Censorship...

This is something I have seen around the traps a number of times. However, the most recent sighting of it has been over at my good friend the Treespotter's work-related blog, (you can find it here) and his blog is well worth a visit or ten.

Censorship is something that rears its ugly head every now and then in just about all countries.

Indonesia has had a recent bout with censorship relating to the screening of the film Balibo. This bout of censorship failed miserably as some organizations defied the ban. The ban has really been a bit of a non-event because pirated copies of the film are readily available in just about every roadside stall that sells disks.

Australia is also under the censorship gun as the government seeks to legislate internet filters that are supposedly designed to prevent certain types of nasty information and sites from every seeing the light of day in the land downunder. Unfortunately, those in the know have shown how silly this piece of legislation is as the filters are easily bypassed by using proxy servers that 10-year-olds can master. A bit fraudulent in that sense seeing the claim of the government is that this legislation and filters are needed to protect our children from the seedy side of the internet.

Oh well. Enjoy the picture!

The "People" Want "Balibo" Banned...

It was hardly surprising that the Indonesian Censorship Board (Lembaga Sensor Film / LSF) slapped a ban on the film Balibo. The film tells the story of five journalists killed in Balibo while covering the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. It also tells that story from the perspective of Roger East (who was ultimately murdered on the docks of Dili) and Jose Ramos Horta.

A good review of the film can be found over at Patrick Guntensperger's blog.

The film portrays the killings of the five journalists as murder. The cold hard reality was that they were executed. Any story to the contrary that the five were innocently caught in the cross-fire between Indonesian and Fretilin forces is just that, a story.

It is probably worth noting that the NSW Coroner's Court found enough evidence to forward the matter to the Australian Federal Police for a War Crimes Investigation.

But this post is not about rehashing the "facts" of the event. Rather it is about the amusing statement from the current Chief of the Army, General George Toisutta, who argues that the LSF decision to ban the film equates to the voices of the Indonesian public being heard. Simply, Indonesians across the board want the film to be banned.

I am not quite sure how the Indonesian people have spoken on this one in regards to voicing the opinion that the film must be banned. The simple fact that it has been banned means that most of the Indonesian populace has not had the opportunity to see it yet in order to formulate an opinion on it.

However, it has to be noted that banning a film in Indonesia does not have the same effect as it used to. Video piracy ensures that almost any film is available, if you look hard enough, and normally before it "opens" in Indonesian theatres. Word on the street is that Balibo is already freely available from road-side vendors of the latest films.

Furthermore, the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Aliansi Journalis Independen / AJI) have already screened the film for a select few, 300 or so to be a little more precise.

When it is all said and done, this is a film. It is an interpretation of historical events that clearly runs counter to what the Indonesian government have told their people about the incident.

However, banning the film ensures that it stays in the public conscience. A ban tends to increase the popularity of a film. The ban is sure to have people wanting to see it in order to see what the government is so committed to preventing them from seeing. And, more than anything else, the film is unlikely to seriously harm relations between Indonesia, Timor Leste, and Australia at the people to people level. The only harm that may befall these relationships are on the political level as desperate politicians seek to ground out some cheap political points on their rivals.

It is funny in that really sad kind of a way that the Indonesian government does not believe her citizens to be intellectually capable of digesting this film and making decisions on its content in rational ways. The government, once again, is severely underestimating the maturity of the Indonesian community as a whole.

The Balibo Five -- Now That He Is PM...

Now that Kevin Rudd has graduated from Opposition Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, to leader of the Opposition, and now to Prime Minister is the Prime Minister going to follow through to its logical conclusion his previous statements relating to the Balibo Five.

The Prime Minister is on the record making statements with respect to the findings of the NSW Deputy Coroner, Dorelle Pinch, late in 2007. The Deputy State Coroner had found that the Balibo Five had been intentionally murdered and not killed in the cross-fire as claimed by Indonesian officials. Pinch then went on to forward the file to the Attorney General with a recommendation that at least two individuals, Christoforus Da Silva and Captain Yunus Yosfiah, be indicted and prosecuted for the commission of war crimes.

Yosfiah was a Captain at the time, but he went on to make the rank of Major General and became the Minister of Communication in the Habibe Government. He stands accused of being the man responsible for issuing the kill orders and he was the ranking officer on the scene at the time.

So, what did the now PM say when he was not PM?

"This is a very disturbing conclusion by the Coroner concerning the fate of the Balibo Five back in 1975." And "I believe this has to be taken through to its logical conclusion. I also believe those responsible should be held to account." Well, with the findings of the Deputy State Coroner in the hands of the Attorney General do you think that the PM has come out and made a public pronouncement that the Attorney General has been instructed to draw up the indictments, issue the arrest warrants, liaise with Interpol, and contact the Indonesian government about arresting the alleged perpetrators for prosecution. No way!

However, this may change if the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) makes a recommendation that an indictment must be issued. The ball will then be firmly in the court of the Attorney General and the PM to ante up and bite the bullet one way or the other.

The reason this never became huge news in Indonesia is that the Indonesian government does not believe that Australia has the courage of its convictions to pursue this and risk good bilateral relations with Indonesia. This is at a time where the rumor and innuendo is that the PM as a result of his past as a Diplomat in China and his Mandarin skills is promoting Australia's relationship with China in preference to any ongoing relationship with Indonesia. This was not entirely unexpected and in any event even the PM would have to acknowledge that the relationship with Indonesia is an important one.

