Bolen C (Page 189)

Last month, Indonesian President Joko Widodo announced a reparation program for victims of past human-rights abuses. Speaking in Aceh province, Widodo stated that this resolution “is needed to heal the nation’s pain caused by past gross human-rights violations, which have left a heavy burden for the victims.”

Reparations will come in the form of financial settlements, scholarships and cash payments for victims and their families.

The comes after Widodo expressed his “deep regret” in January for historical abuses committed on behalf of the Indonesian state. This was a result of an unprecedented investigation by the National Commission on Human Rights, a key election promise by the president.

At the time, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed Widodo’s comments as a “step on the long road to justice for victims and their loved ones.”

The 12 abuses eligible for reparations occurred between 1965 and 2003, including a deadly purge of suspected communists from 1965, the shooting of protesters in 1982 and 1985, and the gunning down of students in the late 1990s.

Severe abuses were also documented during conflicts in the Aceh and Papua regions. Overall, is it estimated that more than 500,000 people were killed.

These steps are a culmination of attempts by Widodo to deal with past human-rights abuses since he was elected in 2014. The announcement offers more than just an apology and is a historic opportunity to right the wrongs of Indonesia’s dark past.

But there are problems – and detractors. 

The government’s announcement lacked crucial detail. The number of people who will be eligible for reparations was not disclosed, nor any targets, and the process for applying for compensation is unclear. 

The National Commission on Human Rights has estimated there are between 500,000 and 3 million victims and survivors from 1965 purges alone and that, so far, only 6,400 victims had been verified from eligible atrocities.

Rights groups express concerns

This raises questions about how serious the government is in rolling out the program and justifies fears that victims and their families will not be identified, and that only a small fraction will have access to reparations. 

Human-rights groups have been critical, claiming Widodo has ignored some atrocities, such as those carried out by Indonesian security forces in Timor-Leste between 1975 and 1999, extrajudicial killings in Tanjung Priok district, North Jakarta, in 1984 and the killing of civilians in Paniai, Central Papua province, in 2014.

The same groups also argue that reparations do not go far enough and that the government’s expressions of regret are meaningless unless crimes are legally resolved in the courts and perpetrators tried and jailed.

This includes Amnesty International, which welcomed the announcement but warned it “must include accountability” and that it was crucial to “bring all those suspected of criminal responsibility for crimes under international law and human-rights violations to justice in fair trials before ordinary civilian courts – and put an end to impunity.”

A representative for Human Rights Watch reacted to the announcement by saying it was a “step forward” and “better than nothing” but that it was “not enough.”

Widodo has confirmed that while the government was focusing on a “non-judicial resolution” through reparations, this will not come at the expense of or replace any legal action taken by victims and their families.

But critics are right to worry. Indonesia has a history of not holding perpetrators to account.

A report from the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence found that police and security forces were responsible for 72 extrajudicial killings last year.

While six soldiers have been arrested for their involvement in the deaths of four Papuans in Mimika regency of the Papua region, the vast majority of Indonesian security forces continue to enjoy a large degree of impunity.

It also remains commonplace for prominent military figures associated with past atrocities to hold key positions in government.

For example, Major-General Untung Budiharto, alleged perpetrator of enforced disappearances under the Suharto regime, was appointed as commander of the Greater Jakarta Command Area last year. Prabowo Subianto, Budiharto’s commander, was made minister of defense in 2019.

If Widodo is serious about providing justice for victims of human-rights abuses, his administration needs to walk the talk.

This can be achieved by thoroughly and impartially investigating anyone suspected of past abuses, including government officials, the military and police. If there is sufficient evidence, these people should be prosecuted publicly in criminal, not military, courts.

The government should also work to ensure that the reparations program is adequately funded and has the resources and scope to identify as many past victims and their families as possible.

Finally, human-rights abuses should be prevented in the present and future. Indonesian security forces continue to commit abuses, particularly in the remote Papua region, and against journalists and human-rights activists. The government should take a no-tolerance approach to human rights and hold any perpetrators accountable.

Indonesia is taking legitimate steps to reckon with its dark history, but more needs to be done. Until this occurs, victims and their families will not get the justice they deserve. 

Continue Reading

This article was originally published by ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.

A recently declassified intelligence community report on the origin of Covid-19 has taken a benign view of biosafety training that took place at a government lab in Wuhan, China, in November 2019, not long before the pandemic began there.

The safety training for staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was an aspect of an interim report by the Republican oversight staff of a Senate committee that last year concluded the pandemic was “more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident.”

