As disappointing as the rulings that came out of the first set of trials of
Indonesian government officials and military/police officers accused of crimes
against humanity in East Timor in 1999, they are hardly surprising. Those who
have followed closely the Ad Hoc Human Rights tribunals from the start know that
these rulings are the logical consequence of the hearings.
The cases built against the accused were weak and the evidence presented was
mostly circumstantial. Predictably, they did not warrant heavy sentences, if at
all. Hence, the acquittals against the six officers of the Indonesian Military
and the National Police. Only Abilio Soares, the pro-Indonesia former East Timor
governor, was found guilty; and even then, he got off with a light sentence of a
three years.
It is one thing to understand the "logic" of the legal process in
this country, but completely another to meet the universal standard of justice.
In the case of the massive violence that was perpetrated in East Timor in 1999,
when the territory was under Jakarta rule, that standard of justice clearly has
not been fulfilled.
The facts could not be spelled out more clearly that something horrible took
place in East Timor. There was widespread killing during the massive campaign of
terror and violence conducted by pro-Indonesian forces. The majority of the East
Timorese people were forced to flee; virtually every town and village, including
East Timor's capital Dili, was destroyed when it became clear that the
pro-Indonesian forces in East Timor had lost the UN-sponsored ballot of
self-determination.
Investigations by the United Nations determined that a crime against humanity
had been committed. The National Commission on Human Rights, in its own probe,
corroborated the UN findings and called for the setting up of these human rights
tribunals.
There was never any doubt that the security authorities were responsible for
the lives of every East Timorese at the time. After all, it was Indonesia which
had insisted all along that it alone manage the security aspect, if a ballot of
self-determination was to be held in East Timor.
As events proved, the Indonesian security apparatus failed in its duties to
maintain security. Moreover, the two official investigations found indications
that the security forces not only turned a blind eye to the atrocities by
pro-Indonesian militias, but that they also assisted in the campaign.
These militias were set up, armed and trained by our military. They often
acted as proxies of the military's interests in East Timor. But what gave the
TNI away the most in regard to its possible complicity was the method of
destruction used by the pro-Indonesian forces, which fit the "scorched
earth" concept drawn up by the Indonesian Military.
The ad hoc trials would have been an opportunity for Indonesia to come clean,
to show the world that we, as a nation, are capable of meeting our obligations.
With the court rulings, Indonesia has squandered that chance, and, like in 1999,
they have provoked another international outcry about our failures; now through
the failure of our justice system to deliver justice.
The acquittals of the military and police officers may be seen by some here
as serving the national interests and defending our pride. They feel that it was
embarrassing enough for the nation to subject these senior officers to the
tribunals at all. Their acquittals would spare Indonesia of international
indignity.
They could not be more wrong. By failing to make anyone in the security
apparatus accountable for the 1999 mayhem, the tribunals have humiliated the
whole nation. The message these rulings have sent is that we have failed to live
up to our responsibilities, which include protecting lives. Instead of turning
Indonesia into a respectable member of the world community, they have turned us
into a pariah state.
Even as the cases go through the appeal process, it is still difficult to see
how the higher court could overturn the rulings. Based solely on the evidence
presented in court, there is not sufficient grounds for the appeal judges to
convict the officers. The only hope left is that in hearing these cases, the
judges would be driven more by the universal standard of justice, rather than by
a narrowly defined sense of nationalism.
The quest for justice is now the main driving force behind a new campaign to
bring the Indonesian officers to an international tribunal. Mary Robinson, the
UN human rights chief, during her visit to Dili this weekend said she would urge
the Security Council to try the Indonesian officers in a UN court.
Robinson faces an uphill struggle in convincing all the five permanent
members of the Security Council. Of the Council's three largest permanent
members, China and Russia are unlikely to support the call, as they have their
own demons (Tibet and Chechnya); the United States, now more concerned about
Jakarta's military cooperation in its war on terrorism, could also veto any such
proposal. Irrespective of the outcome of Robinson's crusade, however, the motion
itself will put Indonesia's poor record of upholding human rights and in
delivering justice in the international spotlight once again.
Indonesia may feel secure in the knowledge that it will once again be spared
from international wrath for its failings in East Timor in 1999. But can we
seriously think that we as a nation will escape from our moral responsibilities?
The 1999 mayhem in East Timor will continue to haunt us for as long as we fail
to bring the perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice. The sooner we
resolve this matter, the better it is for our nation.
