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.