FPIF Commentary |
Obama: Stand Up to the Indonesian Military
John M. Miller | December 4, 2008
Editor: John Feffer
|


|
|
|
According to some pundits, U.S. reengagement with the largely unreformed and unrepentant Indonesian military is the best way to promote reform and human rights. The Wall Street Journal Asia, for instance, called on President-elect Barack Obama "to stand down liberal senators and interest groups" for seeking conditions on military assistance to Indonesia. "Indonesia's military has certainly had human rights problems in the past," the editorial states, but urges the incoming administration to forget about them in the name of building an alliance on the "global war on terror."
The Obama administration and incoming 111th Congress should indeed change course on Indonesia. It should put human rights at the forefront of U.S. policy. This would contribute more to encouraging democratic reform and human rights accountability in the world's largest Muslim-majority country than any amount of military training or weapons. Indonesians who view the military as a chief roadblock to greater reform will be grateful.
History Lessons
In 1965, when U.S.-Indonesia ties were the closest, General Suharto seized power and, according to scholars, the Indonesian government killed up to one million people in the coup's aftermath. Earlier, Indonesia took over West Papua in 1963, leaving up to 100,000 dead. In 1975, with explicit U.S. support, Indonesia invaded East Timor, resulting in another 100,000-200,000 dead. Some 90% of the weapons used in the invasion and subsequent occupation came from the United States. These are the lessons the Indonesian military learned from unfettered U.S. military assistance.
The only period of significant reform came when the United States actually suspended much assistance during the 1990s. Chief among the changes were the end of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998. After he was driven from office, East Timor became independent (the Indonesian military's destructive exit from the country led for a time to a full cutoff of all military assistance). In the late 1990s, the military gave up a few prerogatives, including its seats in parliament. But since the United States began incrementally to reinstate military assistance in 2002, the reform process has stalled.
By 2005, the Bush administration reinstated nearly all military assistance and has since sought further expanded ties through training of the Kopassus, the notorious special forces unit responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in East Timor, West Papua, Aceh, and elsewhere. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) have opposed lifting this final hurdle to unrestricted military engagement. They have called for following existing law barring training of military units with histories of human rights crimes where those responsible have not been brought to justice. If that provision has any meaning, it must apply to the Kopassus.
Reengagement has failed to end the widespread impunity enjoyed by Indonesia's security forces for crimes against humanity and other serious violations committed in East Timor and Indonesia. Rather, reengagement has emboldened the military's continued resistance to civilian control and persistent emphasis on internal security. The Indonesian military continues to resist attempts to dismantle its "territorial command" system, which allows it to exert influence over politics, commerce, and justice down to the village level. Finally, efforts to implement a law ending the military's involvement in business have degenerated into farce, and it remains involved in a variety of illegal enterprises, including logging and narcotics trade.
Several retired generals responsible for some of the worst atrocities in East Timor are serious candidates for president in next year's elections. General Wiranto is perhaps the best known after coming in third in the 2004 presidential campaign. A UN-sponsored court in East Timor indicted Wiranto for crimes against humanity for his role as top commander of the military during the bloodletting of 1999. Former Kopassus commander (and Suharto son-in-law) Prabowo Subianto is another credible presidential candidate. A third potential candidate, Lt. General Sutiyoso, was a member of a unit that, according to an Australian coroner's report, murdered five foreign journalists after they crossed the Timorese border a few months prior to Indonesia's full-scale invasion.
Current Abuses
Human rights violations are not just a matter of history. In West Papua, with Indonesian military protection, the U.S.-based Freeport Mining Company has destroyed the environment, livelihoods, and culture of the local people while making billions off the largest goldmine in the world. Just this year, the Indonesian government punished the protests of Papuan people demanding self-determination and greater voice with harsh reprisals, including long prison terms, torture, and the death of at least one bystander.
In May 2007, Indonesian marines killed four civilians and wounded eight in a land dispute between villagers and the Indonesian navy in Pasuruan, East Java. According to The International Herald Tribune, "The marines were tried by a military tribunal but ultimately sentenced to just 18 months in prison. The marine station's relationship with the plantation company was never investigated, nor were any of the station's officers. The land dispute remains unresolved."
As in the past, the current U.S. administration downplays these and other human rights violations, while celebrating its reinvigorated institutional partnership with Indonesia's security forces. Military assistance flowing to Indonesia has yet to reach the levels of the Suharto years. The United States has funded coastal radars, supplied spare parts, and urged the Indonesians to prepare a military wish list. Earlier this year, the Indonesian Air Force sought F-16 fighters and C-130 Hercules transport planes. For 2008, foreign military finance funding jumped to $15.7 million from only one million dollars two years earlier. For now, an Indonesian budget crunch and a lingering wariness bred of past restrictions on assistance have limited Indonesia's willingness to buy substantial stocks of new weapons.
