Between revenge and justice

Between revenge and justice

Usman Hamid ;  The Chair of The Board of Kontras and Indonesian Campaign Director for Change.org

JAKARTA POST, 09 September 2012

Should we share the opinion put forward in The Jakarta Post’s “Issues of the day” (Aug. 23) that said an “apology to the 1965 victims is not necessary”?

Recently, the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) released a report on the 1965 purge, which declared that the systematic persecution of alleged members of the now defunct Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) was a gross violation of human rights.

After hearing this, groups including the Retired Army Association, the Arif Rahman Hakim Student Militia and the Ansor Youth Movement (GP Ansor), a youth wing of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), urged President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to reject Komnas HAM’s findings and recommendation that the government deliver a public apology to the victims of the 1965 purge. “We are against the idea of setting up a human rights court and ask all citizens to stay alert to the rise of ideologies that are against Pancasila. No ideology other than Pancasila should be allowed to exist here,” said Nusron Wahid, GP Ansor chair.

Deputy chairman of NU, As’ad Said Ali, said that NU lost many figures during the period leading up to the aborted coup blamed on the PKI. NU demanded nothing in compensation and never demanded the perpetrators be brought to justice and, therefore, he encouraged all Indonesians to forget about the 1965 purge and move on.

Such controversial statements are the result of reviewing the 1965 purge partially, without considering the whole true story in its fullest sense. If this were a play, history has divided the purge into three phases of narratives: prologue, analogue, epilogue. Some people have only seen the prologue where the PKI comprised the alleged perpetrators of political provocations and various acts of violence, with many victims coming from Muslim groups. 

Back in the day, my father, a local ulema in West Java, was listed as a target for killing. My mother was once surprised to learn that I was pursuing justice for the victims of 1965, including those accused as PKI members. Nevertheless, my family refused to pursue revenge or seek more truth.

We should not ignore the importance of the analogue period, when the Army was involved in the killing of the generals, including the foreign-domestic covert operations that provoked high-level violence. While the epilogue seems to be have been abandoned for political or emotional reasons, the massive amount of violence and political imprisonment that occurred resulted in the largest number of victims being members of the PKI, the military (mainly from the Air Force), and even police officers accused of being communists. They included Muslims, Protestants, Catholics and even Buddhists. Given this reality, the right to seek the whole truth about this past chapter, amounts to a very complex issue.

So, who exactly were the victims? Victims should be identified from an impartial political perspective in every phase of this tragedy. The United Nations defines victims as persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operating within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power. 

Therefore, victims can come from any of the parties caught up in the 1965 purge. The state shall investigate, prosecute and bring perpetrators to justice and to grant victims (anyone) with reparations, which include rehabilitation, restitution and compensation, regardless of their origin, religion or ideology.

All of us, including Muslims, should forgive the PKI (prologue), require the state to reveal the truth about the past (analogue), and help the victims demand justice (epilogue). Upholding justice and truth is a path that needs purity from the beginning, free of hidden intentions, sacred from foul interference.

By forgetting the past, without specifying which part should be forgotten, such attitudes can be used to shield perpetrators in order to hide the truth.

It is also imperative to consider one major gesture in political transition — that is, apology. In Chile, President Patricio Aylwin Azocar made a heartfelt apology for General Pinochet’s regime’s repression of the country’s citizens over many years.

Apologies are not only made by states in political transition but also more established democratic states. In 2008, a remarkable milestone was made by the former Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, who publicly acknowledged and apologized to the aboriginal victims of past human rights violations. Later, British Prime Minister David Cameron made an official public apology to the victims and community in Northern Ireland for the “Bloody Sunday” events in January 1972. On that tragic day, British troops opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, resulting in dozens of casualties. 

Former president Abdurrahman Wahid, once a prominent chairperson of NU, offered a public apology during his administration. Besides him and former president Habibie, who were notable exceptions, I’ve always wondered why until now all post-reform era presidents have been reluctant to apologize to victims of past crimes and deliver justice. There are plenty of state crimes to choose from besides the 1965 purge, such as Tanjung Priok (1984) and Talangsari (1989), in which most of the victims were Muslims, to the shooting and kidnapping of students and political dissenters in 1997-1998.

Many are skeptical about the power of a simple apology. No one is suggesting, however, that an apology is enough to redeem a state. Nevertheless, it is a significant foundation for reconciling the cruelty of the past for the victims. An apology is an essential first step toward healing the wounds of all those families who lost loved ones.

