Hendropriyono: I had nothing to do with Munir's death

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.