The case of the generals
I am disappointed that a lawyer of Mr. Adnan Buyung Nasution's reputation should take up the case of the generals (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 16, 1999: Generals protest 'baseless' accusations). I am particularly disappointed that he should use such specious and obscure technical grounds in an attempt to discredit the members of the commission.
Up to now, the members have merely carried out a fairly thorough preliminary investigation and, in accordance with their mandate as a duly accredited body of the government of this country, they have reported their findings to the public who are represented by that government; such reporting is called "being transparent".
It has become absolutely axiomatic in international jurisprudence since the War Crimes trial in Nuremberg in 1946, later adopted by the United Nations, that no person, be they general, president, emperor, civilian, or only a soldier of the lowest rank, can shirk his or her responsibility for giving or carrying out orders which would result in the commission of crimes. The definition of the word "crimes" is long but it boils down to "acts which any right thinking and proper human being would so consider". Quite obviously, mass murder falls into this category.
Since 1975, it has now become apparent, the Indonesian Army waged war against the whole population of East Timor, and not only the guerrillas. There are examples of how an army in an enemy country should behave and, from the evidence thus far presented, our Army behaved otherwise. This culminated in Wiranto's demand for martial law just before the referendum, rightly rejected by the People's Consultative Assembly, but cravenly decreed by Habibie. (Previously, Wiranto had established an armed force throughout the country, fortuitously including East Timor.)
Whether Wiranto gave an order or whether one of his subordinates did, or whether the armed militia were simply given to understand that they had a free hand, presumably by receiving expressive shrugs rather than answers from the Army officers that they asked, does not really matter. The generals and all the officers of the Army and the militia had quite specific responsibility for ensuring that none of the men under their command became an ungovernable mob. "Omitting" to give an order or simply looking the other way is the same as if they were part of that mob and pulled the trigger themselves.
Everyone keeps trotting out the same tired "presumption of innocence" excuse for not publishing names and details. Provided the charges framed against the generals state that they are charged with ordering or standing by while orders that they knew were unlawful were issued, to shoot everyone that they saw (I believe no curfew was declared) and to burn whatever property they saw and, in general terms, to consider all the population the enemy without proof that this was the case, then they must all stand guilty as charged.
Every person should have the services of a lawyer, I agree, Mr. Nasution, but a lawyer, acting in the best interests of these particular clients, has a duty to advise them to plead guilty and to attempt to show mitigation.
W. WALLER
Cianjur, West Java