The State Administrative Court in Jakarta has rejected a petition by the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Aliansi Jurnalis Independen / AJI) to overturn the Indonesian Film Censorship Board (Lembaga Sensor Film / LSF) ban on the film Balibo. The story is told from the viewpoint of Roger East. Roger East was also murdered on the docks of Dili by Indonesia military forces.
The film says in its promotional material and trailer that it is based on a true story, and suggests in no uncertain terms that the five journalists (Greg Shackleton, Malcolm Rennie, Gary Cunningham, Brian Peters and Tony Stewart) that have come to be known was the Balibo Five were murdered by Indonesian forces invading East Timor.
Recent developments, including a coronial inquiry in the New South Wales Coroner's Court, found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with further investigations of the perpetrators for committing international crimes of a serious and grievous nature; a war crimes investigation.
In many respects, it is not surprising that the film was banned in the first place, nor is it at all surprising that the ban was upheld by the State Administrative Court. It is not rocket science to understand that there are some things in Indonesia's past that she would not want to revisit, and this is one of them.
It is worth noting that the Australian government is not jumping up and down wanting to know why the film is subject to a ban. This is not surprising either. It is not surprising because Australia was very much complicit in the invasion as it gave the green light for the Indonesians to go in and forcibly integrate Portuguese Timor into the Unitary State of Indonesia. It is also not surprising because it shows how little thought the government of the time gave to the safety of the five journalists on the ground or to Roger East.
Nevertheless, it is surprising that the State Administrative Court has seemingly been asleep at the wheel when it came to hearing the evidence and actually listening to the evidence put forward by the Legal Aid Foundation - Press, legal representatives, of AJI. The State Administrative Court has utilised provisions that were not argued and appear to be poor choices on which to base the decision to uphold the ban and reject the AJI petition. In an important case, such as this one, where there are implications for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which Indonesia supposedly guarantees, then the judges have a responsibility to get the law right.
On a side note, the film has already been screened in Indonesia despite the ban and no problems have been reported. Indonesian, Timorese, and Australia relations have not irretrievably broken down, there has not been mass rioting on the streets in the places where the film has been shown, and there has not been any inkling of the country degenerating into a state of anarchy. This suggests that, despite the Indonesian Censorship Board's concerns, Indonesian film viewers are more mature and critical of the material they watch than either the Government, the military, or the Censorship Board gives them credit for.
BE ADVISED THE VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC FOOTAGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES PERPETRATED BY THE MOBILE BRIGADE OF THE INDONESIAN NATIONAL POLICE FORCE. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.
I have had this for a few days (and the LA Times went with this story today) and the news relates to events that happened on 3 August 2009. I have been thinking whether I should post it and what I should say about it. I have 99 followers and average about 21 returning visitors every day (according to my statcounter). So, I am hardly a fountain of influence peddling information. If only I had the numbers that Perez Hilton has or the same number of Twitter followers that Ashton Kutchner has, then maybe what I post might influence opinion a little. But, I firmly believe that the flap of a butterfly's wings can cause a tornado at some point in the future. We must start somewhere, and maybe if each of us does a part we can, together, influence opinion and make the world a better place.
This post does not lend itself to a full expose of the litany of abuses perpetrated against the Papuan people since the integration of Papua into Indonesia in 1963 and the alleged act of free choice in 1969. However, it is important to note that there has been resistance to the integration into Indonesia.
It must also be pointed out that the Indonesian government still tightly controls access to the region. The lack of access by Indonesian human rights NGOs and Indonesian press leads to allegations that the Indonesian government is perpetrating crimes against the Papuans in order to stifle this dissent and eradicate it. It is time that the world took a stance on this issue and called the Indonesians to task. Nevertheless, it is also important that Indonesians themselves said, "enough is enough" and moved to bring their government to account for the ongoing atrocities occurring in Papua.
Perhaps, it is more important that Indonesians take a stand on the brutality being perpetrated against the Papuans as this then prevents the Indonesian government playing the "foreigner" card. The foreigner card is the claim, made generally through Commission I of the Indonesian Parliament, that foreigners leveling accusations of Indonesian brutality in its far-flung and restive provinces is nothing more than international meddling in domestic affairs with a view to securing vast swathes of Indonesia's natural resources for themselves.
The video is the of the killing of Yawan Wayeni. Wayeni was an escaped convict. He had been jailed for alleged violence against police and the burning of police property. He was also said to be a member of the Free Papua Movement or Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM). The video is graphic. Wayeni has been bayoneted in the stomach and his killers are taunting him through the final moments of his life.
