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.