Last October, ProPublica and Vanity Fair delved into the inner workings of the team that produced that interim report and some outside experts’ views of its findings. Asia Times republished that story.

The intelligence report was issued in June in response to a law, passed unanimously, that required the director of national intelligence to declassify information regarding the origins of Covid-19. The report confirmed prior news accounts that the intelligence community is divided about the cause of the pandemic, but it did not provide specifics about how different agencies reached their conclusions.

While some believe the virus likely first infected a human through a research-related accident, others say it’s more likely that the contagion naturally spilled over from animal to human. The report stated that “all agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible.”

Last year’s report by the Republican oversight staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee pointed to November 2019 safety training at the WIV, as well as patents and procurements, as evidence of biosafety-related problems at the lab complex around the time the virus emerged in Wuhan.

On November 19, 2019, a senior Chinese government safety official arrived at the WIV to discuss a “complex and grave situation currently facing [bio]security work,” the report said. On the same day that the official arrived, the WIV sought to procure a costly air incinerator. The following month, WIV researchers applied for a patent for an improved device to contain hazardous gases inside a biological chamber, like ones used to transport infected animals.

In contrast, the intelligence report said the November 2019 safety training appeared to be run-of-the-mill rather than a response to a biosecurity breach. “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic and the WIV’s biosafety training appears routine, rather than an emergency response by China’s leadership,” said the report, which was drafted by the national intelligence officer for weapons of mass destruction and proliferation and coordinated with the intelligence community.

The intelligence community agencies agreed on the underlying facts in the report but drew different conclusions from that information, according to an official familiar with the report.

The intelligence report is brief and does not mention the incinerator or device patent. It said that WIV officials in mid-2019 were “evaluating and implementing biosafety improvements, training, and procurements” in the context of Chinese biosecurity legislation.

Some WIV scientists have genetically engineered coronaviruses, the report said, but the intelligence community has no information “indicating that any WIV genetic engineering work has involved SARS-CoV-2, a close progenitor, or a backbone virus that is closely-related enough to have been the source of the pandemic.”

At the same time, the intelligence report did point to biosafety concerns. “Some WIV researchers probably did not use adequate biosafety precautions at least some of the time prior to the pandemic in handling SARS-like coronaviruses, increasing the risk of accidental exposure to viruses,” the report said.

The intelligence report confirmed previous news reports that several WIV researchers became sick in the fall of 2019, though it stated this was not proof that the scientists were infected through their work. The intelligence community “continues to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic’s origins because the researchers’ symptoms could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of the symptoms were not consistent with Covid-19,” the report stated.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a four-point rating system for biolabs based on the threats posed by the infectious organisms agents allowed there. Biosafety level 4, or BSL-4, labs are the most restrictive and designed to handle the most dangerous pathogens.

According to the intelligence report, as of January 2019, WIV researchers were performing experiments with coronaviruses in BSL-2 labs, which have far fewer safeguards, despite knowing of “these virus’ ability to directly infect humans.”

“Separately, the WIV’s plan to conduct analysis of potential epidemic viruses from pangolin samples in fall 2019, suggests the researchers sought to isolate live viruses,” the intelligence report said.

While not revealing the evidence underlying its assessments, the report laid out the divisions within the intelligence community. The National Intelligence Council and “four other IC agencies” assess that the natural spillover of a virus from an infected animal is the most likely cause of the pandemic, according to the intelligence report.

The report did not name the other four intelligence agencies.

Two federal intelligence agencies — the Department of Energy and the FBI — have landed on the other side of the bitter debate over the origins of the pandemic, assessing that a laboratory-associated incident is the most likely cause of the pandemic.

The Wall Street Journal reported in February that the Department of Energy, which had previously been undecided about how the pandemic began, had come to support the lab-leak position with “low confidence” in response to new intelligence; the FBI reached its conclusion with “moderate confidence.” The intelligence report doesn’t mention the confidence levels of any agency.

While the Department of Energy and the FBI agree that the pandemic most likely resulted from a lab incident, the agencies reached the same conclusion for “different reasons,” according to the intelligence report. But the report didn’t say what those reasons were.

Although the March law required the director of national intelligence to declassify “any and all information” relating to potential links between the WIV and the origin of Covid-19, an annex to the report remains classified. According to the report, this was necessary “to protect sources and methods.”

