Indonesia must disarm East Timorese militias

By Charles Himawan

JAKARTA (JP): Many nationalists in the field of politics, economy, military and law have cried for the government to resist international demand to disarm the militias with regard to the Atambua case.

However they have overlooked the fact that in the murdering of the three United Nations staff, the international community sees the militias as having committed a crime against humanity.

Starting with the earth scorching of East Timor, Indonesia had always tried to hide itself behind the concept of sovereignty whenever there is a possibility of international intervention.

To understand the emergence of international intervention, one needs to accept the following three premises.

First, we are now living in a borderless world. What we do will affect others and what others do will affect us. Second, the threat of international intervention will emerge only if the international community judges that national institutions have failed to uphold global justice.

And third, the meaning of sovereignty in the 21st century has evolved and developed greatly from its inception in the 19th century to the 20th century.

We are now living in the communication age. A grave event in a particular country spreads like brushfire.

The killings in Atambua occurred just when the UN was holding its millennium talks. The forum held a brief silence in memory of the three who were killed. A disturbing word from Gus Dur (President Abdurrahman Wahid), leader of sovereign Indonesia, sends tremors in the financial world and deters international fund managers from investing their money in Indonesia.

In 1997, Thailand on the basis of its own sovereignty, devalued its baht and the shock waves caused Indonesia's economy to collapse.

International intervention does not come by itself. It is not the cause but the effect. Members of the UN have agreed that a country that violates international tenets of peace will be punished.

As a "world police", the UN, usually spearheaded by the economic and military strength of the United States, would impose punishment, often in the form of military intervention or economic embargo or both.

International armed intervention against Indonesia is out of the question. Indonesia is no Iraq that invaded Kuwait. Indonesia did not invade East Timor after the 1999 referendum, though it failed to secure peace.

Neither did Indonesia invade East Timor way back in 1975, though international dossiers qualified the action of Indonesia as that of an invasion. Supporters from both camps today remain strong in their respective arguments.

In the case of Atambua, economic sanctions would only be imposed if Indonesia fails to uphold global justice (not simply national justice). The international community feels that global justice would be restored if the major cause of the injustice, the armed militias, are disarmed and the perpetrators brought to court.

With regard to the militias, the National Commission on Human Rights on Sept. 8 was the first to call for the government to disarm them.

Unfortunately the government did not respond. The government eventually responded only after Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself, the UN Security Council and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, "entered" the scene.

The question is: Wouldn't it be better had Indonesia responded to the demands of the commission earlier, a real national institution, thus avoiding the intervention of an international institution? In a sense, Indonesia "invited" an international intervention.

One plausible reason for this unwanted "invitation" is that Indonesia misconstrued the concept of sovereignty. Indonesia believes that because it is a sovereign country, it can do anything within its geographical boundary.

This is a concept of the 19th century and earlier. Beginning with the establishment of the League of Nations in the early 20th century, that concept had begun to erode.

At the early stages, it may be said that individual countries only surrendered a small part of their sovereignty to the League of Nations.

However, when the UN was established in the middle of the 20th century, the member countries actually surrendered a much greater part of their sovereignty to the international body.

Today, after 50 years development, in terms of crimes against humanity, a country's sovereignty becomes relatively smaller still as exemplified by the International Tribunal sessions for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

If Indonesia disarms the militias, the government would not be compromising its sovereignty at all. It instead would be fulfilling its obligation as a responsible member of the international community.

By disarming the militias, Indonesia would show the world that its sovereignty is still intact. It has the ability to secure peace. Certainly the shame and discomfort are already there because Indonesia failed on its own initiative to properly exercise its sovereignty.

The writer is a member of the National Commission on Human Rights and a professor of law at the University of Indonesia.