The case for resolving past wrongs

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.