Violence: A crime against humanity

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): The increasing prevalence of violence in our society made me wonder whether Arthur C. Clarke is right after all in speculating that future historians will refer to the 20th century as the "Century of Torture".

According to Clarke, the "grisliest hallmark" of this Century of Torture has been "mass murder as an act of state." Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were mentioned as leading the "bloody league", followed by Pol Pot and Shah Pahlevi, among others, in Asia; Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Jean-Bedel Bokassa in Africa; and Fransisco Franco, Nicolae Ceasescu and Slobodan Milosevic in Europe.

I didn't read Arthur C. Clarke's article myself. I found him quoted by Andrew Rawnsley in his article "Weasel words from Pinochet's apologists" in The Guardian Weekly, November 1, 1998. In this article Rawnsley described how some groups of people -- including Margaret Thatcher and other Tory politicians -- have been defending Pinochet, and faulting the British government for detaining him. He showed why the arguments put forward by these people cannot be accepted.

According to Rawnsley, there are two kinds of people who have been defending Pinochet: the apologists, and the "soft-headed appeasers". The apologists argue that Pinochet should be granted immunity. According to these people, "it is a trifle unfortunate that he killed rather a lot of people", but in the end it must not be overlooked that "he did knock the Chilean economy into shape."

The appeasers have another argument. They say that Pinochet is a "frail old fellow with a bad back", and it is therefore not humane to put him in this trying position. One prominent member of this group is, according to Andrew Rawnsley, Dr. George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

There is still another group of people, not mentioned by Rawnsley, who have been defending Pinochet. I think this group can be called "the Rightists", because it is referring to Pinochet's accusers as the "European Left, which has lost every major political argument."

One representative of this group is Charles Krauthammer, a columnist who wrote in The Washington Post that Pinochet is a "victim of rank hypocrisy". He argued that the detention of Pinochet in London is a "blow for the most ideologically selective justice, and for the rankest hypocrisy." He founded this position on the fact that while Pinochet's detention is cheered, Jiang Zemin and other butchers of Tiananmen Square are "feted at the highest levels everywhere." Fidel Castro who has ruled Cuba with an iron fist for 40 years is "wined and dined at a summit of Hispanic leaders in Portugal on the very day that Pinochet is arrested." He went on by saying that Yasser Arafat, who engineered the murder of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel and his deputy George Moore in Sudan in the same year that Pinochet overthrew Salvador Allende, is "warmly received by the president, vice president, and secretary of state."

On the basis of these itemized cases Krauthammer concluded that the lesson of Pinochet's arrest is that "dictators with blood on their hands will not give up power voluntarily, as did Pinochet, seeing as those who don't can travel the world with impunity." He looked at the detention of Pinochet as "but an opportunity for the European Left to give itself a little consolation prize."

What is Rawnsley's response to all these arguments?

First he points out that Pinochet is not only a wanted murderer. He is also a person who has no respect for national boundaries. His regime "internationalized its crimes by having opponents in exile assassinated and killing the citizens of other countries." This is clearly a crime against humanity that must be punished.

Secondly, Andrew Rawnsley argues that not being able to punish every living tyrant in this world is "not an argument for punishing none of them." In the absence of an international criminal court which can effectively deal with monstrous politicians, "we have to use the laws and opportunities that come to hand."

Le Monde, in its editorial of October 20, 1998, reinforced Andrew Rawnsley's position by saying that Pinochet's detention is an opportunity for Europe to show the world -and more particularly people such as Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, and Slobodan Miolosevic-that "the notion of a time limit cannot be applied to crimes against humanity."

After reading these articles I asked myself whether the increase of violence in our society is not a sign that we are still living a life patterned after the Century of Torture. We should ask ourselves, I think, whether or not we have a Pinochet or a Radovan Karadzic in our midst, and whether or not we should cleanse ourselves of such monstrous elements. Not by physical force, but by using the force of reason. To try to end the present chaos and lawlessness by solely using physical force will merely create an excuse for those equipped with physical force without the complementary force of reason to resort to violence without knowing when and how to stop. We will then become a nation which, because of our inability to uphold human dignity, will be reputed as the enemy of humanity.

Perhaps we can follow the advice of Peter Preston in this case. In his article "True democrats know when it's time to go" (The Guardian Weekly, Nov. 1, 1998, p. 12) he discussed a phenomenon he called "The Lear Syndrome." This syndrome can, according to Preston, be encapsulated in four ordinary words, "Time for a change." The Lear Syndrome is a signal that a natural cycle may be coming to an end. Failure to comprehend this signal is the cause of "wounded pride and political crises" which have brought mighty people to their knees.

According to Preston again, the Lear Syndrome is an affliction. It turns the gift of legacy into an agony of hanging on. It is "the enemy of continuity" and the source of self- delusion. Paraphrasing Peter Preston in his question about Malaysia today, we can ask ourselves whether Indonesia today has become a more mature society after 32 years under the New Order. Whether we are really ready for the next, more open phase of development. Whether we really want a democracy that offers the prospect of change; and finally whether we have grown into "a child that has put away childish things".

Do we have clear answers to these questions? If we do, then we must know how to end the present round of violence without resorting to violence. As the human race moves into the 21st century, our nation will then be ready to leave the "Century of Torture" permanently behind us.