9/11 and its impacts today Benny YP Siahaan  ;   An alumnus of Tsukuba University in Japan, who currently lives in New York City

JAKARTA POST, 20 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

The attacks in New York on Sept. 11, 2001 claimed almost 3,000 lives. Since then, every Sept. 11, in commemoration of that horrible day, all the names of those victims have been read out aloud on the very site where the tragedy took place. It took more than five hours for relatives of the victims to read out their names (frequently interspersed with crying) and the event was broadcast live throughout the US. It was very emotional moment, particularly for those who directly experienced it or were in some other way personally affected by it. One of my staff, an Indonesian Muslim woman who is married to an American Catholic, said the 9/11 commemoration was not an easy day for her as it usually sparked a quarrel with her husband. “When my husband is watching the 9/11 commemoration ceremony on TV, there is always the possibility that he will say the tragedy was the work of Muslim people,” she replied when I asked her why. She said she would then respond to her husband to dispel any misperceptions about Islam. My staff member’s husband was one of the survivors of the 9/11 attacks. He worked in one of the Twin Towers and he lost many of his friends and colleagues. According to his wife, the tragedy had left him traumatized and inflicted a psychological wound that stayed with him for several years following the carnage. So, the act of commemoration, which is supposed to offer peace, homage and respect to the victims, in many cases may enflame hatred, revenge and even retribution. Today, Ground Zero, the site of the Twin Towers in New York City has been cleared and a museum dedicated to 9/11 opened there. To replace the Twin Towers, the One World Trade Center building, which is 541 meters tall, was built and is due to be opened in the coming few months. Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, has also been killed in the intervening years. With each passing year, the 9/11 remembrance day has come to be seen as a new symbol of US patriotism, aside from July 4. There is nothing wrong with remembering such a bitter tragedy; it is akin to the holding of Holocaust Memorial Day. The essence of the annual commemorations is to ensure that this kind of barbaric act does not happen again in the future. However, it may have another, darker side to it. It may provoke paranoia, hatred and a desire for revenge toward people who share the same faith as the perpetrators. We should start to worry if it emerges as part of the national psyche and becomes exploited for a particular political or personal agenda. This kind of thing happened when former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic exploited the national psyche of his fellow countrymen and later perpetrated ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Milosevic provoked his people through a memorial day, held every June 28, to commemorate the brutal Battle of Kosovo, during which Serbia was defeated by Ottoman troops in 1389, which marked the beginning of 500 years of occupation under the Ottoman Empire. Retributive justice has ruled the thinking and actions of US political and military leaders since 9/11. When the so-called War on Terror was declared, the US government at the time introduced a number of policies that had nothing to do with it, such as the invasion of Iraq, a country that played no role in 9/11, under the misguided pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Not long after 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed and it continues to infringe the individual freedoms of US citizens. The practices supported by the Patriot Act were then expanded overseas, not only to civilian populations but also to foreign leaders, until the Edward Snowden case erupted and brought chaos and shame to Washington. Indonesia was also affected by the policy through the actions taken by US allies in Asia Pacific, such as Australia. In addition, individuals suspected of being terrorists were imprisoned, and many were held without charge or due process in Guantanamo Bay. “Enhanced interrogation methods” (torture) were rampantly carried out there. Furthermore, assaults using drones have been launched in since 2008 in countries suspected of plotting terrorist acts. One estimate stated that around 2,000 people had been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere by drone attacks. Hence, the recent brutal and ugly killing of two US journalists by Islamic State (IS) militants - even the emergence of IS — have been cited by many as byproducts of the US’ belligerent behavior. After 13 years, the 9/11 tragedy has impacted not only the US but also the world, including Indonesia. It has changed many of our lives. Excessive security checks at airports, buildings and shopping malls constitute one of the more noticeable impacts of 9/11. We detest and condemn all acts of terrorism, but it is crucial that we handle them with care and prevent them from giving birth to yet more terrorism. As the saying goes, violence to fight terrorism breeds violence. ●

An apology, forgiveness and reconciliation Benny YP Siahaan  ;   A consul of the Indonesian Consulate General in New York