Meanwhile, the number of Indonesian students in the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program is increasing. IMET was the first military assistance program that Congress restricted in the early 1990s. Indonesia was a major beneficiary of the Regional Defense Counterterrorism Fellowship Program, created soon after the September 11 attacks to circumvent the IMET ban on Indonesia and other countries. Joint military exercises have covered counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, among other topics. However, the Indonesian police, not the military, tracked down and arrested those responsible for a series of bombings in Bali and Jakarta in 2002 and 2003. The Indonesian military tolerates and, more ominously, continues to back militias and vigilante groups that intimidate civilians, particularly those in ethnic, religious, and political minorities.
Ultimately, the size of the military assistance package may not matter. The United States had restricted aid as a means to build pressure for human rights accountability and reform. Now that Indonesia is eligible for unrestricted aid, its military can assume those issues no longer matter to their once and future patron.
A New Era with Obama?
President-elect Obama has described U.S. engagement in Indonesia, where he lived as a child, as less than positive. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that "for the past sixty years the fate of [Indonesia] has been directly tied to U.S. foreign policy." This policy included "the tolerance and occasional encouragement of tyranny, corruption, and environmental degradation when it served our interests." In his earlier book Dreams from My Father, Obama writes of Suharto's bloody seizure of power: "The death toll was anybody's guess: a few hundred thousand, maybe, half a million. Even the smart guys at the [CIA] had lost count."
Based on these early positions, Obama is quite conscious of the problems with the Indonesian military. While in the Senate, he rarely spoke about these issues.
Indonesian advocates have called on Obama and Congress to pressure Indonesia's government to respect human rights. Rafendi Djamin, coordinator of the Human Rights Watch Working Group, acknowledged the U.S.'s past "huge role in pushing for rights advocacy in Indonesia… I have seen that during the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is still concerned with Indonesia's democratization and human rights advocacy, but Bush has rarely given a direct warning of the importance of human rights advocacy."
Djamin said in the Jakarta Post, "We are now expecting Obama to put more pressure on Indonesia to resolve unfinished human rights cases by directly questioning the government about them and by addressing their importance." Another advocate said that "if Indonesia does not respond positively to U.S. pressure…the U.S. would reinstate its military embargo against us."
East Timor's official Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation, after examining in detail the impact of Indonesian occupation and destructive withdrawal on the East Timorese, called on countries to make military assistance to Indonesia "totally conditional on progress towards full democratisation, the subordination of the military to the rule of law and civilian government, and strict adherence with international human rights."President Obama and the next Congress should follow that recommendation.
John M. Miller is the national coordinator of the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.
|

|
|
|
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.
Recommended citation:
John M. Miller, "Obama: Stand Up to the Indonesian Military" (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, December 4, 2008).
Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/5717
Production Information:
Author(s): John M. Miller
Editor(s): John Feffer
Production: Jen Doak |
|
Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment.
Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not
corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are
rejected. |
| |
| Name: |
Eric Palmer |
Date: Dec 04, 2008 |
| That was a good read. Note all the Russian arms Indonesia is getting that don't come with those inconvenient human rights qualifications. |
|
| Name: |
Ari Tamat |
Date: Dec 05, 2008 |
| I disagree that engagement per se has been a failure. Not wanting to sound shrill, but the US military and intelligence under Bush has not exactly been a shining beacon of human rights. The US is seen as hyprocritical, and that is why I think the efforts, if any, to change the Indonesian military's behavior through the engagement and aid programs under Bush have been ineffective. I do agree with Mr. Djamin: Obama is a widely respected and liked figure in Indonesia. A few persuasive words directed at the right people would be far more productive, more so if he can offer increases in military aid (a 'carrot'). Maybe Mr. Miller and other groups can at the same time lobby Congress for suspension (highly unlikely under the Obama administration, but a 'stick' nevertheless). But a re-suspension of aid alone will not solve the problem. |
|
| Name: |
Kobe Oser, The Netherlands |
Date: Dec 07, 2008 |
| Please consider the break-away of West Papua/ Melanesia from Indonesia through Self determination as simple mathematics by executing the following formula:
1. The original 1945 Proklamasi Sukarno-Hatta was from “A till A” (Atjeh till Ambon), did NOT include West Papua. Because on that same day in 1945, according to the 1944 Atlantic Charter, West Papua tribal leaders led by Marcus Wonggor Kaisiëpo, issued a statement in Kota Nica to RADEN Colonel AbdulKadir Widojojoatmodjo of the NICA (Netherlands-Indies Civil Administration) which was governing West Papua. The message was simple: “West Papua Melanesia would determine its own future and therefore will NEVER be a part of the new Indonesian republic”.
