| Subject: JP: Dubya's retreat on Indonesian
human rights
Jakarta Post
March 28, 2005
Dubya's retreat on Indonesian human rights
Brad Simpson, Washington, D.C.
There is a bitter irony to the Bush Administration's announcement in
late February that it will restore military training for the Indonesian
armed forces, which came just days before the State Department's annual
human rights report charged that in 2004 "security force members
murdered, tortured, raped, beat, and arbitrarily detained civilians."
Just as surely as it used the attacks of Sept. 11 to enlist
authoritarian and human-rights abusing regimes in the so-called "war
on terror," the Bush Administration is now exploiting the tragedy of
the Asian tsunami to expand military ties with Indonesia. If we are
serious about advancing reform in Indonesia, Congress and the American
public should oppose such a move.
Congress first restricted International Military and Educational
Training (IMET) for Indonesia in 1992 following the massacre of more than
270 unarmed civilians in Dili, the capitol of then Indonesian-occupied
East Timor. Over the next several years, Congress further restricted most
forms of military assistance in response to clear evidence of Indonesian
military participation in human rights abuses.
The Clinton Administration finally cut military ties with Jakarta
entirely in September 1999, after the Indonesian Army and its paramilitary
proxies murdered an estimated 1,500 people and burnt much of East Timor to
the ground following the territory's vote for independence in a
U.N.-sponsored referendum.
After 1999, Congress demanded that Indonesia assert civilian control
over the military and hold accountable military officers responsible for
crimes against humanity in East Timor before military aid could be
resumed. In a series of ad-hoc trials condemned by the State Department,
however, Indonesian judges proceeded to acquit every military officer
brought before them, sending a clear signal that Jakarta did not believe
in accountability for human rights crimes.
Following the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. government authorized
the provision of "anti-terrorism" assistance to the Indonesian
Armed Forces, using the terrorist attacks to justify partial re-engagement
with the military. Increased involvement with the Armed Forces has not led
to a reduction in abuses.
In May 2003, Indonesia broke off internationally mediated peace talks
with separatist forces in Aceh, launching a massive military operation in
which several thousand Acehnese were killed, many of them civilians. No
ranking Indonesian military officers have been held to account for crimes
that include the killing, torture, arbitrary detention and even rape of
civilians.
In West Papua, Indonesian security forces continue to commit serious
abuses, especially in areas near concessions run by Freeport McMoran, a
U.S.-based mining company. In August 2002 two Americans teachers working
for Freeport in the town of Timika were killed when gunmen opened fire on
a caravan of vehicles. The FBI has praised Indonesian cooperation in the
case, though no one has been arrested and Indonesian police concluded that
members of local Kopassus (Special Forces) units were likely behind the
killings.
In spite of this sordid record, Bush Administration officials claim
that Indonesia has met the sole Congressional condition for the resumption
of military training. That extremely narrow condition merely requires
cooperation in investigating the Timika killings.
While Indonesia has doubtless made progress on many fronts, most
importantly by holding free elections last year, the Armed Forces
willingness to hold itself accountable for human rights abuses is a
crucial litmus test of its commitment to democratic reform. So far the
signs have not been encouraging.
Concern about the U.S. re-engagement with the Indonesian military is
not confined to Congressional critics such as Senate Foreign Relations
Committee member Patrick Leahy, who agues that the resumption of IMET
"will be seen by the Indonesian military authorities who have tried
to obstruct justice as a pat on the back." Writing in the
conservative Weekly Standard on Feb. 28, analyst Ellen Bork cautioned that
U.S. military aid should be conditioned to a strategy "for advancing
democracy and human rights in Indonesia."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claims that U.S. military training
will imbue Indonesian officers with respect for human rights and civilian
control, but the history of U.S. engagement with the Indonesian military
suggests that the opposite is true. Since the late 1950s, when training
began, U.S.-trained soldiers and officers have been involved in the murder
and torture of hundreds of thousands of civilians in East Timor, Aceh,
West Papua and other parts of the Indonesian archipelago.
Military engagement has reinforced, not reduced, the power of the Armed
Forces in Indonesian society, who view increased assistance as
Washington's stamp of approval for brutal military practices.
Indonesian defense minister Juwono Sudarsono is visiting Washington
this week for talks with U.S. officials. Congress should make clear to
both Minister Sudarsono and the Bush Administration that increased
military assistance will only come after genuine accountability for past
and present human rights abuses.
Military aid is both carrot and stick, but, more important, a potent
political symbol of the values that the U.S. holds to be important in
foreign policy making. Increasing military assistance to Indonesia at this
time will send a clear and damaging signal to the rest of the world that
respect for human rights is but another casualty of the recent tsunami and
the broader war on terror.
The writer is an assistant professor at Idaho State University and a
Research Fellow with the National Security Archives in Washington, DC,
specializing in U.S.-Indonesian relations. He can be reached at simpbrad@isu.edu
Back to March menu
February
World Leaders Contact List
Main Postings Menu
|