JAKARTA POST,  12 Maret 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                                                                             

I was recently invited to give an introduction to the screening of the documentary film, The Act of Killing, at the Queens World Film Festival in New York, which was followed by a lively discussion moderated by Don Cato, the festival’s codirector. The film is basically an enactment of the killing of alleged Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) supporters by those portrayed as the executors of the 1965 incident, particularly the aging Anwar Congo, whose emotional conflict was dug into carefully by the director and who became the jewel of this film. The other theme is the vilification of youth group Pemuda Pancasila (PP), which is depicted as a thuggish organization supported directly and indirectly by certain political elites. The director, Joshua Oppenheimer, seemed to want to make the impression that corrupt politicians and impunity are rampant in Indonesia, and that the issue of 1965 is buried and is still a taboo topic in Indonesia, hence, the Indonesian codirector and the crew are credited as anonymous due to safety reasons. Foreign viewers with a limited background in Indonesian current affairs may be misled by the director’s dramatization. My above assumptions, however, were not proven during the discussion. The audience expressed confusion with the storyline, particularly the background of 1965’s political upheaval, and asked whether PP members were the only perpetrators. The audience was more surprised when they were told the topic was openly discussed in Indonesia, people were allowed to organize events for remembrance and homage, and the victims today could even write books from their own perspective — something unthinkable under former president Soeharto’s regime. The worry for the Indonesian crew’s safety is surely not from a government threat but perhaps from the PP, which was demonized in this film. The threat to safety maybe also stems from an ethical issue — Anwar has said he felt cheated by the director in being cajoled to film the reenactment of the PP’s heroism in purging communism for Oppenheimer’s PhD focus. Apart from these issues, the most pertinent question is what is the impact of this film on Indonesia, particularly in terms of its contribution to resolving past human rights abuses? Though not offering a solution, the film adds flavor to the national debate on how the government should deal with past human rights abuses, including the 1965 incident. Nothing more, nothing less. Although there is no fixed model to follow, theoretically there are two plausible approaches: retributive justice and restorative justice. Empirically, retributive justice demanding the prosecution and punishment of all past violations has kept society away from moving to the next step in regime change. On the other hand, South Africa is well known as a successful example of the restorative justice approach through its truth and reconciliation commission. Indonesia introduced a law on its own truth and reconciliation commission in 2004, but it was annulled by the Constitutional Court in 2006 after a judicial review request by several human rights NGOs as some of its provisions were considered to have violated the Constitution. The revised law is being finalized. The other components of restorative justice involve apologies and forgiving. In 2003, Charles Hauss opined that apology and forgiveness were two sides of the same emotional coin and were constructive ways of achieving reconciliation. Without a sincere apology and forgiveness, the parties involved will be trapped in the past and will create barriers to achieving reconciliation. In 2000, former president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid apologized to the victims of 1965 on behalf of Pemuda Ansor, the youth wing of the largest Islamic organization Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), for its involvement in the 1965 episode. However, the apology became controversial since it was not well received by the victims, which was due to misperceptions that an apology was a way to forget the past. In many horizontal conflicts, atrocities are committed by both sides, hence there is a need for all parties to make apologies and give forgiveness. However, since sometimes conflicts are asymmetric, the obligation to apologize is on the shoulders of those considered the “winners” or who gained more power. Due to the complexity of human rights issues, the Indonesian political elite is still divided over the necessity for the government to apologize for past abuses, including the 1965 killings. One argument is that giving an apology would open a Pandora’s box and the possibility of the apology being rejected by victims, as in the case of Gus Dur. Nonetheless, there are lessons to be drawn from other countries. Japan has not conclusively apologized for past crimes, mainly concerning the “comfort women” and thus still receives censure from aging victims and their offspring. Germany and the late Pope John Paul II made their respective apologies for the persecution and killing of the Jews, the latter for failing to speak out against the killings. On the other hand, an act of forgiveness is also important in reaching reconciliation. Indeed, in a discussion in 2012 that I attended at the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) on the 1965 incident, the speaker — Gen. (ret) Agus Widjojo — an enlightened and reformist general whose father was killed by PKI supporters in 1965, eloquently made a powerful call to the victims among the participants to look forward, since there were victims on both sides. Hence, forgiving is just as important as apologizing. Should a society wish to not to dwell too much on its past, victims should try to open their hearts to forgive those who victimized them, even though the pain and suffering would never totally disappear. Indeed, making apologies and granting forgiveness are essential in any long-term resolution in dealing with past human rights abuses. Without them, it is all but impossible to achieve reconciliation and lasting peace. A worthy effect of The Act of Killing is that is should contribute to the process of reconciliation through expediting the passing of a stronger law on truth and reconciliation, an apology from the government and sincere forgiveness from the victims. These will help us reach true reconciliation. Of course forgiveness is not an effort to forget the past abuse. Reparation and remembrance are also keys to guarantee a non-repeat of similar events in the future. All the above are worth trying. ●

