ETAN/West Papua Advocacy Team:

Nine Questions for Sen. John Kerry, nominee for Secretary of State, on Indonesia, Timor-Leste and West Papua

Question: To what extent has U.S. training and other assistance to the Indonesian security forces, especially the Kopassus Special Forces and the "anti-terror" Detachment 88 abetted those forces' violations of human rights? What is the current relationship between the U.S. Administration and such forces as the Indonesian Special Forces and Detachment 88? Have the numerous well-founded allegations of human rights abuse and corruption targeting these institutions been thoroughly examined by the U.S. Administration? What has been the result of those examinations? Do you agree that the U.S. should stop training and selling weapons to the Indonesian military and police?

see also Congress Writes Administration on Kopassus Training

U.S. Military Assistance to Indonesia

Background: Recent administrations have ended restrictions on military assistance to Indonesia. They argued that U.S. engagement encourages reform and progress on human rights. The opposite is true. Historically, reform in Indonesia has coincided with U.S. restrictions on security assistance. In recent years, the U.S. has re-engaged with Indonesia's notorious Kopassus special forces and is actively considering the sale of Apache attack helicopters which can be used for internal repression, including attacks on civilians in West Papua.

Question: What systems are in place to ensure that U.S.-provided weaponry and associated equipment have not been and will not be employed to violate human rights? Specifically, what guarantees are in place to ensure the Apache attack helicopters will not be employed to support Indonesian security force "sweep" operations in West Papua, where villagers have long suffered indiscriminate security force attacks? What restrictions should be placed on U.S. security assistance to Indonesia as a way to encourage reform, accountability for past human rights crimes, and ongoing respect for human rights?

Background: This administration has identified Indonesia as a "strategic partner" reflecting its growing regional economic, political and security importance. Despite Indonesia's impressive democratic progress, Indonesian security forces continue to be a target of strong criticism as a regular violator of human rights and as a corrupt institution that remains largely unaccountable to civilian rule. The State Department annual human rights reports have documented the broad unaccountability of the security forces under Indonesia's judicial system. The limited efforts to prosecute crimes against humanity during the Suharto dictatorships and its immediate aftermath have ended in failure. These security forces, notably, continue to conduct "sweep operations" in rural West Papua which have forced thousands of villagers to flee, destroyed homes, crops and churches, and led to the death of many. Security forces, including police, have repressed freedom of speech, harassing peaceful dissenters and employing draconian Suharto-era laws to label peaceful protesters as "treasonous." Similar repression has also been employed in the Moluccan islands.

Question: Given the strong and growing ties between the U.S. and Indonesian security forces, what should the U.S. do to influence these forces to end their violations of human rights and corruption and to subordinate themselves to civilian control?

Background: During more than two decades of illegal occupation of Timor-Leste, Indonesian security forces committed serious crimes with impunity, taking as many as 184,000 Timorese lives and torturing, raping and displacing countless others. In 1999, after the East Timorese voted for independence, the Indonesian military and its militia proxies ransacked Timor-Leste. The magnitude of this destruction is clearly documented. Last year during a visit to Timor-Leste, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: "All the perpetrators for the crimes against humanity and war crimes must be brought to justice." Timor-Leste's Commission on Truth, Reception and Reconciliation recommended an international tribunal should other efforts at justice fail. The government of Indonesia has proved unwilling to hold its security forces accountable.

Question: Do you support going to the UN Security Council to create an international tribunal for East Timor to make certain justice is served? What other steps should the U.S. take to support justice for these serious crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in East Timor since Indonesia invaded in 1975?

Timor-Leste's Truth Commission

Background: The U.S. government has yet to respond to the report of Timor-Leste's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR), although the president of Timor-Leste officially delivered a copy in 2003. Its recommendations include calls for an international tribunal, reparations from countries that supported the occupation, and restrictions on foreign assistance to the Indonesian military until it shows that it is a rights-respecting institution.

Question: Would you support assistance to Timor-Leste that is focused on improving the lot of the poorest? What should be done to strengthen non-oil sectors of its economy? Do you plan to re-evaluate the assistance the U.S. provides to Timor-Leste to make it more useful and effective? What should be the top priority of U.S. development assistance? Do you think current policy supports that emphasis? What would you change?

Question: Does U.S. security assistance to Indonesia help or hinder an end to violence in West Papua? How can the U.S. best assist a peaceful resolution of the conflict there? Would you support suspension of security assistance to Indonesia until these human rights violations cease in West Papua?

Question: Under your leadership, will the Department of State review "special autonomy" in the provinces of Papua and West Papua, and will you press the Indonesian government to revamp its failed approach to West Papua?