Friday, July 1, 2016

A Timorese View on Justice for Suharto's Crimes

A Timorese View: Time to End Impunity for Suharto's Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste

Tetum: Agora mak tempu atu hapara impunidade ba krime sira Suharto nian iha Indonesia no Timor-Leste

Bahasa Indonesia: Sekarang Saatnya Memutus Impunitas untuk Kejahatan Soeharto di Indonesia dan Timor-Leste


some excerpts:

The tragedy of 1965-1966 is part of a long history of massacres by the Indonesian military. As East Timorese, we know very well the brutality of the Indonesian dictator's regime. I was born after the initial Indonesian invasion in 1975, but grew up under the occupation. As a young student, I saw the Indonesian military intimidate and abuse youth suspected of supporting East Timorese independence. We were not safe anywhere: Suharto's troops would seize us at home, school or on the streets; many were never seen again. I watched helplessly as soldiers murdered my cousin, Luis Gusmão Pereira, in a public market in Triloedae-Laga. 
....
The chains of impunity remain strong in Indonesia; U.S. leaders who supported crimes against humanity in Indonesia and elsewhere continue to avoid accountability and punishment. The U.S. and Indonesia claim they are democratic and law-abiding nations, but they openly resist holding their own officials accountable.
East Timorese demonstrate for justice.
Photo by Karen Orenstein/ETAN
.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Indonesia opposes UN appointing expert to report on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Says won't cooperate with expert.


Council establishes mandate on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

from http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20220&LangID=E

Action on Resolution on Protection against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In a resolution (A/HRC/32/L.2/Rev.1) on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 18 against and 6 abstentions as amended, the Council decides to appoint, for a period of three years, an Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, with the mandate to assess the implementation of existing international human rights instruments with regard to ways to overcome violence and discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity; raise awareness of violence and discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and to identify and address the root causes of violence and discrimination; and engage in dialogue and to consult with States and other relevant stakeholders.  The Council also requests the Independent Expert to report annually to the Human Rights Council, starting from its thirty-fifth session, and to the General Assembly, starting from its seventy-second session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (23): Albania, Belgium, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (18): Algeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, China, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Togo, and United Arab Emirates.

Abstentions (6): Botswana, Ghana, India, Maldives, Philippines, and South Africa. 

....

Indonesia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reaffirmed its commitment to the elimination of violence against all persons as defined in international human rights treaties.  The Council should take a constructive and cooperative approach, especially when concerned with issues touching on morality.  Members of the Council should refrain from imposing values which did not enjoy international consensus.  Indonesia was concerned that the draft resolution was divisive.  While welcoming several amendments, Indonesia considered that the basic proposal remained the same, and for that reason was unable to support the draft resolution.  Indonesia also wanted it put on the record that Indonesia would not engage with the mandate holder.