Hendropriyono: I had nothing to do with Munir's death
Retired four-star Army general Abdullah Makhmud Hendropriyono is likely to remain in the spotlight, as the government-sanctioned fact-finding team (TPF) has submitted its report to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on its investigation into the murder of human rights activist Munir.
Though not directly naming Yogyakarta-born Hendropriyono, whose last position was as chief of the feared National Intelligence Agency (BIN), the team sent signals to the media that he might somehow be implicated in the crime.
Hendropriyono, born on May 7, 1945, is a 1980 graduate of U.S. Army General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth. He gave an interview to Ridwan Max Sijabat from The Jakarta Post at his office early last week, at which he strenuously denied being involved in the murder of Munir.
Question (Q): Were you, either in your own capacity or as BIN chief, involved in the poisoning of human rights activist Munir?
Answer (A): Frankly and honestly, I had nothing to do with Munir's death. I never asked anyone to kill him, and BIN, under my leadership, did not hatch any plot to do so because he was not a problem as an individual, nor a problem for the state, the nation or the government.
Q: But why weren't you cooperative with the government- sanctioned fact-finding team (TPF Munir)?
A: I was not prepared to be summoned by the fact-finding team set up through a presidential decree. I did not agree with the way the team summoned citizens and collected information from their targeted sources.
The team was quite arrogant, since they felt they had full authority to summon and question any citizen at will. The team was not set up primarily to summon or interrogate people but to collect information necessary to reveal the circumstances of Munir's death, his assassins and their motives.
I was disappointed with the team when they told the press that they would summon me and other former BIN officials, but did not actually send a written summons.
I would have been cooperative if the team had been more persuasive and professional in carrying out its mission.
This way, I'm showing everyone that the authorities can no longer summon anyone without good justification. The authorities should no longer scare people in this new atmosphere of democracy.
Q: But you were rumored to have held a meeting with Garuda pilot Pollycarpus (who is under police arrest) to discus the killing of Munir, while your former deputy, Muchdi P.R., was rumored to have led the mission in the field. Is there any truth in these allegations?
A: None whatsoever. During my tenure at BIN, I never held a meeting or issued any order to kill Munir.
Q: The team has discovered intelligence-linked documents that set out four plans to kill Munir. What is your response?
A: BIN did not produce such plans because it never planned to kill Munir.
Q: Do you hate Munir, his activities, or his organization, Imparsial?
A: The state and I have no reason to hate any honest citizen, including Munir, his activities or his organization -- and he was too insignificant anyway. He was a critic of the military and fighting for human rights and democracy but few were worried about him and his activities.
Q: What will you do if the police, in their subsequent investigations, discover you were involved, or that BIN had a role, in the poisoning of Munir?
A: The case has to be put to me and I will be ready to be brought to justice. In such an event, the BIN chief would have to resign. But how could I do that, as I have already resigned?
Q: Have you or your family been affected by the wide media coverage of BIN's alleged involvement in the Munir case?
A: My family and I have been badly affected -- as though I were involved in the case. The way the TPF used the mass media to overexpose my rejection of its invitation was a form of character assassination.
Besides, all three of my children have had to endure the shame since "Hendropriyono" is their last name.
Q: Why is Indonesia prone to terrorist attacks?
A: Because this large country is quite open to infiltrators from outside. Anyone can easily enter Indonesia because its borders -- land, sea and air -- are not fully guarded. Also, many hard-line groups have the potential to use violence and terrorism to advance their cause.
Q: Why can't terrorism be tackled; haven't their organizations been identified?
A: The law no longer allows the security authorities to arrest those who are strongly suspected of launching terrorist attacks.
During the New Order era, terror attacks were very rare and could easily be foiled because the authorities and intelligence apparatus were allowed to take and arrest hard-line groups.
Terrorist attacks can be minimized in Indonesia only if BIN is allowed to take and arrest all members of hard-line groups who are behind terror threats and attacks.
The most wanted, Nur Muhammad Top and Dr. Azahari, two Malaysian citizens believed to have been behind a string of terrorist attacks in the past, could be captured only if security authorities, including BIN, were allowed to "borrow" all those close to the two to obtain information on them.
Terrorist attacks in Bali, Jakarta and other areas in the country could have been minimized and detected if BIN had been given the power. The government regulation in lieu of law (Perpu) on terrorism has been found to be ineffective because the security authorities are allowed only to arrest those suspected of launching terrorist attacks.
Q: How do you assess the secessionist movement in Papua and Aceh?
A: The separatist movement in Papua is far more serious than the threat from GAM (the Free Aceh Movement) because its lobby has reached international forums and developed countries.
The government should no longer use violence or the military to quell separatist movements but, rather, intensify dialog to persuade rebels to return to the unitary Indonesian state.
If the rebels turn down peaceful dialog, Indonesia should invite the United Nations to hold a national -- not regional -- referendum to determine the future of Aceh and Papua. I do not believe that the population would vote for the two provinces' separation.
Q: How did you become interested in intelligence issues?
A: I spent half of my military career in the field of intelligence, with appointments in strategic positions in the Army elite force (Kopassus), the Indonesian Military intelligence unit (BAIS) and the Jakarta Military Command.
Q: When and why did you become interested in democracy?
A: I have read many books on the forms of government before and after the birth of Christ, which indicate that democratic regimes last longer than totalitarian or communist ones.
I fell in love with democracy initially when the seeds of democracy began to grow in Indonesia with the election of Megawati Soekarnoputri as chairperson of the then Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) at its congress in Jakarta in 1992. As Jakarta Military chief at that time, I was not ordered by then president Soeharto to intervene in the congress.
Q: Who are your role models?
A: Napoleon Bonaparte and Sukarno. Napoleon was a brilliant general and leader who brought France into a golden era in Europe in the 18th century. Sukarno was also a strong and famous statesman during his era; he had a brilliant outlook on political, social and economic issues.
I have read many books on the two famous figures and their thoughts.