However, in scenes reminiscent of Braveheart, Wayeni to the end can be seen raising his fist and saying as loud as he can "Papua Freedom" (Papua Merdeka). The video shows the police taunting Wayeni as he lies there. It also shows that they are not rendering him any assistance. Even if the claim was that he was wounded in this way while resisting arrest with a home-made rifle, it is clear that he is no longer any threat. The police must render all assistance they can.
The video was taken by the police. So, it has been leaked. By who, and why, remains a mystery.
It must be noted that, aside from Brimob, the other force most active in the restive province of Papua is the special forces. The special forces known by their Indonesian acronym of Kopassus (Komando Pasukan Khusus) have long been a pariah in world military circles with most countries opting not to engage in any joint activities with them. However, the US has recently indicated that they are about to re-engage with them. Australia has been re-engaged with them since 2005.
This is problematic because this force has long been accused of serious and grave breaches of human rights. These abuses have been perpetrated against the Timorese during Indonesia's occupation of East Timor / Timor Leste, and against the Acehnese during the period of Special Military Operations (DOM / Daerah Operasi Militer) and also against the Papuans. For these alleged abuses the special forces have never been called to account. Re-engaging with them suggests that there is no longer any serious intent on the part of most nations to hold either Kopassus or Indonesia accountable for these violations.
Madam Prime Minister what is the time frame for this grand plan to develop and build an offshore processing center that is going to handle all these boat people flooding Australian shores? One would imagine considering the urgency with which the policy was announced that these facilities will be in place in the quickest possible time, yes?
Excuse the cynicism. But, for all the fanfare of the announcement of the regional processing center supposedly destined for Timor Leste, and then Papua New Guinea, and then Timor Leste again, and perhaps for any regional nation willing to take it on, this policy, if it is such a thing, is half-baked and destined to disappear into the great depths like many suspect that the leaky boats bringing asylum seekers to these shores do.
The Timor and Papuan solutions have both been rejected by the powers that be in both of those sovereign nations. Yet, despite these rejections the PM is still pushing the policy and hoping that courtesy meetings with the Timor Leste government will bear some fruit and perhaps a processing center. Maybe it will, but it will be on the terms of the East Timorese and not the Australian government who seemingly seriously miscalculated the good will that the East Timorese were going to show on this one.
The government is not setting a very explicit timetable for completion on this one. It is being described as important and ongoing. It is also being described as a problem without a "quick fix". This must surely be read as meaning that the timetable for a processing center is dependent more on our regional neighbours than it is on the ability of Ms. Gillard and her cabinet to foist this onto them no matter what.
This all brings the obvious comparisons to the fore. Of particular note is the speed with which John Howard and his band of merry asylum seeker movers were able to negotiate a "compromise" with Nauru and then get a processing center up and running there. The comparison does no favours to the current PM and her band of merry followers when the numbers are put forward. The current number seems to be 2013. In contrast, the Liberal government got their center in just on a month.
The ABC are reporting that the FM, Stephen Smith, is off to Jakarta this week for a meeting or two. It is also suggested that the regional processing facility is going to be on the agenda. Smith, himself, has stated that the Indonesians were informed of the PM's intention to make the big offshore processing center announcement before it was actually made. Now, if this is true, then it beggars belief that all the press to date suggests that the Australian government did not get around to telling Xanana Gusmao, the Timor Leste Prime Minister, that the big announcement was imminent. Further, judging by the reaction of a good number of Timor Leste politicians it would seem equally evident that the Australian government did not think them worthy of a heads up either.
It appears that the number crunchers at Labor party headquarters have determined that Australians want a hard-nosed approach to asylum seekers that includes making sure that they stay offshore and are processed offshore. Ostensibly this is supposed to be a deterrent to people smugglers. However, it is not the people smugglers that need deterring, it is the people seeking asylum and refugee status that need deterring. If you are fleeing violence and persecution or possible death, then an offshore processing facility is hardly a deterrent. At best it is an additional step to a better life, and at worst it is a temporary reprieve before being sent back to wherever it is that person came from.
Personally, I think the number crunchers are over-estimating the emotions of the broader community on this one. Australians are about fairness and doing what is right. Ask them and they will tell you that they have serious reservations about putting children and women behind bars and razor wire while they are in detention, often for months and years.
