The face of our justice

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.