Jakarta - Conflict in the central part of Sulawesi, one of the four largest islands in Indonesia, has been ongoing since 1998. Between 1998 and 2001, over 1000 people were killed and more than 100,000 were displaced in the fighting. Pockets of violence still erupt, conflict resolution attempts have failed, and the root of the problem has unfortunately never been properly addressed.

Around the world, this conflict is generally viewed as faith-based, occurring primarily between Muslims and Christians. As such, it becomes an interesting study in the causes of interfaith conflict, with possible lessons for other cases around the world.

Today’s conflict in Central Sulawesi is the culmination of several events that have occurred since the 1970s. As a result of the government’s transmigration policy, predominantly Muslim economic migrants were settled in the area, upsetting the existing religious demographics and creating competition over scarce jobs, resources and political power.

Tensions increased between local and migrant communities in the 1980s, largely along Muslim and Christian lines. By the 1990s, migrants were in control of many sectors of the society and local Christians felt marginalized in the government, arguing that they had been denied strategic posts.

In response to the widespread outbreak of violence between 1998 and 2007, the government got involved to help resolve these conflicts. It facilitated the Malino Agreement on February 12, 2002, bringing together 24 Christian and 25 Muslim delegates and urging them to use their influence to stop the ongoing violence. The government also rebuilt houses of worship that were destroyed in the conflict, evacuated and relocated refugees, and provided social rehabilitation services.

However, these attempts by the government failed for two main reasons. First, the assumption was that religion was at the core of the conflict. Although the Central Sulawesi conflict contained a religious element, it was actually triggered more by an economic imbalance as Muslims become wealthier than Christians as a result of their access to government jobs, resources and power.

Second, conflict resolution efforts were led by the central government, which judged the intensity of the conflict from a distance without fully understanding the unique characteristics of the context at the local level.

Today, tension and regular organised attacks continue in Central Sulawesi. A change in the way conflict resolution takes place in Indonesia is needed. It is time to involve all parties and to use a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. All stakeholders should be politically empowered to reconcile violent conflicts in a more productive manner, relying less on military strength and more on building a strong civil society.

Social interventions, such as lobbying, conflict management, dialogue and peace campaigns conducted through the media and in schools are needed to involve all parts of the community in the peace building process. Journalists, non-senior government officials and other such groups can help liaise between the political elite and the rest of society. In addition, grassroots groups should be given conflict resolution and capacity-building training so that they are prepared to anticipate and mitigate violent outbreaks.

The root causes of the conflict also need to be addressed. The government must provide access to economic resources and positions of political influence in Central Sulawesi that have been dominated by the Muslims over the past few decades. The government must also be involved in upholding a just and fair legal system, and increasing the capacity of law enforcement, as well as the community’s awareness of the law.

In addition, we can apply Nelson Mandela’s credo — “There is no future in South Africa without forgiveness” — to the reconciliation process in Central Sulawesi. A contextualized version of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa might be an appropriate mechanism to introduce fair official investigations, such as publicly revealing the perpetrator, formal forgiveness processes, amnesty for the perpetrator, and rehabilitation for the victim. Such reconciliation practices are universal. Among Arabs, the process is called sulh (settlement) and musalaha (reconciliation), and among Jews, the act of teshuva involves expressing regret and confessing one’s crime, which ultimately leads to restitution. Likewise, in Christianity, reconciliation involves confession and acknowledgement of one’s sin, followed by penance.

Learning from the factors hindering the experience of Central Sulawesi provides both guidance and warnings for those working to address conflict in other parts of the world that may at first glance appear to be based in religion.

###

* Mashudi Noorsalim is a researcher and peace facilitator for the Peace Building Institute (Institut Titian Perdamaian) in Jakarta. His email is mashudi@gmail.com. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 02 October 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.