Several Republicans were critical of the intelligence report and demanded more details. [Congressional opinion has divided along party lines, as seen in a House oversight committee hearing held on Tuesday. -Asia Times editors]

Continue Reading

The starting point for any review of Australia’s international strategy must be an assessment of the future US-China relationship, focusing on possible threats and opportunities. 

A good start was made in a speech by Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, in April 2023. While Wong thinks that the United States will remain “indispensable,” she understands that it will no longer be the dominant power in Asia.

Instead, Wong said that Australia’s national interest is to bring about a region where all countries benefit from a strategic equilibrium where no country dominates and no country is dominated.

The Chinese economy overtook the US economy in 2016 based on purchasing power parity and has continued to grow much faster since. The idea that the United States can continue to dominate is not a sound basis for Australia’s international strategy.

Yet the United States does not seem to recognize the change in its position in Asia. The United States, with Australia’s support, says that it wants to preserve the so-called “rules-based order.” But that order is not the one enshrined in the UN Charter. Instead, it was established by the United States and was intended to serve US interests.

Understandably, China might want to make changes to the US rules-based order — changes that could readily be accommodated by the other nations in the Indo-Pacific.

As Australia’s former ambassador to China Geoff Raby says: “An inclusive framework of norms, rules and habits of consultation which include China and of which it is an author, will be the best means of constraining bad behavior [emphasis added].”

But there is also the problem of the United States not always abiding by the present rules-based order. Instead, it is happy to ignore or bend rules when rules don’t suit it.

For example, US trade sanctions on China have never been authorized by the World Trade Organization. But when China introduced trade sanctions on Australia, the United States quickly jumped in to replace the import market.

A multipolar system of international governance offers the only sustainable way forward. Australia should be working to encourage the United States to accept this new reality where it needs to share power.

The problem is that both Australia’s foreign and defense policies are based on a contradiction. Australia recognizes the reality that it is living in a multipolar region, but it ties itself to an alliance partner that doesn’t.

The rest of the region doesn’t want to be forced to take sides. Like Australia, other regional members depend upon both major countries and share a common interest in establishing a set of ongoing governance arrangements that accommodates the reasonable demands of all member countries.

For Australia, this would represent a return to the former position where Australia was clear that it didn’t wish to take sides in the struggle for influence between the United States and China. But under former prime minister Scott Morrison, Australia was seen as a mouthpiece for the United States so often that it weakened its regional credibility.

As former Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani said, ASEAN countries want to have good relations with both the United States and China, and the wisest policy for Australia is to align itself with the ASEAN position where possible.

That way, it could play a significant bridging role between Beijing and Washington. Plus, Australia could enhance its standing with other countries in the region if it played a leading role in persuading the United States to accept the reality of a multipolar region.

The key to Australia’s subservience to the United States, and its engagement in so many US wars, has been its perception that it depends upon the United States for defense. But Australia needs to identify its own interests clearly and all actions should be determined accordingly.

Right now, the most immediate threat to Australia’s sovereignty would be a US-China conflict over Taiwan. Should Australia not join the United States in defense of Taiwan, the issue might impact the AUKUS agreement and Australia’s purchase of nuclear submarines.

While many have argued that China has no intention of attacking Australia, intentions can change quickly. Hence defense forces are usually structured against an assessment of the capability of potential adversaries, and China’s capability is rising rapidly.

In that context, it is a legitimate response for Australia to buy nuclear submarines to strengthen its independent defense capability. But that equally requires that it controls the use of these submarines. If AUKUS is not compatible with Australia being able to determine and protect its long-run regional interests, then Australia should be prepared to let the agreement go.

Australia can and should push back when its interests and values are challenged by China. The government is right when it says that “we will cooperate where we can, we will disagree where we must, and we will engage in our national interest.”

But Australia needs to work with other nations on specific issues of national interest, even where they are not like-minded in terms of adherence to liberal values, including respect for human rights. Australia’s ability to push back will be enhanced if it maintains ongoing dialogue, especially with China. 

For example, the renewed discussion at the ministerial level has meant that issues that offend Australian values — such as unexplained detention of Australian citizens in China, human rights matters, and press and religious freedoms — can now be raised and discussed at senior government levels.

It is clearly in Australia’s interests to work with both China and the United States. That will require Australia to work closely with the many other like-minded countries in the region, and, if necessary, be less subservient to the United States.

Michael Keating is former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. He is presently a visiting fellow at The Australian National University.

This article was originally published by East Asia Forum and is republished under a Creative Commons license.

Continue Reading

Japan and South Korea are strong US allies, and these three countries also share mutual interests in reinforcing the so-called “liberal and rules-based order” in the Indo-Pacific region as well as the international community.