Finally, Indonesia needs to adopt a new perspective to the historiography of justice in the country, especially to salve the grudges and wounds through the nation’s history, and to become aware of the importance of “an ethic for enemies” for Muslims. As Shriver (1995) stated, “revenge, the end of politics; justice, the beginning”.  ●

Pengakuan dan Permintaan Maaf

Pengakuan dan Permintaan Maaf

Mugiyanto ;  Penyintas pada Peristiwa Penculikan Aktivis Pro Demokrasi Tahun 1998, Saat ini Ketua IKOHI

SINAR HARAPAN, 27 Agustus 2012

Selama sebulan terakhir, isu penegakan HAM diwarnai dengan perdebatan tentang perlu tidaknya Presiden sebagai kepala negara menyampaikan permintaan maaf kepada para korban pelanggaran HAM yang terjadi di masa lalu.

Pemicunya adalah dikeluarkannya laporan hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM tentang kasus tragedi kemanusiaan sekitar 1965-1967.

Dalam laporan setebal hampir 1.000 halaman tersebut, Komnas HAM menyimpulkan adanya dugaan terjadinya pelanggaran HAM berat dalam bentuk pembunuhan, pemusnahan, perbudakan, pengusiran, perampasan kemerdekaan, penyiksaan, perkosaan, penganiayaan, dan penghilangan orang secara paksa. Selanjutnya, Komnas HAM merekomendasikan Jaksa Agung untuk menindaklanjutinya dengan penyidikan dan penyelesaian nonjudisial (KKR).

Sebelumnya, setidaknya selama tiga tahun terakhir, di kalangan korban pelanggaran HAM telah beredar berita bahwa Presiden SBY akan segera mengeluarkan sebuah kebijakan politik untuk menyelesaikan pelanggaran berat HAM yang terjadi di masa lalu.

Berita ini diperkuat dengan adanya beberapa kali pertemuan antara beberapa NGO HAM dengan Presiden SBY dan pejabat-pejabat terkait seperti Menteri Koordinator Bidang Politik Hukum dan Keamanan (Menko Polhukam), Menteri Hukum dan HAM, Staf Khusus Presiden Bidang Hukum dan HAM, serta anggota Dewan Pertimbangan Presiden (Wantimpres) Bidang Hukum dan HAM. Akan tetapi, lama-kelamaan berita itu memudar seiring banyaknya kasus-kasus baru yang lebih menyita perhatian publik, terutama kasus korupsi para pejabat publik.

Kemudian pada awal tahun ini, angin segar kembali berhembus. Albert Hasibuan, anggota Wantimpres bidang Hukum dan HAM menghembuskan kabar melalui berbagai media bahwa Presiden SBY berencana untuk meminta maaf atas terjadinya pelanggaran HAM berat yang terjadi di masa lalu.

Perkembangan ini lantas direspons oleh beberapa tokoh, antara lain adalah rohaniwan Franz Magnis-Suseno, yang melalui tulisannya di harian Kompas, mengatakan bahwa sudah tiba waktunya bagi Presiden SBY minta maaf pada korban peristiwa 1965 agar kita terbebas dari rasa benci dan dendam yang merupakan warisan pemerintahan Soeharto.

Secara berturut-turut media yang sama memuat tulisan Sulastomo, mantan Ketua Umum PB HMI tahun 1963-1966 yang menolak rencana permintaan maaf oleh Presiden SBY, lalu disusul oleh pendapat tokoh HAM Hendardi dan orang tua korban Sumarsih, ibunda dari mahasiswa korban peristiwa penembakan di Semanggi yang mengatakan bahwa permintaan maaf saja tidak cukup.

Polemik yang muncul di publik ini kemudian direspons kembali oleh Watimpres Albert Hasibuan dengan penegasan baru bahwa permintaan maaf tersebut merupakan entry point bagi penyelesaian pelanggaran berat HAM di masa lalu.

Negara Lain

Dengan tetap berharap bahwa kebijakan permintaan maaf (public apology) tersebut pada akhirnya akan diambil oleh Presiden SBY, akan berguna bagi kita untuk melihat bagaimana permintaan maaf ini juga pernah diambil oleh banyak kepala negara yang beberapa di antaranya akan penulis contohkan dalam tulisan ini.

Pada 7 Desember 1970, Kanselir Jerman Barat Willy Brandt mengunjungi sebuah tugu peringatan para korban Rezim Nazi di Warsawa Polandia. Di sana Willy Brandt berlutut dan atas nama pemerintahan Jerman ia meminta maaf atas tragedi yang dilakukan oleh Nazi pada orang-orang Polandia. Tindakan Kanselir Brandt ini memicu polemik.

Selain mendapatkan dukungan luas dari rakyat Jerman, ada juga warga Jerman yang lain yang menganggap langkah itu berlebihan dan tidak patriotik.

