The case for resolving past wrongs

By Mary S. Zurbuchen

JAKARTA (JP): Now that the excitement of the presidential election has dissipated, the country is turning to President Abdurrahman Wahid and his Cabinet to address the challenges of its ravaged economy, restore confidence in public institutions, rebuild its image abroad, and heal the wounds of civil conflict.

To shore up a weakened sense of national unity and reassure a reform-minded society that his administration is breaking with the practices of its predecessor New Order, Abdurrahman and Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri will seek to foster reconciliation and address chronic violence occurring in conflicts over justice, power and resources.

A legacy of human rights violations affects ethnic Chinese in Indonesia's cities, while regions such as Aceh, Irian Jaya, Maluku and Kalimantan suffer unrest. Even though the separation of East Timor has been ratified by the People's Consultative Assembly, post-referendum abuses by organized militias made for a bitter separation, presenting even greater challenges for both Indonesia and East Timor in coming to terms with their changed relationship.

An important addition in Abdurrahman's Cabinet lineup is the office of the state minister of human rights affairs, headed by the Acehnese Hasballah M. Saad, which is expected to work in coordination with the existing National Commission for Human Rights.

Within Indonesia, independent efforts to document and expose wrongdoings, including kidnapping, disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture by military and police personnel, are continuing. Notable examples are the work of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), and the Independent Inquiry into Violence in Aceh, begun under the Habibie administration.

The international community has also indicated particular interest in how Indonesia records its human rights history. An investigation team has now been established by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, charged with documenting abuses around the Aug. 30 United Nations-supervised referendum in East Timor.

The Indonesian National Commission for Human Rights' own decision to launch a concurrent investigation into similar violations is an important effort to ensure that evidence of atrocities will in due course be made public.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of these endeavors, they both point toward the larger and increasingly urgent question of how Indonesia can come to terms with crimes of corruption and state violence during the New Order period.

For some Indonesians, it is important to build awareness of past failures to protect human rights or check abuses of power, but even more important to press forward to tackle the serious problems the country still faces in the form of a faltering economy, persistent inter-group conflicts and stubborn corruption.

They feel an urgency in rebuilding a sense of national unity and purpose, and worry that a lengthy process of assigning guilt and seeking retribution for abuses will be distracting at best, and create even deeper social conflicts at worst.

For others, it is essential to settle accounts with wrongdoers as soon as possible, to make sure that future state and military leaders will be deterred from similar acts, to make a public record of criminal behavior involving human rights abuses, and to begin restoring the credibility of the military and public institutions.

In this view, Indonesia has been weakened by a long-standing practice of hiding human rights violations from public view, and by official reluctance to pursue possible cases of criminal acts to the full extent of the law.

How much truth is sufficient to give the past its due, and how much accountability is to be demanded from perpetrators of serious abuses? Who is to be included among the categories of victims, and how far back in time must rights violations be examined?

How can shedding light on crimes and atrocities lead to reconciliation of deeply-held resentments? What kinds of compensation for victims, and amnesty or forgiveness for perpetrators willing to confess their actions, are desirable? What type of independent body would be most effective in Indonesia in mounting an official truth-seeking inquiry -- a centralized commission, or several loosely coordinated regional bodies?

In debating these matters, Indonesia is joining the group of countries that have sought resolution of a legacy of rights violations through processes of investigation and testimonial. Collectively, the efforts of some 20 separate national bodies -- frequently termed "Truth Commissions" -- over the past two decades have influenced an understanding of universal human rights and their application.

From Eastern Europe and Latin America to Africa and Asia, wherever societies have found it necessary to confront memories of a difficult past in the transition to a more democratic future, there is a growing body of experience and lessons demonstrated by processes some call "truth-seeking" or "transitional justice".

Such processes embody a people's need to recollect, express, confront, and resolve collective or individual trauma and responsibility following periods of widespread internal violence.

Recovery and reconstruction of historical memory has enabled some societies to begin difficult processes of forgiveness and reconciliation.

In determining the shape of its own historical memory, it will be important for Indonesia to draw upon these experiences of other societies, to forge its own understanding of the truth to be recorded, and the best way to go about this.

In that record it is clear that there is no perfect system, and no single approach that is ready to be adopted. Even the well-known Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa needed 18 months of thorough public debate and consensus-building before it was officially chartered. It will be vital for any official truth-seeking effort in Indonesia to be preceded by public debate about the aims, format and powers of such an endeavor.

A few common practices do tend to characterize the formal institutions called "truth commissions": they have official status, they are chartered to operate for a limited time, they investigate particular violations, and their results are formulated in a report.

Beyond these features, truth commissions' mandates, powers and functions vary widely. Commission members may include government or military figures. Their reports do not always name perpetrators, and are not always linked to other processes such as prosecution, amnesty, compensation, or lustration (removal of perpetrators from public positions).

Some truth commissions have taken testimony or identified perpetrators secretly, while others have made a public record of such evidence. A truth commission might have broad subpoena powers, or might be dependent on voluntary submission of evidence.

International experience shows that there are many difficult problems and imperfect solutions along the road toward truth and reconciliation. Should Indonesia, then, begin the process of outlining an official truth-seeking mechanism?

Indonesians themselves are in the best position to craft the right answer and the most fitting institutional format for any truth commission endeavor. I would suggest at least three important ways in which the truth commission approach could make a contribution in opening hidden histories and laying the basis for a renewed and resilient social compact.

A clear break with the past. The truth commission process of investigation, giving witness, and establishing accountability can help bring people together around a clear commitment to halt past practices of injustice and abuse. The title of the famous report from Argentina's National Commission on the Disappeared, Nunca Mas or "Never Again", is a powerful expression of such a unified will.

In Indonesia, the momentum of a governmental transition could be used to debate the notion of a truth-seeking body, thus building public confidence that reformasi (political reform) will indeed bring fundamental changes in human rights observance.

The basic purpose of truth commissions is to build a factual record of events and actions, and to make that knowledge permanent and public. Beyond knowledge-building, however, lies a process of recognition of trauma and suffering for individuals.

It is this ability to offer acknowledgement to victims that their individual rights have been violated that has made some truth commissions effective instruments for forging reconciliation within society. While knowledge is important in confronting actual abuses, acknowledgment among victims and perpetrators builds bonds of common humanity.

While truth commissions have produced widely differing kinds of reports, they have generally built a lasting record available to future generations.

The testimony and documents gathered in a truth-seeking process can stimulate new understandings of the past, empower previously suppressed voices to be heard, and enable society to review and rewrite history following prolonged periods of authoritarianism, censorship, and a domination of public memory by official state-guided "history".

Such records can also stand as a bulwark against future attempts to distort the public record. In Indonesia, a truth commission could prompt new interpretations that would enrich the teaching and writing of history in days to come.

The present moment offers the opportunity for Indonesians to begin a broad consultative process to determine how they themselves want to address the legacy of historical patterns of injustice.

Both the risks and potential rewards offered by a truth- commission process are great. It is up to Indonesia to decide whether a national effort to revisit the past could indeed bring a promise of hope, unity and national commitment for future generations.

The writer has lived in Indonesia for 15 years during her career, and currently serves as the representative for Indonesia at the Ford Foundation's Jakarta Office.