|
Subject: Wiranto, Susilo Should Speak About the Past [+E. Timor:
Victims Without Justic
The Jakarta Post Friday, May 7, 2004
Opinion
Wiranto, Susilo Should Speak Out About the Past
Aboeprijadi Santoso, Amsterdam
Two former generals both have a strong chance of becoming the nation's
new leader, even if they have blood on their hands. The rise of these
generals-turned-party-leaders, however, rests on the shaky assumption that
military leaders are more capable of providing stability than civilian
leaders.
"A retired general, reflecting on his brilliant past, had
forgotten how many souls he'd sent flying up to heaven -- Now, he realized
that he had also spilt quite a lot of blood... (He) was still swimming in
the rain. The water -- turned red. The general was swimming in a sea of
blood. The blood is red, general, he said to himself."
This powerful passage from Seno Gumira Ajidarma's anthology Eyewitness
(1995, orig. 1994) reminds us that some generals, while proud of their
dedication to the nation, are acutely aware of their painful past.
It is particularly poignant in the lead up to the presidential
election, as it refers to a generation of soldiers who were ideologically
raised by Soeharto's New Order, and lived through two of the country's
most bloody episodes i.e. the mass killings of 1965-1966 and the situation
in East Timor.
The story pointedly refers to East Timor -- a territory that was
occupied and almost single-handedly managed by the Army for almost a
quarter of century (1975-1999). For many officers, this period was a rich
source of experience and served as a key steppingstone. Not all Army
members should be burdened by this legacy, but some are likely to have
been involved in abuses.
However, given the lack of transparency of the military as an
organization, few details have emerged on "who did what, and on whose
instructions" in particular cases of atrocity and abuse, including
those possibly related to the two contenders for the presidency, Gen.
(ret.) Wiranto and Gen. (ret.) Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Sources provide a more complete picture of Wiranto than of Susilo.
Masters of Terror (2002) -- a profile of key suspects of the 1999 violence
in East Timor -- includes both men and concludes that Wiranto was
"ultimately responsible for everything his soldiers did" as his
men in the field "crop up in numerous reports of abuses."
Early in 1999, the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM)
named Wiranto a main suspect. "Not just because of sins of
omission," Helmy Fauzi, a former staff member of Komnas HAM insisted.
In Feb. 2003, the UN-sponsored special panel in Dili indicted Wiranto
on charges of war crimes against humanity. An international warrant for
his arrest "may be issued shortly," Dili prosecutor Nicholas
Koumjian told Radio Netherlands recently.
The case of Susilo is less clear. The timing of two of his three
missions in East Timor was crucial. In 1976 to 1977, he led the Yonif-305
battalion to the district of Lautem to consolidate the conquest of the
territory following the Dec. 1975 invasion. In the end, the conquest
amounted to Indonesia's second biggest massacre -- locally known as the
"annihilation campaign" in Matebian, Central East Timor -- which
claimed about a third of the local population. This was the result of
several months of military campaigns, confounded by bad harvests and an
epidemic.
Another disaster happened in 1979, the year Susilo started his second
mission (1979-1981). As the Fretilin guerrilla collected its supporters
and their families, but were forced to evacuate them to the mountain, the
Army decided to launch a big campaign to exterminate them.
In one case, up to 800 to 1000 guerrilla fighters and civilians were
killed in Lautem alone. However, according to researcher Douglas Kammen,
it has not been confirmed as yet that the Susilo-led battalion of
Yonif-Linud-330 was directly involved in the atrocities.
Similarly, it was not clear exactly what Susilo's role was as chief of
staff of the regional command at the time of the military assault against
the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) headquarters in
Jakarta, on July 27, 1996. Susilo's darkest role, however, may be
connected to Wiranto's controversial involvement in East Timor, and it is
particularly important to explain how the scorched-earth campaign and mass
deportation of 1999 were organized.
By then, as chief of Territorial under Wiranto, Susilo was formally
responsible for the actions of regional and local commanders. Analysts,
however, view that two chains of command -- the formal i.e. territorial
one, and special intelligence links -- seem to have been at work. In any
case, Wiranto and Susilo should clarify the matter.
Susilo's career has generally been viewed in mixed terms as the
architect of both war and peace in Aceh, and of peace in Poso and Ambon.
But critics say, while the 2002 ceasefire in Aceh was historic but
short-lived (the rebels should be blamed too in this respect), the war and
martial law have been too costly in terms of civilian lives, political and
budgetary consequences.
Interestingly, the two former generals have successively been at the
helm of the security apparatus during the most critical period post-Soeharto.
No period since the 1960s killings has been as continuously tense and
bloody as the post-1998 series of social protests, ethnic, political,
religious, secessionist warfare and independence struggles in various
places across the archipelago.
As chief of security in 1998-1999, Wiranto was not able to halt the
escalation of urban riots and violence in the capital.
Then, his failure to maintain peace in East Timor in Sept. 1999
embarrassed the nation, humiliated the corps and forced him to allow
foreign troop, the Interfet, to intervene in order to help President B.J.
Habibie save his credibility and the economy.
Susilo, in turn, has achieved more in Eastern Indonesia, but not in
Aceh.
In both cases, though, the impact of the war and social dislocation has
been tremendous. Sociologist Thamrin Tomagola has argued for Maluku, that
peace could have been more durable if it incorporated local civil society
instead of a state-imposed accord. Indeed, peace and non-violence have
often been characteristic when civil elements hold sway.
This has been clearly manifested in the wake of the downfall of
Soeharto in Aceh during the two years of massive pro-referendum rallies up
to late 1999, and in Yogyakarta, when people led by the sultan demanded
changes. Non-violence was also reported during that period as numerous
village heads in Java were forced to step down.
Violent upheavals in post-independence Indonesia mostly involved Army
elements, or were linked to intra Army rivalries at national or local
levels -- rather than characteristics inherent to civilian leader. In
other words, contrary to the popular myth today, ex-military leaders do
not automatically guarantee stability. Instead, what matters most is the
principle of civilian supremacy, control and reform of the Army's
territorial structure.
That said, in the lead up to the presidential election, the two
ex-generals must confirm their records and accountability. If they, unlike
Seno's general, have the courage to speak out, that would be a relief for
the nation.
The writer is a Radio Netherlands journalist.
Support ETAN, make a secure financial contribution at etan.org/etan/donate.htm
Back to May menu
April
World Leaders Contact List
Human Rights Violations in East Timor
Main Postings Menu
|