The global fight against human trafficking Benny YP Siahaan  ;   A foreign service officer based in New York

JAKARTA POST,  24 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                         

                                                                                                                       

Sparked by the interview with Shandra Woworuntu in Agence France-Presse on Jan. 31, the issue of human trafficking became news again in Indonesia, with Shandra revealing herself as a survivor of human trafficking in the United States. Just on Dec. 31, President Barack Obama had proclaimed January as a month of campaigning against modern slavery and human trafficking. A possible misunderstanding from the news reports on Shandra may have been that the Indonesian government was responsible for her fate, particularly its consulate in New York. Reports had said Shandra experienced difficulty in securing assistance at the consulate, however, a new passport was issued once she acquired a police notice on a missing document. A consulate member has said that the consular team had no information that Shandra was a victim of trafficking; the situation might have been different had they known.  Beyond the case of Shandra, a former financial analyst now lobbying for better foreign workers’ protection in the US, let’s look at what lies ahead in our fight against human trafficking. Indonesia only adopted the Human Trafficking Law in 2007 while the US enacted the law in October 2000. In comparison to 2001, Indonesian embassies and consulates abroad are more ready and well equipped to confront cases like Shandra’s. Since 2003, the Foreign Ministry established a special directorate that mainly focuses on protecting Indonesian citizens and establishments abroad. By 2008, through a presidential decree following the passing of the 2007 law on trafficking, a national task-force on human trafficking was established involving 19 ministries and national institutions like the police force and Attorney General’s Office. The strategies are not perfect but Indonesia is on right track. Aside from the current national strategies to combat human trafficking, eradicating poverty will also help prevent poor people from being trapped by criminal organizations. However, this case might not be applied to people like Shandra since she has a middle class background and is well educated. Thus, awareness of the danger of human trafficking is also of paramount importance. In this context, the 2013 US report on human trafficking, which ranked Indonesia in “Tier 2” in human trafficking efforts (of course, with the US in “Tier 1”), based on its Human and Violence Protection Act of 2000, is rather judgmental and does not help, as no country is immune to the issue. Human trafficking is an extraordinary crime. Hence, to eradicate it warrants extraordinary measures. Furthermore, due to its concealed nature, it is difficult to get the accurate number of victims. In many cases, the victim themselves are afraid or too ashamed to report their cases. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, although most states have signed and ratified the protocol on anti-trafficking, implementation remains problematic given the few convictions and the rare identification of and assistance to victims. The International Labor Organization also estimates that more than 21 million people worldwide are victims of trafficking, with women and children being the most vulnerable groups. Hence, only interstate cooperation and continuous improvement of national strategies to combat human trafficking, and not being judgmental to others, would positively contribute to the UN global campaign to eradicate human trafficking. Therefore, Shandra’s effort to lobby members of Congress in Washington DC to push a bill into a law obliging foreign worker recruiter companies in the US to be listed with the Department of Labor should be applauded and supported. As long as there is a loophole both in the source and receiving countries, human trafficking will continue to exist. ●

Quo Vadis, national human rights body?