The national security of Japan and South Korea has been drawn together through common threats and their security ties with the US. Recently, the three countries agreed to work toward establishing a mechanism for sharing real-time data on several missile launches by North Korea this year. 

The trilateral mechanism among Japan, South Korea and the US improved in 2022, inspired by North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the election of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. Most noteworthy in recent times was the Phnom Penh statement in November 2022 on a Japan-US-Korea trilateral partnership for cooperating in the Indo-Pacific region.

However, historical hostility between Japan and South Korea has been a challenge to this trilateral cooperation. Both nations host a high number of US troops and both have also signed security partnerships with the US.

However, in March this year, President Yoon and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida held a meeting that was a big step toward rebuilding their security and economic ties, and the two nations sought to unite through mutual concerns over North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and China’s expansionist behavior. 

It is clearly beneficial for both Japan and South Korea to cooperate with the US to be realistically prepared for uncertainties on the Korean Peninsula. These three nations aim to attenuate the North Korean threat and embrace the concept of hedging against China’s rise.

The North Korean threat has intensified over time as it fired a record number of missiles in 2022, and this has further propelled Japan-South Korea-US trilateral cooperation. Therefore, North Korean threats will perhaps keep trilateral cooperation in place. Moreover, South Korea’s aim of nuclear planning and Japan’s aim to possess long-range strike capabilities could be issues boosting trilateral cooperation. 

Regarding growing Chinese assertiveness, Japan aims to oppose China’s attempts to alter the status quo, while South Korea has adopted a relatively appeasing approach aimed at maintaining its economic relationship with China.

Tokyo and Seoul also differ in their stances on the Taiwan issue. Japan has been in support of Taiwan’s security, while South Korea has avoided direct commitments to establishing stability in the Taiwan Strait.

For its part, the US has been working toward increasing its military as well as political support for Taipei through elevated defense cooperation and regular official visits by politicians. 

The United States is keen on continuing to work deeply with Japan and South Korea to ensure peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Recently, President Yoon visited the United States, where he and US President Joe Biden reached an agreement that would allow an increased level of deployment of US assets around the Korean Peninsula.

Furthermore, Biden has also invited Kishida and Yoon for a formal trilateral meeting to discuss issues and challenges in depth. 

North Korea’s nuclear ambitions 

North Korea’s media criticized plans of South Korea, Japan and the US to share real-time data on its missile launches, calling the move a way of strengthening military cooperation among these three countries.

The defense chiefs of the US and Japan emphasized the need for trilateral cooperation with South Korea after a North Korean rocket carrying a spy satellite failed, which led to an emergency alert for Japan’s Okinawa prefecture.

Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and missile launches threaten the stability in the region and also violate international law. 

North Korea’s nuclear arsenal has been building up, which also includes the development of missiles capable of delivering atomic bombs anywhere in the US. This has further concerned Japan regarding America’s nuclear umbrella. However, the US has reaffirmed its commitment to Japan time and again and also works toward extending deterrence through the US nuclear capabilities. 

Furthermore, trilateral defense cooperation has grown deeper in recent times after the rapprochement between South Korea and Japan. Their cooperation involves trilateral military drills for practicing the tracking of North Korea’s missile launches and information-sharing exercises.

Japan’s Defense Ministry has also warned that it will destroy North Korean missiles they it enter its territory. Moreover, the ministry has been taking concrete precautions that involve deploying Patriot missile defense batteries. 

Trilateral in the Indo-Pacific 

As far as the Indo-Pacific region is concerned, the US, South Korea and Japan have mutual interests in bolstering the “rules-based order.” These three nations must contribute to embracing economic connectivity in the region.

For instance, the US and South Korea should consider joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Japan, the US and South Korea must enhance their security cooperation to tackle North Korea’s nuclear threats through intelligence sharing as well as military and security consultation. 

A free and open Indo-Pacific is vital for all three nations to maintain prosperity, democracy and security and to counter China’s rise and influence. It has become essential to create a structure for peace and stability for safeguarding democracies in Northeast Asia.

To ensure a coordinated response to challenges faced in light of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, the US, South Korea and Japan need to work on improving their interoperability for conducting joint operations.

In South Korea’s recent National Security Strategy, emphasis is laid greatly on cooperation with Japan and the US and further pursuing value-based diplomacy that involves freedom, rule of law and democracy.