Maybe it is time Labor took the high moral ground on this issue and stumped up a policy that is significantly different from that of the opposition. Come to think of it, anything that was even slightly humanitarian in nature would be a vast improvement over what is on offer from the opposition.
Asylum seekers are not our problem, politicians are.
There is probably much to write and much more to be written on this. However, there needs to be a start and it needs to be somewhere, so why not here?
This is policy making on the run and is sure to get the criticism it deserves and then some. Australia has obligations having signed on the dotted line to all of the relevant treaties and conventions relating to asylum seekers and refugees. This is not a political issue, it is a humanitarian one. It is time that politicians started to remember those basic human decencies under which we all strive to operate under and be respected for.
Now that that is out of the way it is time to get down to some cold hard realities. This is a political issue. It is so because politicians go out of their way to make it so. And, by doing so, they serve only to unravel the web that surrounds them to show themselves as hypocritical number crunchers concerned only with personal electoral survival.
The "Timor Solution" is the "Pacific Solution" by another name. Some of the details might be a little different, but in essence the Labor policy on this is to process asylum seekers offshore and presumably in Timor Leste. The only problem with this is that Labor has forgotten to consult with their Timor Leste counterparts on the policy prior to its announcement. Or, failing that, the Labor people responsible for this move were very poorly advised (preferable bailout position) or just too arrogant to even consider that Timor Leste might say, "bugger that for a joke, we have plenty of problems of our own without taking on your 'problems' as well!"
The government, assuming the government was consulted on this, has been poorly advised. Poorly advised in the sense of Jose Ramos Horta is not the man on this one. He is not Timor Leste. It is time that the Australian government showed a little more respect to a sovereign neighbour. It is worth remembering that Timor Leste is an independent nation with considerable resources and considerable income streams that will come on line over the coming years and decades with the exploitation of oil and gas resources in particular.
That is not to say that the new independent nation that is Timor Leste is thriving and economically stable or aid free. However, the people of Timor Leste have done more than enough to earn a little respect in terms of being consulted on the establishment of an asylum seeker processing / detention facility on their sovereign territory.
The proof of the pudding with respect to the poor advice and the poor consultation mechanisms is that Julia Gillard PM, has come out and said to the effect, 'if Timor does not agree then we will find somewhere else!' Perhaps, Nauru, Ms. PM?
I am still waiting for a talking political head to make a valid case on how this is different to the Pacific Solution that John Howard came up with and that Labor so consistently slammed as being in breach of our international obligations and an affront to our collective humanitarianism. So, much so when I watched Alexander Downer articulating on national television pretty much the same things as I was thinking. And, I am sure many millions of other Australians were thinking too!
Therefore, the arguments have to be that the Liberal policy was fundamentally the right one and the adoption of the Timor Solution is Labor's way of saying so or alternatively the policy is seriously flawed and no matter which way you wrap it it still stinks. My humanitarianism tells me that the latter is the correct assumption. No matter how you package it, it still stinks.
This is not about queue jumpers or terrorists sneaking into Australia. The system will 99 times out of 100 pick up on those individuals and exclude them. This is about doing what is right. Right for Australia and right for those fleeing persecution and other dangers that allow them to claim refugee and asylum status legitimately.
A final point. It is about time someone published the numbers. You know, did the number crunching and some projections and gave it to us, the Australian people, how it really is. I heard earlier today on the idiot box (aka TV) that the numbers were something along the lines of a MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) every 10 years or so as the total number of refugees and asylum seekers Australia would receive and process. Apparently, our legitimate migration numbers far-exceed this. So, it is not like refugees and asylum seekers are going to do us in economically, socially, legally or any other -ly.
It is time that we as constituents said to our politicians, "this is not a political issue, it is a humanitarian one." And we should add that, "if you want my vote you will act on your humanitarian conscience and not your political one".
Thus endeth the sermon on asylum seekers and the Timor Solution (for today at least!).
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.
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 decision of the Indonesian Film Censorship Board (Lembaga Sensor Film / LSF) to ban the screening of the film Balibo is hardly one for the surprising column. It pretty much was expected, and even more so when the Jakarta Foreign Correspondents Club and the Jakarta International Film Festival (JIFF) both indicated that they were going to screen the film. It certainly was a case of upping the ante.
Well, the LSF responded as expected and banned the film because of the political nature of it, and probably because the film conveys a position that the Indonesian government considers to be lies, a complete fabrication, and a distortion of the truth in the extreme. All of those things mean essentially the same, but they needed repeating in slightly different forms to highlight how seriously the Indonesian government would have been working the LSF to ensure that a ban was forthcoming.
