September 30, 2015, marks the 50th anniversary of the events commonly known as the September 30 Movement (G30S)—or, as it was initially called, the October 1 Movement (Gestok)—because the events took place in the early hours of the morning. There are many versions regarding who the actual perpetrators were and what their intended goals were. What is certain, however, is that the events of that night triggered a chain of events that caused suffering for many Indonesian citizens—ironically, most of whom had no connection to the events of that night. In terms of scale, location, and the number of victims, the G30S incident and its aftermath must be recognized as the greatest crime against humanity ever to occur in this country. Stigmatization has even continued to be perpetuated—particularly by the New Order regime—as a means of consolidating power. It persists even in this democratic era as a tactic to subdue political opponents.
The crimes against humanity committed on September 30 and their aftermath were followed by a long list of gross human rights violations that occurred throughout the New Order era. These past gross human rights violations remain a historical burden as long as they are not thoroughly addressed. All post-Suharto regimes have promised to resolve all cases of gross human rights violations fairly. Judicial mechanisms are also in place through Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Courts. However, what has actually occurred is a systematic effort to entrench impunity (unpunished crimes) for the perpetrators of these gross human rights violations. A number of cases that have been tried in court—such as the Tanjung Priuk, East Timor, and Abepura cases, as well as the murder of the late Munir—have resulted in acquittals. Judicial mechanisms have merely served as a fig leaf to whitewash the involvement of those responsible for human rights violations. In the Munir case, although the on-the-ground perpetrators were convicted and later released, the judicial system failed to uncover the masterminds behind the incident.
The election of Joko Widodo (Jokowi) initially brought hope for the resolution of past human rights violations, as Jokowi promised to fairly investigate past incidents of gross human rights violations. That hope grew stronger when the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs and the Attorney General took the initiative to begin establishing a mechanism for resolving past human rights violations. However, that initiative deviated from Jokowi’s intentions as outlined in the Nawacita. Even in the 2015–2019 National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), the plan to investigate seven cases of past human rights violations was scaled back to merely establishing an Ad Hoc Commission for Truth and Victim Redress. Worse still, it turns out that the initiative by the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs and the Attorney General actually disregards truth-telling and instead relies on judicial mechanisms. The initiative will focus solely on reconciliation without a foundation of truth. Who will be invited to reconcile, who are the victims, and who are the perpetrators will never be identified. This approach will further obscure the question of who is actually intended to receive redress.
On September 30, the SETARA Institute reminded the public that past human rights violations were not limited to the seven cases often cited when discussing such violations, but extended beyond those seven cases. The seven cases are the 1965–1966 Events; the 1982–1985 Mysterious Shootings; the 1989 Talangsari-Lampung Case; the 1997–1998 Abductions and Enforced Disappearances of Activists; the May 1998 Riots; Trisakti, Semanggi I, and Semanggi II in 1998–1999; and Wasior-Wamena in 2001–2003. It should be noted that these seven cases have already been investigated by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) but have stalled at the Attorney General’s Office, which has been reluctant to conduct investigations, and at the presidential institution, which has neglected to establish an ad hoc human rights tribunal. Of these seven cases, one—the 1997–1998 Forced Disappearance of Activists case—is the most ready for trial because the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), when it still had the authority to determine a case’s status, had recommended the establishment of an ad hoc human rights court.
In addition to these cases, there are past gross human rights violations that also require resolution. The September 30 case is one of them. However, aside from the seven cases mentioned above, other cases first and foremost require the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) to conduct an investigation to establish the truth of the events. Only after Komnas HAM completes its investigation can the next steps be determined—whether to pursue judicial mechanisms or reconciliation mechanisms.
The SETARA Institute points out that reconciliation is the result of a truth-telling process, whether through judicial or non-judicial mechanisms. Therefore, it is a mistake for the Attorney General to assume that resolving past human rights violations can be achieved simply through a public apology by the government and unilateral reconciliation—inviting victims to meet, embrace one another, and forgive each other. For the Attorney General—and as believed by most circles within the Jokowi administration—addressing past human rights violations is merely a burden from the past and not a priority. Moreover, there are reportedly concerns among Jokowi’s supporters regarding his strong involvement in a number of past human rights violations.
Resolving past human rights violations is not merely a mandate of the reform era but a challenge for this nation as it looks to the future. Resolving past gross human rights violations is also a test of the nation’s resilience as a state governed by the rule of law. Article 1, paragraph 3, of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia clearly states that Indonesia is a state governed by the rule of law. Revealing past human rights violations will demonstrate that the law reigns supreme in the Republic of Indonesia. In the name of development priorities, the Jokowi administration may argue that its current priority is economic development, especially amid the uncertain global economic situation and financial markets. This argument is a way for Jokowi to evade his constitutional responsibility, which includes the obligation to resolve cases of gross human rights violations.
Regarding the G30S incident, the SETARA Institute emphasizes that regardless of the background of the incident, what actually occurred was a crime against humanity committed by the state against its own citizens. The state must treat these events the same as past human rights violations, and therefore needs to take concrete action. The SETARA Institute emphasizes that fulfilling the rights of the victims of the G30S events is not a form of amnesty for the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), as is often misinterpreted by many parties. Apologizing and restoring the rights of the 1965 victims is the state’s obligation. This is not for the PKI but for the citizens who became victims of past political tensions. Without a just resolution, these events will remain an ongoing historical burden.
It must be emphasized that an apology by the government on behalf of the state is an obligation that the state must fulfill as part of its duty to protect all its citizens. The state’s apology to the victims is an apology for its failure to protect its citizens in the past. A state apology should not be misconstrued as an apology to a specific group or institution. However, an apology does not absolve the state of its obligation to reveal the truth about an event and its obligation to restore the victims’ rights. An apology is a separate process from efforts to resolve past gross human rights violations.
It has been nearly a year since Jokowi took office. That is enough time to consolidate his administration. Now, Jokowi’s promises in the Nawacita must be clarified and put into action. Taking a pragmatic approach, as outlined in the RPJMN, Jokowi must immediately establish an Ad Hoc Commission for Truth and Restitution for Victims. This commission must be distinct from the steps taken by the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs and the Attorney General, who have merely drafted plans for apologies and victim restitution. The SETARA Institute proposes that this commission consist of community leaders with a strong commitment to humanity and human rights. They should not be representatives of various ministries or state institutions such as the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI), the Indonesian National Police (Polri), or the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), but rather independent and impartial figures. It is impossible for this body to be staffed by state actors, because under human rights law, the state is the primary perpetrator of human rights violations. The establishment of this commission also effectively disregards the long-standing recommendation to enact a Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, because since President Jokowi has already expressed his intention to resolve human rights violations, this step—taken through executive mechanisms—is more than sufficient without the need for a new law.
The Truth and Victims’ Redress Commission will operate on the premise that reconciliation is the outcome, result, of a truth-revealing process. Therefore, the Commission’s primary task is to uncover the truth and then recommend further steps—whether a case can be resolved through reconciliation or through the judicial system. For this reason, the Commission must be given a clear and strong mandate; it must not be merely another “laundry service” tasked with whitewashing past crimes.
The first tasks of this national commission are (a) to review all reports related to past human rights violations, including the preliminary reports already prepared by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), (b) to request that all public documents related to past human rights violations, including those related to the G30S incident, be made available to the public, including documents held by security and intelligence agencies, (c) to identify and compile a list of the names of perpetrators and victims in past human rights violations, (d) to prepare a report or a “white paper” (white paper) for each case of past human rights violations, which can then be accessed by the public and incorporated into history and civics education in schools.
Download Human Rights Violations Data.pdf*
(Compiled from various sources)