Namun yang jelas, sebagai kepala negara ia telah menunjukkan sikapnya bahwa tindakan kejahatan perang dan genosida seperti yang pernah dilakukan oleh Nazi Jerman tidak boleh ditoleransi. Tindakan tersebut juga merupakan pendidikan politik bagi anak-anak dan kaum muda saat itu yang selanjutnya bisa menumbuhkan rekonsiliasi di antara warga dua negara seperti yang kita lihat pada hari ini.

Contoh lain yang relatif baru adalah permintaan maaf oleh Presiden El Salvador Mauricio Funes pada 16 Januari 2012. Dalam sebuah peringatan peristiwa pembantaian di Kota El Mozote, El Salvador, pada 1981, Presiden Mauricio Funes atas nama negara meminta maaf kepada para korban dan keluarganya dan mengakui bahwa pemerintahlah yang bertanggung jawab atas pembantaian tersebut.

Dalam suasana yang dilaporkan berbagai media sangat emosional, dengan mata berkaca-kaca dan kata-kata yang terputus-putus, Mauricio Funes mengatakan bahwa sebagai kepala negara ia berani dan harus mengambil tanggung jawab yang ditinggalkan oleh pendahulunya.

Tidak hanya berhenti pada permintaan maaf dan mengakui kesalahan, Presiden Funes juga menunjukkan tanggung jawab dengan memenuhi hak-hak korban atas pemulihan (rights to reparation), termasuk memorialisasi dan skema-skema rehabilitasi serta kompensasi.

Momentum

Dalam konteks Indonesia, bagaimana kita hendaknya menempatkan langkah permintaan maaf oleh negara ini? Dalam bukunya yang berjudul Apologia Politica; States and Their Apologies by Proxy, 2006, Girma Negash, mengatakan bahwa permintaan maaf secara politik oleh negara biasanya berhubungan dengan usaha penyelesaian (remedies) dan pemulihan korban (redress) atas ketidakadilan dan kekerasan sejarah yang berskala besar.

Di sinilah tampaknya rencana Presiden SBY untuk menyampaikan permintaan maaf atas nama negara telah menemukan momentum objektifnya. Oleh karena itu, dengan pernyataan Watimpres Albert Hasibuan bahwa permintaan maaf atau apologi ini baru merupakan entry point bagi diselesaikannya pelanggaran berat HAM masa lalu maka rencana langkah ini perlu didukung oleh semua pihak.

Namun demikian, sebagaimana ditegaskan oleh para korban dan pembela HAM, permintaan maaf saja tidak cukup. Ia harus dibarengi dan diikuti oleh langkah-langkah lain. Ini karena bila hanya berhenti pada permintaan maaf, maka ia hanya akan menjadi ungkapan pengingkaran (denial) dan ketidakbertanggungjawaban (irresponsibility), yang karenanya tidak akan menyelesaikan masalah.

Hal seperti ini pernah dilakukan oleh pemimpin Khmer Merah Khieu Samphan pada 1998 dalam sebuah permintaan maaf resmi yang disampaikan kepada rakyatnya atas pembantaian massal yang pernah dilakukan oleh rezim Pol Pot pada 1970-an. Di situ Khieu Samphan hanya mengatakan, ”Saya ingin minta maaf pada rakyat saya. Mari kita lupakan masa lalu dan maafkanlah saya”, tanpa tindak lanjut apa pun.

Tidak terlalu berbeda dengan prinsip-prinsip transitional justice, Girma Negash menyebutkan bahwa setidaknya terdapat empat syarat minimal yang harus dipenuhi agar permintaan maaf oleh negara bisa berhasil dalam menciptakan penyembuhan (healing) dan rekonsiliasi.

Keempat syarat tersebut adalah pengakuan (acknowledgement), pengungkapan kebenaran (truth-telling), pertanggungjawaban (accountability), dan penyesalan publik (public remorse) (Girma Negash, 2006).

Kini praktis Presiden SBY hanya punya waktu dua tahun untuk mewujudkan janjinya. Bila tidak dimulai dari sekarang, dikhawatirkan Presiden SBY hanya akan mampu melaksanakan komitmen verbalnya itu hanya dengan mengucapkan kata ”maaf” saja sebelum waktunya habis.

Sebagai sebuah entry point bagi penyelesaian menyeluruh, permintaan maaf resmi harus dilakukan secepatnya sehingga masih ada sedikit waktu untuk kerja-kerja lanjutan berupa pengungkapan kebenaran, pertanggungjawaban hukum, dan pemenuhan hak-hak korban atas pemulihan. ●

Indonesia’s collective amnesia

Indonesia’s collective amnesia

Endy Bayuni ;  Senior Editor of The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 01 Agustus 2012

Last week, the National Commission on Human Rights, an independent state body, released its findings from a four-year investigation into the 1965 purge of suspected communists. 