The simple reality here is that the Indonesian position is that the five journalists, who became known as the Balibo Five, were killed in crossfire between Indonesian and Fretilin troops. Whereas, in stark contrast to the official Indonesian position, the film depicts the five being murdered by Indonesian troops under the immediate command of Captain Yunus Yosfiah who went on to reach the rank of general, become a minister, and serve time as a parliamentarian.
These actions were found by the Coroner's Court in NSW to be tantamount to war crimes and worthy of further investigation, and ultimately prosecution.
The Australian Federal Police are committed to completing a war crimes investigation into the deaths of the Balibo Five. So, bilateral tension seems certain to escalate over this matter at some point in the future.
A final point on the issue of censorship. I think the majority of Indonesians are ready enough to cast a critical eye over the film and make judgments as to the content. The idea that the LSF is banning this film because Indonesians are not mature enough to watch and determine for themselves the validity of this film is an insult to all Indonesians.
The latest development in the Balibo Five case is sure to be a tester of the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. The latest development is that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have decided to launch a war crimes investigation into the events surrounding the deaths of five journalists in the East Timorese township of Balibo. To be fair the enquiry must also include the execution of Roger East as well who was ultimately captured and executed on the foreshore of Dili.
It goes without saying that when the investigation became public knowledge that the Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs did not respond positively. The Indonesians have considered this case a closed one pretty much from the time it happened. The response went along the lines of case closed and we will not be cooperating in any investigation.
Nevertheless, the AFP were between a rock and a hard place considering the findings of the 2007 NSW Coronial Inquest into the deaths which in essence concluded that there was a case to answer, at least for Yunus Yosfiah, and referred the matter to the AFP for investigation.
For Indonesia, and for many in Australia as well, the idea of letting bygones be bygones and focusing on developing a mutually beneficial relationship going forward is more important. Bygones can never truly be bygones until there is at least a sense that justice has prevailed. The Balibo Five and Roger East have not had any justice and neither have their families. In the end justice might in fact reveal that the Balibo Five were the unfortunate victims of an incident where they were caught in the crossfire between Indonesian and Fretilin troops. If that is the case, then so be it. However, if it turns out that the Balibo Five were the victims of an execution that was aimed at preventing them from getting the story of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor out to the world, then justice would entail that the perpetrators of the execution who remain alive must be brought to trial.
For me, there is no reason why a mature bilateral relationship between Australia and Indonesia cannot survive this investigation. The idea that the era of Soeharto has passed, which would seem pretty obvious now the man is dead, and that Indonesia is a different place to what it was in 1975, albeit true, does not hold water when it comes to justice. What happened in East Timor and the Balibo Five needs to be known, just because Soeharto is dead and Indonesia is a different place does not mean that the truth of these events should be swept under the carpet. The tribunals in Cambodia are testament to the need for justice to be given a chance.
In many ways there are arguments beyond just the Balibo Five that what occurred in East Timor, the now independent Timor Leste, were crimes of such a magnitude that an international tribunal is warranted. There are arguments to be made for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, Even though the genocide of the East Timorese might be debatable and may not be on the scale of the holocaust of the Jews during the second world war, a genocide is a genocide on whatever scale.
The allegations must be pursued until the truth is determined.
I will undoubtedly write on this subject again as it contains all the issues that are important to me both personally and professionally; Australia, Indonesia, and the pursuit of justice.
Krisdayanti is often referred to as an Indonesian Diva and some people might argue that she behaves like a spoilt little diva at times as well. Krisdayanti or KD as she is known was way more famous than her husband to be when she married Anang Hermansyah back in 1996. And, as it turns out she is still more famous than her husband now that they have divorced.
The divorce took place four days before Ramadan and has not been done through the religious court yet. This means that it was a talaq divorce and therefore done in accordance with Islamic principles that govern divorce.
There have been rumours that the marriage has been in trouble for years. It seems that Krisdayanti was the one with the alleged wandering eye. Maybe she was married too young and had not tested the waters enough, or sown enough wild oats or something. Anang was a little reserved on the reasons for the divorce and simply said that it was not his choice but his wife's choice, There were no qualms about targeting the kids to find out what they knew. In what is sure to be a bit of a scoop for SCTV, Titania Aurelie Hermansyah at a mere 11-years-old offerred up that one time while she was swimming mummy was in the bedroom with an East Timorese businessman. The only way this might have been more sensational was if young Titania was asked to describe the noises she heard coming from the bedroom or name the man!
