The Mantiri argument

The Mantiri argument

Possible political consequences aside, the latest spat between
Jakarta and Canberra concerning the nomination of Lt. Gen. Herman
Mantiri is sure to raise a number of interesting questions among
observers.

As far as we can gather from the news reports reaching us from
Canberra, the hassle began when a group of 17 parliamentarians,
representing both the government and the opposition, raised their
objections to the nomination of Lt. Gen. Herman Mantiri as
Indonesia's new ambassador to Canberra, replacing ambassador
Sabam Siagian, whose term has ended.

Considering the sensitivities that exist between Indonesia and
Australia due to the East Timor problem, Australian objections to
Gen. Mantiri's appointment are actually not so difficult to
understand.

Lt. Gen. Mantiri was head of the Udayana military command,
which includes East Timor, when the so-called Dili Incident of
Nov. 12, 1991, occurred. Scores of people were reported to have
been killed in the incident, with estimates varying widely from
around 50 to over a hundred.

Although he was clearly not personally involved in the
incident, Gen. Mantiri, as the military commander responsible for
the territory, has since been held accountable for the killings
by a number of human rights groups.

One may of course wonder why President Soeharto has found it
prudent to nominate an official with such a background to
represent Indonesia in a country where sentiments over East Timor
run so high. Whatever the answer, we can be sure the President
has been well advised about the pros and cons of the appointment.

A more interesting aspect of the case to watch for in
Indonesia is perhaps the contradiction in the attitudes shown by
the Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and his foreign
minister, Gareth Evans. As of last week Evans was reported to
have stood by his demand that Mantiri apologize for comments he
allegedly made in 1992 that the Dili killings were "proper" under
the circumstances. For whatever domestic political purpose it may
serve, Evans's stance may appear a little strange for a man who
in the past has worked hard to improve relations between
Australia and Indonesia.

Keating, by contrast, reportedly told the Australian
parliament last week that "there are no circumstances that I can
see where we would or should reject a nomination by the president
(of Indonesia)". According to Keating it is the right of every
government to choose its own ambassador and propose the candidate
to the government of the country where the candidate is to be
posted. Such a candidate, according to Keating, is seldom
rejected except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
Obviously, good, or at least workable, relations with Indonesia
remain high on the prime minister's list of priorities.

As for Indonesia, the government has already rejected Evans's
demand, saying Mantiri's 1992 comments were made before details
of the shooting had been revealed and that they were liable to
misinterpretation. Besides, Mantiri himself has already expressed
his regret over the incident.

We hope that through all this both sides will be able to keep
cool heads and let wisdom and statesmanship prevail. To us,
frankly, it seems irrelevant to continue insisting on an apology
at this point.

This, however, is not to say that Indonesians can simply
ignore what others think or say about East Timor. Surely there is
some truth in Gareth Evans's words that East Timor will remain
Indonesia's "running sore" unless there is some visible evidence
of improvement in Jakarta's handling of this former Portuguese
colony.