Quo Vadis, national human rights body? Benny YP Siahaan ;  An Alumnus of Tsukuba University in Japan, Foreign Service Officer

JAKARTA POST, 28 Maret 2013

  

I attended the Human Rights Council’s panel discussion on the commemoration of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action’s (VDPA) 20th anniversary in Geneva on Feb. 25. The UN secretary-general participated through a video conference at the event that was formally opened by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. The VDPA is considered one of the most successful documents produced in human rights history aside from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It was adopted by consensus at the second World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993 and comprised a number of recommendations to states and relevant stakeholders, including encouragement for states to establish their own national human rights commissions. After 20 years, according to the UN, there are more than 100 national human rights commissions/institutions established worldwide, including in Indonesia which formed the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) in 1993. The question remains however just how effective those rights commissions are at promoting and protecting human rights.  Although its role and credibility was initially doubted since it was established by the Soeharto regime, during the course of its service Komnas HAM has gradually gained people’s respect and trust particularly from victims of rights abuses.  However, after the fall of Soeharto in 1998 specific national human rights institutions such as the national commission on women, children, etc, emerged, eroding Komnas HAM’s role, legitimacy and even relevance as the only quasi-state institution with a human rights promotion and protection mandate. Hence, the ongoing rift within Komnas HAM has been much anticipated although quite disappointing. In fact, criticisms of Komnas HAM have been mounting for, among other reasons, its lack of focus.  Instead of improving their performance in promoting and protecting human rights in the country, the current members are busy with trivial issues such as the rotating chairmanship and privileges.  This kind of situation in fact could have been detected in the lack of aspirants applying for Komnas HAM posts. As widely reported, only 19 people registered with the selection committee more than a year after the vacancies were announced. As the law requires the panel to propose at least 30 candidates, committee chairman Jimly Asshiddiqie appealed to a number of human rights activists to join the race.  Hence, here are some thoughts to help the commission address its problems. First and foremost the current rights commissioners should realize that Indonesia today has changed a lot from the time of Soeharto’s regime. The commissioners need to make themselves relevant in the current situation.  No doubt people still need Komnas HAM, but it needs review and adjustment. The commissioners should redefine their roles in relation to the government and judicial institutions and in their relation to other human rights groups since they now operate in a new setting and environment — a free and democratic Indonesia. Indeed, it was disturbing when I attended a discussion held by Komnas HAM recently focusing on its tasks and role. I was surprised when the commission’s research staff presented a kind of chart depicting Indonesia’s transition from autocracy to democracy but nothing in the chart said anything about Komnas HAM’s role during and after the transformation process. Surprisingly, the commissioners looked proud as if the chart was something original and timely.  In fact what they produced was nothing new and was even obsolete. It appears that it has taken them 14 years since reformation to realize their position. Consequently, the current commissioners should forget the good old days of the complaint-inspired approach during the Soeharto era to a program-oriented approach. Theoretically and empirically, national human rights commissions that devote their time to receiving complaints are rarely sustainable.  It does not mean they should not ignore complaints but rather the commissioners should use a thematic approach to enable them to focus their resources on areas of dire need.  In this regard they should be able to relate complaints to the general policies of their focus. More importantly they should not concentrate only on civil and political rights but also economic, social and cultural rights. In line with this thought, the commission requires qualified staff to support committed and independent commissioners. Up to now, the commissioners have been supported by government officials and sponsored staff.  There should be a mechanism to select only capable and independent staff. While for the commission line-up, a balanced composition of the membership based on backgrounds is pressing. It is good for the commission to have members who previously held government posts as it may help it deal with government institutions.  Indeed, Komnas HAM has a unique role in the protection of human rights since it bridges the government and civil society. The commission does not represent parties, which underlines its independence. Last but not least is the funding issue. With the flourishing number of national human rights institutions it is rather problematic for Komnas HAM to ask for its state budget allocation, let alone an increase, since the funds should be distributed to those other human rights institutions.  All in all, I believe Komnas HAM will remain relevant and able to perform effectively as long as it can quickly redefine and adjust its roles to the changing environment. Indeed, empirically national human rights bodies like Komnas HAM can work effectively when they operate within a functioning democratic environment.  Other than that, I don’t think we need another World Conference on Human Rights to solve the anomaly of Komnas HAM. ●