
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
From Communal Violence to Negotiated Peace: Civil–Military Cooperation and Security Governance in Poso, Indonesia, 2000–2001
Corresponding Author(s) : Hasrul Prasetyo L
OPSearch: American Journal of Open Research,
Vol. 5 No. 10 (2026): OPSearch American Journal of Open Research (Issue On Progress)
Abstract
This historical case study examined how civil–military cooperation and security governance shaped the transition from communal violence toward negotiated peace in Poso, Indonesia, between 2000 and 2001. The study employed qualitative document analysis and within-case process tracing, drawing on scholarly literature, human rights and policy reports, and legal instruments governing Indonesia's security sector restructuring during the Reformasi era. The formal separation of military and police responsibilities created opportunities to strengthen democratic civilian oversight while revealing institutional coordination challenges in responding to communal violence. Military logistical capabilities, territorial knowledge, communication networks, and operational mobility offered potential support for civilian protection. However, ambiguous operational mandates and perceptions of partiality threatened institutional legitimacy and public trust. The December 2001 Malino peace process marked a shift toward positioning security operations as supporting mechanisms for civilian-led mediation, law enforcement, humanitarian access, and postconflict recovery rather than substitutes for political negotiation. Based on these findings, the study developed a bounded civil–military cooperation framework emphasizing civilian authority, police primacy in routine law enforcement, clearly defined military support missions, operational impartiality, institutional accountability, and reviewable conditions for military disengagement. The Poso case suggested that sustainable conflict de-escalation required the integration of effective security capabilities with institutional restraint, democratic civilian oversight, and credible political negotiation. The proposed framework represented an interpretive synthesis of documentary evidence rather than a quantitative assessment of the causal effects of individual military or police operations.