Wiranto's presidential bid unlikely to face international opposition

Wiranto's presidential bid unlikely to face international opposition

Muladi, Senior Lecturer, Diponegoro University, Jakarta

The opinion aired by Jusuf Wanandi in his article entitled
Poll Results Boost Golkar's Chance for the Presidency in The
Jakarta Post on April 12 is truly appreciated. Specifically, the
possibility that the Golkar Party's triumph in the April 5
legislative election would make it the largest faction of the
House of Representatives (DPR) -- now a tremendously powerful
institution under the new Constitution.

The chance for a Golkar candidate to win the presidency is
wide open and realistic. Therefore, the upcoming Golkar
convention -- slated for April 20 -- at which the party's
presidential candidate will be chosen, is not only imperative to
Golkar, but will also influence the future of this country.

For the country, which currently experiences a "leadership
crisis", a strong and democratically elected president would be
strategic in light of the complexity of challenges that must be
faced in the future.

But with all due respect toward Jusuf's freedom of expression,
his article was also extremely disturbing, specifically the part
-- which could be perceived as a "character assassination" -- in
which he spoke of Wiranto, one of the candidates to contest the
Golkar convention. This "character assassination" could even be
termed "hideous" by readers of his article.

Jusuf presented a subjective and superficial perspective,
using political analysis heedlessly by substituting presumption
of innocence with presumption of guilt.

Each member of Golkar will sincerely accept the winner of the
Golkar convention (including Akbar Tandjung), if the convention
is carried out in a free and fair manner. Although, fears have
mounted that the brilliant idea of the convention could have a
boomerang effect on Golkar, if the convention were to be executed
through manipulative and deceitful actions.

Jusuf states that Wiranto's presidential bid would be a
disaster for Indonesia and claims that the West and Japan are
against his candidacy. It is also the well-established policy of
foreign governments (and in particular those of the West) not to
give, or even to suggest, support or non-support for the
presidential candidates of another country.

During a series of meetings, which Wiranto held with foreign
dignitaries, including the ambassadors of "friendly" countries,
such an impression never surfaced. The only concern raised was
over democratic procedures, which the diplomats hoped would be
undertaken during the presidential election -- and that they
would accept whoever became president.

It is logical, however, for elements of society and the
international community to state their personal attitudes toward
Wiranto, or any other candidate. It would be illogical if a
statement of the pros and cons of a candidate's election
disclosed a one-sided judgment, and bypassed ethical norms, as
well as the prevailing law.

Stating Wiranto would face opposition from students, civilians
and the mass media, should he become Golkar's presidential
candidate, does not fully reflect upon reality. True, there would
be some negative reaction, but that should be seen as the
dynamics of democracy.

Jusuf is thought to acknowledge that, even though the United
Nations Security Council has the authority to form an
international criminal tribunal specifically for the East Timor
case, the "complementary" principles of international law
underline that in bringing to justice gross violations of human
rights -- which implement "concurrent jurisdiction" between
international and national courts -- the domestic mechanism
through the national court is the "Primary Forum" option. The
East Timor case is similar to cases in Rwanda (ICTR) and Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as the "hybrid model" in Sierra Leone
and the Serious Crime Unit of Timor Leste.

Thus, exceptions may only occur if national court proceedings
(similar to the Indonesian human rights court based on Law
No.26/2000) are not conducted independently or impartiality and
are merely aimed at protecting the perpetrators -- a reflection
that it is unwilling and unable to bring the perpetrators to
justice.

The "complementary" principles also comprise the need of the
international community to respect the process of investigation
of the state which has jurisdiction. Unless, however, that
particular state has decided not to prosecute -- when these
actions are a reflection of an unwilling attitude.

In terms of the East Timor case, several officers and generals
of the military and police had been investigated, and were
brought before the human rights court. Others, including Wiranto,
were acquitted due to inadequate evidence.

Furthermore, the question remains, is it really true that
Wiranto and military members committed war crimes and crimes
against humanity ?

In East Timor, during the referendum, there was no sign of
war. Internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots and
isolated and sporadic acts of violence between pro-independence
and pro-integration groups, were not related to war crimes. These
events were triggered by mounting tension over the referendum
process faced by the two sides.

If the involvement of the military and the police in the field
was discovered, these were perceived as sporadic or isolated
crimes -- which ought to have been dealt with through a civil or
martial court based on ordinary criminal law.

Also, regarding the 1998 May Riots, Wiranto in his memoir
entitled Witness in the Storm (Bersaksi di Tengah Badai)
explained in detail from pages 51 onward, the possibility that
the mass movement striving for political interests was "used" by
instigators, looters and muggers. Therefore, it was a formidable
task to neutralize the situation.

As for the Trisakti and Semanggi cases, according to
procedures under Law No. 26/2000, each individual suspected of
involvement in those incidents underwent a transparent and open
hearing process of the DPR's special committee, which later
stated that there was no evidence of gross human rights
violations.

The writer was formerly minister of justice under Soeharto's
administration and minister of justice and state secretary under
BJ Habibie's administration.