The commission concludes that the Army-led campaign amounted to a gross violation of human rights. It urged the government to prosecute the perpetrators and compensate victims and survivors. It also called upon President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to issue a public apology. 

But the report failed to generate much public interest, if the reaction of the country’s major newspapers is any indication. They either ignored the story or buried it in the inside pages — which made for a jarring contrast to the hysterical headlines devoted to shooting in faraway Denver recently. But then the mainstream media have always been complicit in the conspiracy of silence over the killings, whether knowingly or out of ignorance. 

The killing campaign in 1965 and 1966 was unleashed after an abortive coup against president Sukarno in October 1965 that the Army blamed on the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Although the massacre happened on Sukarno’s watch, he had by then become a lame-duck president. 

The report instead put the blame squarely on the Command for the Restoration of Security and Order led by Gen. Soeharto, who went on to become president in 1967. The commission’s recommendation only says that those most responsible should be prosecuted, though it gives no specific names. 

In spite of its massive scale, the killing campaign has been shrouded in mystery. No one — the Human Rights Commission included — has ever been able to put a figure on how many were killed. Estimates range from a conservative 200,000 to as many as 3 million, a figure once boastingly cited by Sarwo Edhie Wibowo, who headed the military campaign at the time as chief of the Army’s Special Forces. 

The Soeharto regime banned any discussion of the entire episode, including the massacre and the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power. For more than three decades, only the military’s version of history was allowed to circulate. The veil of silence was lifted only some years after Soeharto stepped down in 1998. 

Official history books today still treat the episode as an attempt by the PKI, then the world’s largest communist party in a non-communist state, to grab power. They make no mention of the ensuing massacre of party members, their sympathizers and relatives, and even many innocent bystanders, or the harsh treatments meted out to the survivors in the aftermath of the killings. 

The report, the most detailed study ever carried out on the massacre, lists the types of crimes committed, including murder, slavery, forced disappearances, limits to physical freedom, torture, rape, persecution and forced prostitution. It also says the killing was widespread across most major islands in the archipelago, and not confined to Java, Sumatra and Bali, as had been widely believed. The study also identified at least 17 mass graves where the victims were buried. 

Although Indonesians who went through the period are aware of the killings, most have turned a blind eye, and many have even managed to erase them from memory. They accepted the official version that the military had saved Indonesia from communism, and, by logical conclusion, that Soeharto and his military cohorts were the heroes of the day. 

Time will tell how far the report will go to break these long years of the conspiracy of silence about the killings, and whether it will succeed in jolting the nation out of its collective amnesia. The report also calls for the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission to look into the tragedy. 

Scholars attempting to study the killings say that many of the perpetrators and the surviving victims have refused to be interviewed for events that they said were too traumatic to recount. A few, however, have been brave enough to break their silence, as captured in the film documentary 40 Years of Silence — An Indonesian Tragedy. 

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, for whom the report was prepared, responded positively by ordering the office of the attorney general to look into the recommendations, including considering the prosecution of those most responsible for the killings. His office has also said that the President is considering an official apology on behalf of the state for all the human rights violations committed against its own citizens. 

All the key players in the killing campaign, however, are dead: Soeharto died in 2008, his deputy Adm. Sudomo this past April, and Sarwo Edhie, in 1989. It will be interesting to see how far the Indonesian Military, or Yudhoyono for that matter, are prepared to see their seniors tried in absentia or be dragged through the dirt in the event that the truth and reconciliation commission is formed. Yudhoyono, a military general himself, is the son-in-law of Sarwo Edhie. 

Many human rights activists have their doubts. They note that a report by the same commission about the mass rape of Chinese-Indonesians during rioting in 1998 never received any follow-up from the office of the attorney general. 

The release of the report was hailed as a milestone by a handful of victims and survivors who had been seeking justice all these years. For most Indonesians, it was a non-event. 

In one of the rare public reactions to the report, Priyo Budi Santoso, a senior politician from the Golkar Party, said that wallowing in the past was unproductive for the nation. 

“It is better if we move forward,” said Priyo, whose party provided the political machine that sustained Soeharto in power for more than three decades. 

Tragically, he probably spoke for most of the people in this country. 

Anyone wondering why the systemic culture of impunity, and with it the culture of violence, are so notoriously strong in Indonesia, may have found the answer this week. They are deeply embedded, along with the nation’s collective amnesia. ●