The face of our justice

As disappointing as the rulings that came out of the first set of trials of Indonesian government officials and military/police officers accused of crimes against humanity in East Timor in 1999, they are hardly surprising. Those who have followed closely the Ad Hoc Human Rights tribunals from the start know that these rulings are the logical consequence of the hearings.

The cases built against the accused were weak and the evidence presented was mostly circumstantial. Predictably, they did not warrant heavy sentences, if at all. Hence, the acquittals against the six officers of the Indonesian Military and the National Police. Only Abilio Soares, the pro-Indonesia former East Timor governor, was found guilty; and even then, he got off with a light sentence of a three years.

It is one thing to understand the "logic" of the legal process in this country, but completely another to meet the universal standard of justice. In the case of the massive violence that was perpetrated in East Timor in 1999, when the territory was under Jakarta rule, that standard of justice clearly has not been fulfilled.

The facts could not be spelled out more clearly that something horrible took place in East Timor. There was widespread killing during the massive campaign of terror and violence conducted by pro-Indonesian forces. The majority of the East Timorese people were forced to flee; virtually every town and village, including East Timor's capital Dili, was destroyed when it became clear that the pro-Indonesian forces in East Timor had lost the UN- sponsored ballot of self-determination.

Investigations by the United Nations determined that a crime against humanity had been committed. The National Commission on Human Rights, in its own probe, corroborated the UN findings and called for the setting up of these human rights tribunals.

There was never any doubt that the security authorities were responsible for the lives of every East Timorese at the time. After all, it was Indonesia which had insisted all along that it alone manage the security aspect, if a ballot of self- determination was to be held in East Timor.

As events proved, the Indonesian security apparatus failed in its duties to maintain security. Moreover, the two official investigations found indications that the security forces not only turned a blind eye to the atrocities by pro-Indonesian militias, but that they also assisted in the campaign.

These militias were set up, armed and trained by our military. They often acted as proxies of the military's interests in East Timor. But what gave the TNI away the most in regard to its possible complicity was the method of destruction used by the pro-Indonesian forces, which fit the "scorched earth" concept drawn up by the Indonesian Military.

The ad hoc trials would have been an opportunity for Indonesia to come clean, to show the world that we, as a nation, are capable of meeting our obligations. With the court rulings, Indonesia has squandered that chance, and, like in 1999, they have provoked another international outcry about our failures; now through the failure of our justice system to deliver justice.

The acquittals of the military and police officers may be seen by some here as serving the national interests and defending our pride. They feel that it was embarrassing enough for the nation to subject these senior officers to the tribunals at all. Their acquittals would spare Indonesia of international indignity.

They could not be more wrong. By failing to make anyone in the security apparatus accountable for the 1999 mayhem, the tribunals have humiliated the whole nation. The message these rulings have sent is that we have failed to live up to our responsibilities, which include protecting lives. Instead of turning Indonesia into a respectable member of the world community, they have turned us into a pariah state.

Even as the cases go through the appeal process, it is still difficult to see how the higher court could overturn the rulings. Based solely on the evidence presented in court, there is not sufficient grounds for the appeal judges to convict the officers. The only hope left is that in hearing these cases, the judges would be driven more by the universal standard of justice, rather than by a narrowly defined sense of nationalism.

The quest for justice is now the main driving force behind a new campaign to bring the Indonesian officers to an international tribunal. Mary Robinson, the UN human rights chief, during her visit to Dili this weekend said she would urge the Security Council to try the Indonesian officers in a UN court.

Robinson faces an uphill struggle in convincing all the five permanent members of the Security Council. Of the Council's three largest permanent members, China and Russia are unlikely to support the call, as they have their own demons (Tibet and Chechnya); the United States, now more concerned about Jakarta's military cooperation in its war on terrorism, could also veto any such proposal. Irrespective of the outcome of Robinson's crusade, however, the motion itself will put Indonesia's poor record of upholding human rights and in delivering justice in the international spotlight once again.

Indonesia may feel secure in the knowledge that it will once again be spared from international wrath for its failings in East Timor in 1999. But can we seriously think that we as a nation will escape from our moral responsibilities? The 1999 mayhem in East Timor will continue to haunt us for as long as we fail to bring the perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice. The sooner we resolve this matter, the better it is for our nation.