Film exposes wounds of denial of 1965 Jess Melvin  ;   The writer recently completed her PhD thesis, Mechanics of Mass Murder: How the Indonesian Military initiated and implemented the Indonesian genocide, the case of Aceh, with the school of historical and philosophical studies at the University of Melbourne

JAKARTA POST,  30 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

Joshua Oppenheimer’s latest film is truly shocking. If The Act of Killing was a wild fever dream, The Look of Silence is the next morning – Indonesia and the world have woken up with a throbbing headache. Unlike The Act of Killing, in which Soeharto’s killers boast unchallenged about their actions, this time the narrative of the killers is unsettled. With no fanning ostrich feathers and makeup to disguise the truth of their actions to themselves as in the previous film, the killers become defensive and then openly threatening in their reactions. But it is not the stories of the unending killings that are the most shocking aspect of the film. It is Adi Rukun, the younger brother of Ramli, who was killed by members of the military-sponsored Komando Aksi death squad in North Sumatra. He looks calmly into the eyes of his brother’s killers, calling them mass murderers. It is shocking that it is so shocking to speak such truths. For 49 years, Soeharto’s killers have enjoyed complete impunity for their actions, used to being feared and held in awe for their participation in the killings. Amir Hasan, one of Ramli’s killers, even wrote a short story about his experiences titled Embun Berdarah (Bloody Dew), which he decorated with sketches of the killings and also appears in the film. This story includes a detailed account of how he and fellow death squad members killed Ramli, who died a slow and public death. Amir and his friends consider this a heroic story, in line with the official propaganda of the genocide taught to Indonesian children to this day. Adi tells his mother he could forgive the killers if only they showed remorse for their actions. Instead, they become increasingly aggressive. Amir Siahaan, the subdistrict Komando Aksi commander who oversaw the death squads at the location called Sungai Ular, tells Adi how he has been rewarded for his role in “our historic struggle”. When Adi states Amir is responsible for his brother’s death, Amir gapes, explaining he was acting under military direction and government protection. “[Of] every killer I meet”, Adi replies calmly, “none of them feel responsible […] I think you’re avoiding your moral responsibility.” In explicitly calling Amir a murderer Adi transgresses all norms of discourse surrounding the genocide. “If I came to you like this during the military dictatorship what would you have done to me?” Adi asks Amir. “You can’t imagine what would have happened,” Amir replies very slowly. Indonesia is a country in which the killers have won. Their continued protection is being actively facilitated by Indonesia’s Attorney General. This November will be a year since Attorney General Basrief Arief rejected the recommendation of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) that the “1965-1966 Affair” be immediately referred for investigation, merely saying the crimes as described in the report “does not meet the requirements to be considered a gross violation of human rights”. The 840-page report and 200-page executive summary, collated over four years of painstaking investigation and incorporating the testimony of 349 witnesses from around the country, was first commissioned as a result of the human rights laws of 1999 and 2000, following the 1998 fall of the New Order regime. The regime came to power on the back of the genocide and many hoped that an investigation into the killings, believed to have claimed at least half a million lives, would bring the perpetrators to justice and allow Indonesia to move forward. Despite intimidation aimed at halting investigations, the remarkable report proposes that in 1965-1966, “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of sections of the population, arbitrary imprisonment or deprivation of physical liberty, torture, rape, persecution and enforced disappearance of persons” was perpetrated against civilians accused as members or sympathizers of the Indonesia Communist Party (PKI). These are all acts of gross human rights abuse that fall under the Rome Statute and Indonesian legal definition of crimes against humanity. The report even claims these abuses were a “result of government policy at the time to implement the annihilation of members and sympathizers of the PKI”. It names the late Soeharto, as the commander of the defunct internal security agency (Pangkopkamtib), and all regional military commanders active between 1965 and 1978 as requiring investigation for command responsibility for the violence. A long list of military and police personnel, prison and detention center staff, village heads, civilian defense unit members and members of civilian militias are named as having been specifically identified by witnesses in the six regions covered by the report as requiring investigation as direct perpetrators of the violence. This inexhaustive list was submitted to the Attorney General for further investigation through an ad-hoc human rights court and the mechanism of a truth and reconciliation commission, as specified by the new laws. Basrief had taken advantage of a clause that states “if the results of the [initial] investigation are not complete enough, [the Attorney General] can return the results of the investigation [to Komnas HAM] to be completed along with advice as to what needs to be included in the report ”. This is the final legal hurdle that stands in his way of ordering a comprehensive investigation within 240 days, and could expose those named in the report, many of whom are still alive, to being served warrants and detained for investigation on charges of crimes against humanity. There is no reason for this delay other than a lack of political will. The state’s official version of events, that the killings occurred when society erupted spontaneously into a frenzy to kill communists, is crumbling, though the state and its allies in Washington, London and Canberra seem determined to cling to this interpretation. Ironically, perpetrators such as those in the above films are perhaps doing the most damage to this official version of events. Self-assured of their own impunity, they have not realized that the propaganda is only able to function through the denial of the actual violence. Having exposed themselves as murderers they dig the hole deeper by attempting to transfer responsibility for their actions to their military commanders. The release of the new film to coincide with the genocide’s 49th anniversary is a timely reminder that the international community must also demand truth and justice for this horrific crime that has been written off as Cold War collateral damage. We can first insist that Komnas HAM’s report be accepted for formal investigation. The killers claim that opening up this past will tear open a wound that has now healed, but denial only lets the wound continue to fester. ●