History demands that General Wiranto be tried for war crimes

The order confirming the death sentence of General Yamashita in 1946, handed down by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Jr. referred to the “traditions of fighting men”:

The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and the unarmed. It is the very essence and reason for his being. When he violates this trust he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the very fabric of international society. The traditions of fighting men are long and honourable. They are based upon the noblest of human traits - sacrifice.

For half a century the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sitting in Tokyo have stood as landmark entities and major instances of prosecutions for offences against the norms of International Humanitarian Law. (Meron, 1995)

A central tenant in modern thinking, as it relates to International Criminal Law, is the notion that atrocities in war are not committed by abstract entities but rather by individuals, and that it is natural persons as opposed to a state which are individually culpable for offences against the common conscience of humanity and for breaches of the general rules of engagement in conflict. The attachment of criminal responsibility require that certain acts alleged to have occurred can be attributed to an individual at trial.

Sanctions, to be effective, must operate on individuals rather than states. This necessarily involves making inroads upon national sovereignty and rely upon the cooperation between states.

States ordinarily punish crimes in the interest of their own peace and security and state laws provide for the normal exercise of domestic criminal jurisdictions. There are however times when the domestic jurisdictions of states prove inadequate.

International Criminal Tribunals have become the accepted forum to issue indictments against officials/agents of states. This has translated into the criminal trials of high ranking military officials before tribunals investigating the violations committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and East Timor.

It is now clearly encoded in international statute as well as customary law that military structure is founded upon established standards of diligence and the control of leaders over subordinates. It is this chain of command, this organizational hierarchy, which make a fighting force predictable and disciplined in a time of war. This “basis tenant of military life” (Hessler, 1973) obliges subordinates to obey commands and places a corresponding duty upon military leaders to be vigilant in preventing and punishing atrocities.

General Wiranto as Commander-in-Chief of the Indonesian forces has a prima facie case to answer with regard to the events which unfolded in East Timor in September 1999. For the Special Panel for Serious Crimes to obstruct any real forum for discussion as to the General’s surrendering himself up to authorities, (or in the alternative; possible cooperation between state parties for his arrest) not only beggars disbelief but stands in the face of centuries of precedent.

To allow the Indonesian General run for the highest office in the land (and thereby attract state immunity), well that’s breathtakingly wrong.