The International People’s Tribunal declared Indonesia guilty of crimes against humanity related to the 1965 genocide, estimating 400,000 to 600,000 deaths. The tribunal’s findings have global implications, challenging Indonesia’s claims of handling internal affairs and identifying international complicity in the violence. Recent responses from Indonesian officials indicate a shift in discourse surrounding these events, affecting current political climate and expectations for governmental accountability.
The International People’s Tribunal (IPT) on Indonesia’s mass violence, despite lacking legal authority, holds significant moral and political influence. On July 20, 2016, a video featuring judge Zak Yacoob presenting the tribunal’s findings was broadcast across multiple global locations including Jakarta, Amsterdam, and Melbourne, while also being made available on its website. Originally, the Tribunal planned to hold a live event in Jakarta; however, concerns regarding Indonesia’s crackdown on alleged Communist Party revival made it too dangerous.
The IPT determined that Indonesia had committed crimes against humanity, which included the mass killings of 400,000 to 600,000 individuals who were either associated with the Communist Party or opponents of President Sukarno. Other violations included forced disappearances, sexual violence, and hate propaganda. Such acts violate international law, including the Rome Statute and Indonesia’s own Human Rights Law No. 26 of 2000.
The tribunal’s findings challenge Indonesia’s claims that these historical atrocities are solely domestic issues. The judges classified the events as genocide, indicating an extermination of a national group with profound social ramifications. This categorization obligations global nations to prevent and penalize such actions, regardless of context.
Historically, the global response during the mass killings was notably passive, with Western nations tacitly approving the actions of the Indonesian military. Reports from embassies and foreign journalists highlighted the brutality of the massacres, with one journalist comparing it to infamous genocides. The judges evaluated the complicity of states like the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, concluding these governments were knowledgeable about the killings and provided support to Indonesian forces, including aid and propaganda.
Research is ongoing in various countries to determine the extent of awareness and complicity during the genocide; however, the IPT has no means to enforce penalties or initiate legal repercussions. Nonetheless, it remains significant politically and morally. The Indonesian Government and those of the implicated countries declined to participate in the hearings, underscoring the blot on the integrity of the international order.
The IPT’s findings have already influenced Indonesian political discourse. Minister Luhut Panjaitan’s defensive response and the subsequent organization of a national symposium enabled victims to share their experiences publicly for the first time. However, this also reignited military efforts against the perceived resurgence of the Communist Party. The expectation now lies on President Joko Widodo to address these historical events in his upcoming national address, aligning with his campaign promise to confront the aftermath of 1965.
The International People’s Tribunal has shed light on Indonesia’s historical atrocities, labeling them as crimes against humanity and genocide. This underscores the necessity for international accountability regarding such acts. While the tribunal cannot impose sanctions, its findings and the moral weight they carry create a framework for ongoing dialogue about past injustices and the need for acknowledgment and potential reconciliation. The actions of the Indonesian government in response to these findings will be pivotal in shaping future political dynamics.
Original Source: www.newmandala.org