The PM has allegedly been a staunch supporter of maintaining ties with the Indonesian military even when almost every one else was moving away from any kind of relationship. This has some negative implications as to whether the PM will have the testicular fortitude to follow through on his earlier statements that the Balibo Five case should be followed through to its logical conclusion, which to my mind is prosecution!

The Lombok Security Treaty of 2006 covers issues of law enforcement and the Extradition Treaty covers the matter of moving a person or persons for prosecution. The recent discussion on prisoner transfer are likely to bear fruit in the future and allow for the transfer of prisoners between Indonesia and Australia for the purposes of those prisoners serving out their respective sentences in their own land! The point here though is to highlight that any agreement imposes rights and obligations on both parties to the agreement. These rights and obligations must be lived up to if the agreements are to ever be truly effective.

The real test comes when an indictment is handed down and arrest warrants are issued. These issues will only intensify once an extradition request is lodged. Indonesia, as could Australia if the circumstances were reversed, refuse the extradition application. However, there would be a requirement that the Indonesian court system prosecute the matter. If the final and binding outcomes of the trials that resulted from the violence in Timor Leste in 1999 is any precursor to the outcome, then the trials will be a whitewash and no convictions are likely. This would be a very unsavoury end to a very unsavoury incident.

The reality is that two nation States, both democracies, must be able to overcome their differences on this matter and prosecute the alleged perpetrators. If the defendants are not guilty then let the process determine that. Equally, if they are then let the process determine that as well. If Australia does move down this path then it is likely to see considerable support come from other States seeking a resolution to this.

Indonesia should not see this as offering up some sacrificial lamb to the west, although this is how it will be portrayed, but rather as a means of showing to the world that Indonesia is serious about redressing the wrongs of the past, that it is a maturing democracy, and that it is prepared to deal with these matters as a member of the international community. This admittedly would be considerably easier if the States making the claims that Indonesia step up to the plate had spotless records themselves (but that is another post for another time)!

Australian & Indonesian Relations

Trying to escape the past is never easy and anyone who thinks it is should look at the recent findings of the NSW Deputy State Coroner in the inquest examining the deaths of five journalists in Balibo (Timor Leste) in 1975. It may have been some 32 years ago, but wilful killing is wilful killing and to tolerate it lessens us as human beings and to try and justify it must expose us for our lack of humanity and desire for justice.

The findings will not provide closure to any of the parties concerned and neither does Indonesia's insistence that the case has been closed and there is nothing to revisit in the matter mean that the case is in fact closed. To the contrary, the findings by the coroner provide a means of proceeding to formal charges of the perpetrators of the alleged crimes. Interestingly, the crimes have been characterized as being international war crimes and as such this means that the issue of universal jurisdiction arises.

The language of the findings was blunt and state that the killings were wilful and not in the heat of battle, suggesting a deliberateness and premeditation that would be a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. The coroner has stated in unequivocal terms that the five newsmen "were shot and or stabbed deliberately, and not in the heat of battle."

Now that the findings have been handed-down it will be a diplomatic challenge for the Australian government to handle the fall out, irrespective of whether the reigns of Australian government change from Liberal/National to Labor on 24 November 2007. Nevertheless, the Labor Party has upped the ante, so to speak, with the Party leader suggesting that not only are the allegations and findings serious but that a Labor government would allow war crimes prosecutions to proceed.

Even though Australia has not prosecuted under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions directly, it has though prosecuted under domestic legislation that has relied on the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and other international legal instruments.

However, the problem is not only Australian here as there will now clearly be a ratcheting-up of pressure on the Indonesian government to be more serious in its approach to seeing justice done for alleged abuses of the past. Particularly, there will be pressure to see that any truth and reconciliation or friendship commissions do not provide blanket immunities for perpetrators of alleged human rights abuses.

An Indonesian fear that this may just be a precursor to more international trials is reasonable. But, from a justice perspective; you do the crime you need to do the time. In other words these are allegations that need to be tested in a court of law and not only in the court of public opinion. we cannot let bygones be bygones in this case because if the evidence that arose in the coronial inquiry suggests that there is a case to answer here. Nevertheless, Australian government officials have already begun to suggest that the findings are the first step in a long road that will take considerable time.

In terms of prosecutions, the most recognizable of the alleged perpetrators is Yunus Yosfiah, a former general and one-time government Minister for Information. The givers of the orders Moerdani and Kalbuadi are dead so prosecutions are not possible against them. Yet, the Indonesian government seems confident that the not is the case closed, but that the Australian government will tread very carefully in pursuing any action in this case.

Despite the insistence from both sides that the coroner's findings will not rock the boat it is premature to say this with any conviction. Right now with the only issue being the findings, then this may be true; the boat will sway a little but it will not rock! Yet, if the Australian Federal Police pursue further investigations and this matter then proceeds to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, then the little sway may soon develop into a full-scale rocking of the boat.

It would not be long before Commission I of the Indonesian House of Representatives and other members of the community started a call to suspend diplomatic relations with Australia. Will Australian and Indonesian relations survive an attempt to bring this matter forward to prosecution, probably, but there will be certainly elevated levels of tension for the duration.

The wait continues!