managing the conflict, in addition to promising financial aid. The Ministry has not kept its word.

Q: Are natives of Poso violent people? Or are they merely very particular about differences in religion and ethnicity?

A: The people of Poso did not inherit a tradition of conflict from their ancestors. Clashes in the early 19th century were commonplace in this archipelago. Conflict of interest started with a rebellious group named Permesta (Pemberontakan Rakyat Semesta -- The People of Universe) and the people of Manado (North Sulawesi) who ruled the economy. The indigenous Poso began to be marginalized at that time.

The core problem is politics, related to religious affairs. Religious and ethnicity issues can provoke anger very easily. Those involved in the genocide were not the Pamona people (natives of Poso). Those found guilty (by the court) in the Poso clashes were all outsiders.

Q: Religions have been used for political bargaining. How do you see this?

A: Most of the Christian community had hoped that Yahya Patiro, the provincial secretary, would be promoted to replace Arif Patanga as the Poso regent. Yahya was considered the most appropriate person to represent the Christians. But, the ruling Golkar insisted that Muin Pusadan, who is a Muslim, replace Arif, whereas the new provincial secretary, who replaced Yahya, was also a Muslim.

People started to feel that their sense of justice was compromised, as there had been an unwritten commitment that if the regent is a Muslim the provincial secretary must be a Christian and vice versa.

Each (religious) group had interpreted justice from their own short-term interest. Therefore, there were many Muslims and Christians who changed religions. The Muslims became Christian and vice versa.

Tentena, a small town some 60 kilometers from Poso, was set as a Christian area since the Dutch colonial era. The program was a failure since migrants entering Poso and Tentena were from Bugis, Gorontalo and Java; they were mostly Muslims.

Initially the Christians outnumbered the Muslims there. The migrants then apparently balanced the ratio, sparking rivalry between the two. The fact that the migrants were economically stronger than the indigenous people triggered jealousy.

Q: With the economic and political gaps between the migrants and the native people, is it reasonable for the local administrations to be impartial?

A: The conflicts would have not claimed any lives if the government had managed it quickly, and wisely. In this autonomy era the local administrations can make regulations limiting the ownership of land and property.

There must be a way to provide (landless) indigenous people with plots of land, just like resettlers who are given plots of land and aid for some years under the transmigration program.

The locals should be treated like that so as not to drive them from their homeland, defeating the purpose of the transmigration program.

Q: What's the difference between the Poso and Ambon (Maluku) conflicts?

A: The structure of the conflicts and the cases are generally very similar. There were religious and ethnicity sentiments in Ambon and Poso. The recent issue in Ambon was separatism ... Whatever the case, the result is death.

In Poso, the trigger was liquor. Later, groups of people manipulated the situation and developed a new issue: Religion. We know who was behind this, but we don't have hard evidence. I also see a national scenario involving political elites at the central government level. Some elites prepare a peace deal for Poso, others move against fearing that those preparing the peace deal will get promoted.

If the government, the military and police had been sincere and serious in settling the conflicts, the provocateurs and the snipers could have been arrested.

Q: What would you recommend to end the conflicts in Poso and other restive ares like Ambon?

A: The security apparatus and law enforcers should act promptly and professionally. The military or police should have sent a group of qualified senior personnel to Poso, not new recruits. They simply lack the experience and wisdom to deal with this issue. It's not their fault.

The existing data on refugees is outdated, causing disruption in the distribution of aid. The refugee handling must be integrated under the auspices of local social affairs offices. So far there are too many institutions involved in refugee handling.

Q: At what level should improvement begin?

A: People must be made aware that there has been a third party behind all this. There must be awareness at the grassroots level to oppose provocation from outside. There must be built-in social resilience among the people and it is painfully obvious that the (local) people need empowerment.