It's a cover-up

It's a cover-up

A special committee of the House of Representatives reopened
on Thursday the investigation into the death of four students of
the privately run Trisakti University in Jakarta nearly three
years ago. "Who shot the students?" and "Why?" are the two
questions that have haunted the nation since the May 12, 1998
tragic deaths of Heri Hartanto, Elang Mulya Lesmana, Hafidin
Royan and Hendriawan Sie on their campus.

The nation needs to find the answers, not only for the sake of
justice and to bring those responsible to account, but also
because the deaths could explain the mystery about one of the
major turning points in the history of this country.

Their deaths precipitated widespread street violence in
Jakarta, and prompted thousands of students to occupy the House
of Representatives building in protest against the tyrannical
regime of president Soeharto. The end result was the resignation
of Soeharto on May 21, 1998. Finding answers about their deaths
would go a long way in explaining the collapse of the regime.

We have learned from the police investigation that the
students were shot by snipers, and that the bullets removed from
their bodies came from military-issue rifles. From the beginning,
all facts have pointed to the military, the only organization
with the capability to mount such an operation without leaving
any trail.

The Indonesian Military as an institution may not have been
involved, but it at least has a responsibility to help discover
the identity of the snipers and the unit they belong to. But with
the military leadership, both past and present, not fully
cooperating with the investigations, these perplexing questions
remain unanswered.

The military's attitude has further reaffirmed suspicions of a
conspiracy at the highest level. Going by the end result of the
shooting of students, the theory suggests a conspiracy to bring
down the Soeharto government. The military's silence, or refusal
to cooperate, further suggests a cover-up.

This is not unlike the killing of six Army generals in
September 1965 which precipitated massive violence that led to
the downfall of president Sukarno six months later. While the
killing was widely blamed on the Indonesian Communist Party
(PKI), theories still abound about who the real perpetrators were
and their motive, especially since the main beneficiary of these
events was the Army leadership itself. Like the events
surrounding the power struggle in 1965/1966, we have yet to hear
the last word about the events surrounding Soeharto's downfall.

The House's special committee on Thursday heard the testimony
of Gen. (ret) Wiranto, the man who as chief of the Indonesian
Armed Forces at the time was responsible for the security of the
country. His response on Thursday, as expected, was to entirely
wash his hands of the matter. He also refused to shed any light
on which unit might have been responsible for the shooting, or to
name the field commander who should have been held responsible.

His well-rehearsed line of defense, that the antigovernment
protests by students were becoming increasingly violent as the
reason for the clashes with security officers, fell flat because
there was no suggestion that the particular demonstration by the
Trisakti students on that day would turn violent. In fact, the
shooting took place just as the students were retreating into
their campus after their passage to the street to rally was
blocked by security personnel.

The military leadership may think that it can continue to play
this game of covering up and protecting its officers, but this
show of solidarity is increasingly coming at the expense of the
military's credibility and reputation. We have seen the
devastating impact of this show of solidarity in protecting
officers against investigations of human rights atrocities in
East Timor and Aceh. This policy is only doing irreparable damage
to the military's already low public standing.

Someone in the military must know the answer to these
questions. The House's special committee should draw them out,
such as by offering a reward and/or legal protection for those
who come forward and tell the truth about these events, and to
testify against their seniors or colleagues. Ultimately, however,
it is those in the military leadership who should realize that it
would be in their own long-term best interest to come clean, and
to cooperate with all the investigations into errant officers.