As from that moment any historical claim of Indonesia on West Papua is not funded as this 1945 statement widely expressed the Will of the West Papua people. On this basis the 1947 Canberra Agreement between Pacific States and western states (U.S., Netherlands, France, Ireland Australia, N-Zealand) was signed, recognizing West Papua as a Nation and recognizing it’s Melanesian territorial borders and establishing the South Pacific Commission. As from that moment West Papua leaders attended the plenary sessions of the SPC.
So Indonesia is living in denyal by considering West Papua as an internal question and within it’s own territorial integrity, as Indonesia is ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING the undisputed territorial Melanesian borders of West Papua ever since 1963. Underlining this illegal basis, Indonesia prooved its democratic INCAPACITY by renaming West Papua several times, divide and conquer- politics, and keeping the world opinion happy by demonstrating democracy by issueing autonomy legislation in 2000, which still has to be implemented. And on top of this, issueing new legislation in 2006, dividing provinces, undermining its own 2001 autonomy law.
Indonesia’s failing attempts for democracy is illustrated with the banning of showing the West Papua Morningstar flag in public, which’s freely expression was adopted in 2001 by the Indonesian parlement under president Wahid.
2. The revenues of West Papua’s natural resources and wealth (gold, copper nickel, oil& gas, wood) are feeding the economy of the failed democratic state Indonesia. West Papua is Indonesia’s guarantee for economic survival and to avoid bankruptcy of the failed democratic Indonesian state.
See link: http://www.fcx.com/operations/grascomplx.htm
3. According to the Pax Americana doctrine, the Kennedy Administration handed over West Papua in 1962 to Indonesia. Whenever USA’s interest & profits (Laskar Jihad-muslim thread to Christianic Papuans,natural resources revenues) is endangered, the USA will strike Indonesia for its benefit (see cases of Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq). So in despite of the brutal and corrupt Indonesian Generals regime and its atrocities (i.e., the denying of UNAIDS& other HELP-organisations country entrance in aiding HIV-infected Papuans), the US will take back West Papua by re-implementing the 1962 New York Agreement to its merites under the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24), inorder to maintain the Pax Americana Worldpeace.
See link: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128/index.htm
See link: http://www.house.gov/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/enionwestpapua.html
See link: http://www.house.gov/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/enipayneltrtosusilo.html
It is a Long Way to Go Never Give Up / Persevero !
Insjah Allah / Na Kores Ra Refo
Setia Djudjur Mesra / Trouw, Eerlijk, Innig Verbonden
Kind regards,
Kobe Oser/ Unity
kobe_oser@hotmail.com |
|
| Name: |
EC Larson |
Date: Dec 11, 2008 |
| Mr. Miller's commentary above seemingly accepts the common conservative vision of international relations: if they don't do what we want, we need to punish them by denying them something. As progressive as Mr. Miller's attitude is about human rights (which I cannot argue with), I take issue with the idea that military disengagement will "teach" the Indonesian military a lesson.
On the contrary, until the US has built an adequate civilian capacity for nation-to-nation engagement in rule of law, economic reform, and general development, the US military will remain the US' best, and only, option for engagement and influence with Indonesia's military elites. When military equipment sales are tied to a robust, long-term training and advising program by the US military, it presents a unique opportunity for the US to assess the progress the Indonesian military is making toward respect for human rights. As part of US contact with the Indonesia military (through training events, some linked to specific equipment), the US routinely emphasizes some aspect of the US human rights agenda, sometimes by just having a US soldier talking to his Indonesian counterpart about daily life in their respective militaries. In coordination with the US Embassy's overall message, a well-placed comment by a US soldier can have an impact on today's and tomorrow's Indonesian officers and soldiers.
Long-term (so we can monitor individual and unit progress on human rights training and practice), concerted (so all elements of the USG, including military, law enforcement, political, and economic, are promoting the same message of respect for human rights), and disciplined (so we stick to the plan and don't get sidetracked by setbacks) engagement with Indonesia is our best hope to actually affect change, and monitor progress. Simply stated, when we lack direct contact with the Indonesia military, we lose our ability to influence from both the inside and outside.
On this, Mr. Miller and I can agree - the Obama administration must be more creative with how we engage Indonesia on a host of issues. To do that, his people will have to find ways of linking things like military sales to larger plans to influence the Indonesia military. The Bush administration's (and, frankly, most US lawmakers') biggest mistake was never seeing beyond the first order effects to realize engagement and influence is not about carrots and sticks. It's about planting seeds, pulling weeds, and harvesting fruits we can share with friends. |
|
| |
| You may add a new comment here. It will not appear on this page until it has been approved by the moderator. |
| |
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.
|
|
|
|