The strategy has also focused on the increased need for strengthened trilateral cooperation, and for this mechanism to flourish in coming years, there is a need to transform and improve Korea-Japan ties.

The three countries possess potent economic, military and political power but need to do more to counter threats from China and North Korea. 

Continue Reading

As with any Israeli operation in the West Bank, there are several ways to understand the recent events in Jenin.

Israel’s explanation for its assault on the refugee camp – which killed 12 Palestinians, injured 140, and forced thousands to flee – was to curb the rise of Palestinian resistance in the northern West Bank. A recent spike in Palestinian attacks on the Israeli military and civilians has dominated the news.

However, Israel’s explanation never acknowledges the constant aggression that comes with a full-blown military occupation. The maintenance and expansion of Israel’s occupation is a primary motivation for its recent actions in Jenin. 

It’s also vital to view the recent Jenin operation from the political standpoint of Israel’s hard-right government. The spike in violence between Israelis and Palestinians – the Israeli military has killed 114 Palestinians this year, and Palestinians have killed 16 Israelis – has given Israel’s extremist politicians a platform to incite hatred and encourage deepening the country’s footprint in Palestinian areas. 

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted of incitement to racism, responded to one recent attack on Israeli settlers with calls for “a military operation to demolish buildings, eliminate terrorists, not one or two, but tens and hundreds, and if necessary even thousands.”

Other politicians have called for increased Israeli settlement creation in response to the wave of violence sweeping the territory. There are open discussions in Israel and Palestine that large-scale Palestinian expulsions from the West Bank could be in the cards in the not-too-distant future.

Palestinians see the Jenin operation as a serious attempt to destabilize Palestinian life. Institutions such as the Palestinian Authority have proved completely unable to stand up for Palestinian rights and dignity in the face of continuous Israeli assaults and land grabs. At this point, the two-state solution as envisaged in the Oslo Accords is a faint memory, let alone a viable plan for the future.  

While the spike in violence between the two sides is undeniable, it’s a symptom of a deeper issue. The occupation of Palestine is the most funded and resourced state project in Israel’s history.

On the surface, the occupation has been sold as a temporary defensive measure necessary for Israel’s survival. However, it satisfies many other needs.

Given the biblical connection to the West Bank, the occupation provides a religious veneer to the project of secular Zionism. Control over holy cities with deep meaning in Jewish religious history rallies Jews worldwide to support Israel and its government. 

Technology laboratory

More important, Israel’s military control over an entire population has facilitated the creation of a lucrative weapons industry.

In his new book The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World, Australian journalist Antony Loewenstein has documented the intricate connection between the occupation of Palestine and the development of the modern weapons industry.

Controlling millions of people requires more than a strong military. Israel has dominated virtually all aspects of Palestinian life with remarkable efficiency through a matrix of checkpoints, physical barriers, and advanced surveillance technologies. 

The systems Israel has designed, developed and tested have become lucrative goods for export to some of the world’s most repressive regimes.

While many have heard about Israel’s NSO group and its phone-hacking technology, fewer know how deep Israel’s history of exporting weapons technologies goes. From Augusto Pinochet’s Chile to apartheid South Africa, Israel has used the knowledge and systems it procures in its control over Palestinians to establish lucrative trade and political ties around the world. 

Israel’s drone program, which has brought billions of dollars into the country, is one of the best in the world. Loewenstein notes it has become so good because the Israeli military has a captured population in the West Bank and Gaza that it can fly drones over and test various technologies. Tested weapons and surveillance technology are generally considered the best, and Israel can test its wares 24 hours a day on a captive Palestinian population. 

If the occupation were to end tomorrow and a two-state solution took hold over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, Israel would lose its technology laboratory. The Israeli weapons industry, just like apartheid South Africa’s weapons industry, would wither into a shadow of its former self.

Since many of Israel’s vaunted technology entrepreneurs started in elite military units, the country’s mainstream technology sector would also take a hit. Where would they test their crafts and new ideas?

From this perspective, Israel has a significant economic interest in entrenching its occupation of Palestine. Thus political posturing is a distraction drumbeat to keep the population invested in this resource-intense state project.  

The recent Jenin operation looks different when considering Palestine as a weapons laboratory.

While the cycle of violence might be spiking, the Israeli army decided to test out new tools and strategies in Jenin last week. What they learned from the operation will go into new surveillance and control technologies that will eventually find their way around the world.

If you want to find a reason for the assault on Jenin or the continuation of Israel’s occupation, follow the weapons technology.

This article was provided by Syndication Bureau, which holds copyright.

Continue Reading