Violence: A crime against humanity

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.