However, this might go a long way to explaining why KD was in Timor Leste for the recent Independence Day celebrations and doing the jig with Ramos Horta and Xanana.
The Jakarta Globe is reporting that the divorce is going to be amicable with KD and Anang already having agreed to custody of the children and the division of their "billion-dollar" fortune (assets). I have gotta say, I always knew that KD was popular and Anang had some success, but a billion dollars is a lot of money. Even on a 50-50 split that makes each of them worth at least 500 million dollars each.
Timor Leste or East Timor has marked ten years of Independence from Indonesia. On an anniversary such as this one it is hard to look only in one direction. One must look forward, but one must also look back. Looking back and taking stock, taking stock of what has and what has not been achieved. It is impossible to move forward without first addressing the past.
I like Jose Ramos Horta. I like his commitment to the cause, I like his honesty, I like the fact that he calls things as he sees them. These are interesting traits for a man who has made his name as a diplomat, then as Prime Minister of his nation, and now as President.
However, I am not sure that I agree with his call that an international tribunal or commission is not needed in Timor Leste to address issues of war crimes and other crimes against humanity that may have been committed over the years of Indonesian occupation and the period during the direct ballot and the period immediately following the announcement of the results of the direct ballot.
Reconciliation is a nice thought, but as a process it does not really address the need for justice for victims or the families of victims. I am sure, no, I know, there are arguments that truth and reconciliation commissions are useful. The most obvious example is South Africa. Nevertheless, my personal belief is that justice is best served through a tribunal process. I am not sure that "slowly, gradually, steadily justice will prevail."
In an interesting side note, Indonesian Foreign Minister, Hassan Wirajuda, was 45 minutes late in arriving and the commencement of the ceremony was delayed until he arrived. So, I am guessing that this is indicative of Timor Leste seeing its former colonial master after the Portuguese, Indonesia, as being an important partner going forward. It might also be indicative of a complete lack of respect that Indonesia may have for Timor Leste. Then again, it might just have been a technical problem with an aircraft or something.
Congratulation to Timor Leste on the first ten years of independence!
May the next ten years see some drastic improvements on the poverty reduction, employment, and education fronts.
Here is something that is sure to get under the skin of the members of Commission I of the House of Representatives (DPR) in Indonesia, Balibo. Commission I has responsibility for matters relating to defense, intelligence, foreign affairs, telecommunications, and information. Just about anything remotely related to the Indonesian and Australian bilateral relationship that is probing of Indonesia or her past is dismissed as foreign interference in Indonesians sovereign affairs.
The film Balibo is about five journalists (Greg Shackleton, Tony Stewart, Gary Cunningham, Brian Peters, and Malcolm Rennie) who were either murdered or killed in the cross-fire between Indonesian troops and Timorese rebels. Primarily the focus is on the relationship between Roger East and Jose Ramos Horta. East was later captured and executed, reportedly by firing squad, by Indonesian soldiers. This happened during Indonesia's invasion of the former Portuguese colony that ultimately led to Portuguese Timor being integrated into Indonesia as East Timor.
Aside from the justice that the Balibo Five deserve, Roger East also deserves to receive justice. Journalists must not be cold-bloodedly murdered by invading and occupying forces. More than that, journalists must not be targeted and murdered in the course of pursuing their profession.
This invasion led to the Timorese suffering for the next 24 years at the hands of a greedy colonizer with an insatiable appetite for natural resources and violence. History was only set right with the direct ballot of 1999. Unfortunately, this was not an entirely peaceful transition from colonization to independence.
East Timor has now become the independent Timor Leste.
The film has premiered at the Melbourne International Film Festival where the current Timor Leste president and former rebel leader, Jose Ramos Horta, spoke about his knowledge of the events of 1975. His comments make for interesting reading and are more likely to strain the Timor Leste and Indonesian bilateral relationship than the fact that Australian film makers have gone about making this film.
Interestingly, the Melbourne International Film Festival website has been hacked purportedly by Chinese hackers critical of the festival's decision to screen a film about the violence perpetrated by the Chinese state against the Uighurs. Here is the link (not sure if it is still hacked and displaying the Chinese flag).
According to Ramos Horta, who is known for being very blunt in his assessment of most things, has said that the killings were not an accident nor did they occur in a cross-fire situation. To the contrary, according to Ramos Horta, the five journalist were tortured and then killed.
