In search of solutions for 1965 Asvi Warman Adam ;   The writer is a historian at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI); The above is based on the writer’s presentation as keynote speaker at the International Symposium on Indonesian Relations with the World: Japanese Studies 50 years after 1965, held at LIPI on Sept. 18-19

                                               JAKARTA POST, 30 September 2015

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

Indonesia’s tragedy of 1965 comprises at least five issues. First is the killing of six generals on Sept. 30, 1965, including the perennial question: Who was the mastermind? The second element is the mass murder that claimed some 500,000 lives in various regions throughout Indonesia. The third factor is the forced removal of more than 10,000 people from Java to Buru Island in 1969-1979. The fourth element is the revoking of passports that caused thousands of Indonesians who were overseas on trips or studying to lose their citizenship. Fifth is the stigmatization and discrimination against victims and their families — child victims may not be civil servants or members of the Army or police. Settlement of 1965 cases should be sorted out with the above categorization. The case of the murder of the six generals was tried in a special court for military personnel and Communist Party members suspected of involvement in the 1965 coup attempt (Mahmilub), which tried dozens of people, most of whom were sentenced to death. In his presidential campaign, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo introduced his vision and mission statements and a supporting nine-priority agenda, the Nawa Cita. The fourth program, law enforcement, prioritized “the protection of human rights and just settlement of past cases of human rights violations”. Evidently, a minister with a lack of care about finding ways to deal with past issues has not read and understood the Nawa Cita. Of all violations of human rights in our history recorded between 1945 and 2000, the one that gets the most attention is the mass killings of 1965 where at least 500,000 people were murdered. The Dutch, during their 350-year existence in the archipelago, killed 125,000 locals, 75,000 of them in Aceh — a total less than the number of Indonesians slaughtered by their own people. The National Commission of Human Rights prepared a projustice inquiry report on the 1965 crimes against humanity, and the Attorney General’s Office should seriously follow up the findings to ensure implementation of the Nawa Cita. Cases related to the 1965 events, which occurred nearly 50 years ago, have remained unresolved with no comprehensive and just settlements initiated. In the near future, there are several initiatives the President may consider, including issuing a state apology for the mistakes made by the state and responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling. First, let cases of crimes against humanity that occurred in 1965-1966 go to trial in an ad hoc human rights court. The national rights body publicly released findings in the summary of its report on the 1965 human rights abuses, Kasus Pelanggaran HAM Berat 1965, and submitted the report to the Attorney General’s Office. There has been no significant follow-up until today. Second, the President should apologize to thousands of Indonesian patriots who were stripped of their citizenship. In the 1960s, first president Sukarno sent thousands of students to study abroad to help promote science and technology. Accused of supporting Sukarno, these students had their passports revoked, and as a result lost their citizenship. Although most of them had changed nationality, they still enthusiastically celebrated Indonesian Independence Day at Indonesian embassies. Most were born 80 years ago, some earlier, and many have passed away. Third, the President should make a formal statement saying that in the past the government made a mistake by exiling more than 10,000 people to Buru for 10 years. Without trial, they were forcibly sent to work, not knowing when they would be released. It was protests from international organizations that forced the government to end this crime against humanity. Fourth, the President should apologize to children of those who fell victim to any of the 1965 events. Under a ministerial instruction issued in 1981 by the Home Ministry, they were not allowed to apply for a position at any government organization or in the armed forces. Whether their parents were guilty of involvement in the coup, the government had absolutely no right to deny them their constitutional right to apply for jobs. Meanwhile, the President will need to respond a 2011 ruling by the Supreme Court. Following enquiries and proceedings of a judicial review dated June 25, 1975 from the President regarding treatment of persons grouped under Class C involved in the 1965 coup, the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the reviewed Presidential Decree and all subordinate legal instruments contradicted with higher legislation. The Supreme Court therefore “ordered the President — to revoke this Presidential Decree”. The era of reform managed to lead to the 2004 law on the establishment of the Indonesian Commission for Truth and Reconciliation (KKR), but half-hearted president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono never approved the list of KKR member candidates submitted by the selection committee. The Constitutional Court then canceled the KKR Law. Fifth, a breakthrough is needed in establishing a truth and reconciliation commission through a presidential decree rather than a law to have it operational in a shorter time. The body could take the form of a state commission set up by the President with personnel serving for a short period of time, e.g. only two years. The team should certainly not be composed of those from the attorney general’s office and other law enforcement agencies because they are among those allegedly involved in past human rights violations, such as former attorney general Soegih Arto implicated in the Buru case. The team must be independent — nine women experienced in handling cases of past human rights abuses would be one option. With a permanent and full resolution, the people of this nation would be able, after waiting for 50 years, to move forward without further burdens. ●