Open doors to E. Timor inquiry<\/p>\n
By Edward Cowan<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON (JP): Indonesia's inquiry into what happened in
\nEast Timor in 1999 is commendable. The Indonesian people need to
\nknow how murder and arson and looting and kidnapping happened,
\nand who was responsible.<\/p>\n
More precisely, the people and the rest of the world want to
\nknow whether there is any merit to the claim of the military that
\nthey were not responsible for what the Timorese militias did --
\neither by acts of commission or by omission.<\/p>\n
But the way the Commission on Human Rights Abuses in East
\nTimor (KPP HAM) is going about the investigation is
\nunsatisfactory. The commission is conducting its inquiry behind
\nclosed doors. Doing that has several unfortunate consequences.<\/p>\n
First, it denies to the public the verbatim testimony of the
\nwitnesses. Instead, the public reads what the witnesses told
\njournalists when they emerged from the inquiry.<\/p>\n
In some cases, these statements are highly conclusionary, but
\nnot illuminating. For example, in an Associated Press story that
\nappeared in The New York Times on Dec. 25, 1999, Gen. Wiranto was
\nreported as stating blanket denials to reporters, but there was
\nno explanation as to why TNI (Indonesian Military) forces did not
\nkeep order.<\/p>\n
Similar stories appear in The Jakarta Post and other
\nnewspapers day by day, as the inquiry unfolds. They always report
\nwhat witnesses said \"after\" testifying. But they don't report
\nthe testimony itself -- which may or may not be substantially the
\nsame -- because reporters have not been allowed to hear the
\ntestimony. (Whether television cameras should be allowed to tape
\nit or broadcast it live is a related but separate question. In
\nprinciple, they should not be wholly excluded.)<\/p>\n
Gen. Wiranto and any witness is entitled to utter blanket
\ndenials to the press. He can do that without a tribunal. But what
\ndid the general tell the tribunal? What did it learn? Did he say
\nprecisely what he said afterwards to reporters? Or was his
\ntestimony more qualified? How did Gen. Wiranto answer the
\ncircumstantial, detailed questions about specific events that one
\nhopes the tribunal's members asked? In fact, did they ask such
\nquestions?<\/p>\n
That raises a second unsatisfactory result of not letting the
\npress and the public attend the inquiry. The public doesn't know
\nwhether the tribunal asked detailed questions, whether it asked
\nfollow-up questions or whether it alertly challenged
\ninconsistencies between the testimonies of different witnesses.<\/p>\n
Consequently, it is difficult to judge whether the inquiry is
\nbeing conducted competently -- that is to say, with aggressive
\nthoroughness and with adequate preparation by tribunal members.
\nDo they listen passively? Or do they question searchingly?<\/p>\n
President Abdurrahman Wahid and many other Indonesians have
\nbeen resisting cries from abroad for an international
\ninvestigative body to look into the events of East Timor. That
\nproposal can be rejected more persuasively if Indonesia's
\ninternal inquiry is seen to be thorough, competent and
\npurposeful.<\/p>\n
When the inquiry is conducted behind closed doors, outsiders
\nhave no basis for such a finding. So far, there is no way to
\nconclude that the inquiry merits public confidence.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the tribunal has raised a doubt about its own
\nobjectivity by publishing an interim finding, before hearing
\ntestimony. It voiced a presumption that TNI generals, including
\nWiranto, should be held responsible for failing to prevent the
\nviolence from occurring, and failing to stop it.<\/p>\n
That is a reasonable view, one held by people in Indonesia and
\nelsewhere who wondered why an army that had occupied the 27th
\nprovince for 24 years could not keep order. But for the
\ncommission of inquiry to indulge itself in expressing that view
\nbefore it had heard all interested parties, and especially those
\nsuspected of malfeasance, was a tactical error. It opened the
\ntribunal to the charge that it had made up its mind before
\nhearing all the evidence.<\/p>\n
Those who favor taking testimony behind closed doors will
\nargue that the public should not be exposed to unsubstantiated
\naccusations and rumors, if only to protect the reputations of
\nthose falsely accused.<\/p>\n
Depending on who utters it, that may be a decent sensibility
\n-- if it is not a pretext for a cover-up. As decent as it may be,
\nhowever, it is not one that should prevail, as a rule.<\/p>\n
If democratic government has one transcendent quality, it is
\nopenness.<\/p>\n
Democracy's slogan is \"Trust the people.\" Give the people the
\nfacts and let them decide. That is the basis of free elections.
\nIf there is conflict between testimonies, let the conflicting
\nassertions be heard, compared and evaluated. Let the public hear
\nthe tone of voice, see the body language and facial expression
\nand reach its own conclusions about where the truth lies.<\/p>\n
Different people may reach different conclusions. It is not
\nalways a tidy process, and sometimes untruthful declarations
\ncapture the field, usually only briefly.<\/p>\n
How the Timor inquiry is conducted is not an isolated
\nquestion. It may bear on the inquiry that is coming about events
\nin Aceh, where similar issues will be explored. It is to be hoped
\nthat in Aceh the doors of the inquiring body will be open, the
\nwitnesses will be required to give sworn testimony subject to the
\npenalties of perjury and the facts -- including conflicting
\nstatements -- will be available to press and public.<\/p>\n
The writer, a retired New York Times correspondent, spent
\nthree months in Indonesia in 1999 as a Knight International Press
\nFellow.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/open-doors-to-e-timor-inquiry-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}