It is worth noting that Australia was the only country to recognize Indonesia's sovereignty over Timor Leste. It is also worth noting that the governments of Australia and the United States of America were complicit in the invasion as both gave the green light to Soeharto and his bunch of not so merry marauders to go about their invasion business.
Many are looking to see whether the film will put a strain on bilateral relations, it won't but it probably should! Now, whether or not it should is a different question altogether. Yet, if the most recent statements coming from the Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs is anything to go by, then it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact on the relationship.
Teuku Faizasyah, is quoted as saying that to all intents and purposes this issue has been settled and the accepted explanation of the deaths are that the five journalists were killed in the cross-fire between Indonesian soldiers and Fretilin rebels. Simply, "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time." It is hardly surprising that the Indonesian government is dismissing the film as fiction and the vivid imagination of film makers.
What will be really interesting is whether or not the film gets past Indonesian censors and is shown in Indonesian theatres across the breadth of the archipelago. This is interesting because Faizasyah is also reported to have said that the Indonesian government is not into banning films as this would kill the film sector. This is certainly a different position from that which was adopted in the past.
My personal opinion is that they were murdered and that those responsible, the majority of whom are still alive, must be held accountable for their actions. On the bilateral relationship front between Indonesia and Australia, the relationship is likely to come under pressure if the Australian government was to get some testicular fortitude in the aftermath of the screening of the film and pursue the NSW Coroner's findings about who was responsible and what action should be taken (I have written about this here).
The reason I don't think that this film will unduly strain bilateral relations is that I do not believe that my government has the testicular fortitude, at this point in time, to pursue this. This makes me sad, if for no other reason that it proves the saying, "that the first casualty of war is truth".
I have not seen the film yet. I cannot get down to Melbourne for the festival. However, as soon as I get the chance to see it in Sydney, I will. I will then write a review of it and post it on the blog.
For now, I attach the Official Trailer (available on YouTube) for your viewing (dis)pleasure.
It is sad news that Ali Alatas had passed. He was Indonesia's diplomatic face to the world during some of the hardest of times. He was always not only diplomatic but graceful whilst on the world stage through his time as not only Indonesia's longest serving Foreign Minister, but also prior to that as Indonesia's point man at the United Nations in both Geneva and New York from 1976.
In many ways the Alatas career is shaped by the events of East Timor and the eventual split of the former Portuguese colony from the Republic of Indonesia. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to cast his legacy as merely one connected no matter how intimately to the events of the East Timor and Indonesia relationship.
Since his departure as the top diplomat in 1999 he went onto play a significant role in the "resolution" of the Aceh issue and most recently as Ambassador at large and Head of the Supreme Advisory Council.
Alatas (photo Afriadi Hikmal, Jakarta Globe) leaves behind a wife and three children.
The man will be sorely missed not only by his family but by many Indonesians who have benefited from his vast knowledge, not only of diplomacy but of world affairs.
Alatas had a heart attack and died Thursday morning in Singapore.
The Truth and Friendship Commission has spoken, actually produced a report, that states in unequivocal terms that Indonesia played a significant role in the violence that ensued in Timor Leste after the Direct Ballot of 1999. In fact the report says that Indonesia is responsible for the committing of gross human rights abuses including murder and torture.
This is strange because not one high ranking person who was charged with a crime relating to this in Indonesia was convicted or had their conviction affirmed on appeal. All defendants successfully negotiated the Indonesian Human Rights Court system. I wonder why some might think this whole process was nothing more than lip service and a whitewash from start to finish.
The next part of this story has that funny in a perverse way feel to it. The release of the report has sparked Indonesia into acknowledging responsibility for carrying out gross violations of human rights but not offering an apology. I am wondering why one would even except responsibility at all? Let's face it, no one has been convicted in an Indonesian court for any crimes that were alleged to have been committed in 1999. Or is this a case of trying to ward off an international tribunal by saying, "yes, we as a State committed some crimes but we are not sure who the perpetrators are".
The claim is going to be the people we thought were the perpetrators have since been found innocent by the open and transparent court system in operation in Indonesia and cannot be tried again for the crimes for which they have already been acquitted.
I believe that without justice it is impossible to move forward fully. Indonesia seems to think that the release of the report ends this tragic saga, it should not! The report is not justice for the victims or their families. This is a mere narrative of what the commission uncovered. If Indonesia refuses to prosecute perpetrators of these crimes then an International Tribunal must be set up to deal with those that have committed crimes.
