06 Apr Why Has Suharto Never Been Prosecuted?
The AP has an interesting story discussing the fact that Suharto, the murderous dictator who ruled Indonesia from 1967 to 1998, has managed to avoid being brought to justice by the international community, even though he is responsible for far worse crimes than Milosevic, Saddam, and Charles Taylor. Suharto continues to live unmolested in a wealthy area of Jakarta, even though Indonesian prosecutors have occasionally attempted — unsuccessfully — to prosecute him for corruption.
Why the differential treatment of Suharto? The explanation, according to experts, is simple: Suharto was a much more reliable ally of western governments while in power.
“Suharto certainly belongs in the same category as Milosevic or Saddam as far as crimes against humanity are concerned,” said Dede Oetomo, a human rights activist and professor at Airlangga University in Surabaya. “He receives preferential treatment in the West because he delivered Indonesia to them during the Cold War, while nobody in the political class here sees any benefit in pursuing him.”
Critics say Suharto’s and other cases highlight an inconsistency that lends credibility to charges that the trials in the Hague and Baghdad are “victors’ justice.”
[snip]
“It weakens the deterrent force of war crimes tribunals, said Dr. Harold Crouch, an expert on Indonesia at the Australian National University.
“Obviously the deterrent value would be much greater if they indicted all these people,” Crouch said. “But Suharto always did what the West wanted him to do; that’s the main difference between him and Saddam and Milosevic.”
Suharto was an unknown two-star general in 1965 when he put down a still-unexplained military mutiny which he attributed to leftist officers. In the confusion that followed, Suharto seized power from the legal government and launched a purge in which at least a half million people — mostly communists, socialists, trade unionists and other leftists — were executed.
As he tightened his grip, Suharto quickly gained support from Washington and other Western capitals, which viewed him as a bulwark against communism in Southeast Asia.
Washington facilitated Indonesia’s 1969 takeover of the former Dutch colony of West Papua, and acquiesced in its 1975 invasion of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor. The long wars that followed have claimed 200,000 lives in West Papua, human rights monitors say, and 183,000 in East Timor according to a U.N. and East Timorese government report.
Hi Chris and Co. I agree completely. This guys should really be on trial for the crimes that he has committed.
In my view the problem is that Suharto has had many powerfull supporters (eg: Australia, United States, Britian). These countries lack the political will to force the issue.
Jason Adcock
yourhmanrights.com
In our imperfect world, the wicked often cheat justice. It is lamentable that Suharto has not had to answer for what he has done, but the article is wrong to place the blame for this occurrence at the feet of the United States. The author does not mention a single action by the United States government to protect Suharto, and indeed the United States put no pressure on Indonesia to desist when they attempted to make Suharto stand trial.
The article claims that Suharto “is widely believed [to be] responsible for the deaths of twice as many people as the former Iraqi and Serbian leaders combined.” However, when we examine this claim, we see that the author has tallied the numbers inconsistently. While he counts Suharto’s crimes in East Timor, he scrupulously avoids mentioning Saddam Hussein’s aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait. Were these included, Hussein would certainly be responsible for more deaths than Suharto.