I

was recently invited to give an introduction to the screening of the documentary film, The Act of Killing, at the Queens World Film Festival in New York, which was followed by a lively discussion moderated by Don Cato, the festival'€™s codirector.

The film is basically an enactment of the killing of alleged Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) supporters by those portrayed as the executors of the 1965 incident, particularly the aging Anwar Congo, whose emotional conflict was dug into carefully by the director and who became the jewel of this film. The other theme is the vilification of youth group Pemuda Pancasila (PP), which is depicted as a thuggish organization supported directly and indirectly by certain political elites.

The director, Joshua Oppenheimer, seemed to want to make the impression that corrupt politicians and impunity are rampant in Indonesia, and that the issue of 1965 is buried and is still a taboo topic in Indonesia, hence, the Indonesian codirector and the crew are credited as anonymous due to safety reasons. Foreign viewers with a limited background in Indonesian current affairs may be misled by the director'€™s dramatization.

My above assumptions, however, were not proven during the discussion. The audience expressed confusion with the storyline, particularly the background of 1965'€™s political upheaval, and asked whether PP members were the only perpetrators.

The audience was more surprised when they were told the topic was openly discussed in Indonesia, people were allowed to organize events for remembrance and homage, and the victims today could even write books from their own perspective '€” something unthinkable under former president Soeharto'€™s regime.

The worry for the Indonesian crew'€™s safety is surely not from a government threat but perhaps from the PP, which was demonized in this film. The threat to safety maybe also stems from an ethical issue '€” Anwar has said he felt cheated by the director in being cajoled to film the reenactment of the PP'€™s heroism in purging communism for Oppenheimer'€™s PhD focus.

Apart from these issues, the most pertinent question is what is the impact of this film on Indonesia, particularly in terms of its contribution to resolving past human rights abuses? Though not offering a solution, the film adds flavor to the national debate on how the government should deal with past human rights abuses, including the 1965 incident. Nothing more, nothing less.

Although there is no fixed model to follow, theoretically there are two plausible approaches: retributive justice and restorative justice. Empirically, retributive justice demanding the prosecution and punishment of all past violations has kept society away from moving to the next step in regime change. On the other hand, South Africa is well known as a successful example of the restorative justice approach through its truth and reconciliation commission.

Indonesia introduced a law on its own truth and reconciliation commission in 2004, but it was annulled by the Constitutional Court in 2006 after a judicial review request by several human rights NGOs as some of its provisions were considered to have violated the Constitution. The revised law is being finalized.

The other components of restorative justice involve apologies and forgiving. In 2003, Charles Hauss opined that apology and forgiveness were two sides of the same emotional coin and were constructive ways of achieving reconciliation. Without a sincere apology and forgiveness, the parties involved will be trapped in the past and will create barriers to achieving reconciliation.

In 2000, former president Abdurrahman '€œGus Dur'€ Wahid apologized to the victims of 1965 on behalf of Pemuda Ansor, the youth wing of the largest Islamic organization Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), for its involvement in the 1965 episode. However, the apology became controversial since it was not well received by the victims, which was due to misperceptions that an apology was a way to forget the past.

In many horizontal conflicts, atrocities are committed by both sides, hence there is a need for all parties to make apologies and give forgiveness. However, since sometimes conflicts are asymmetric, the obligation to apologize is on the shoulders of those considered the '€œwinners'€ or who gained more
power.

Due to the complexity of human rights issues, the Indonesian political elite is still divided over the necessity for the government to apologize for past abuses, including the 1965 killings. One argument is that giving an apology would open a Pandora'€™s box and the possibility of the apology being rejected by victims, as in the case of Gus Dur.

Nonetheless, there are lessons to be drawn from other countries. Japan has not conclusively apologized for past crimes, mainly concerning the '€œcomfort women'€ and thus still receives censure from aging victims and their offspring. Germany and the late Pope John Paul II made their respective apologies for the persecution and killing of the Jews, the latter for failing to speak out against the killings.

On the other hand, an act of forgiveness is also important in reaching reconciliation. Indeed, in a discussion in 2012 that I attended at the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) on the 1965 incident, the speaker '€” Gen. (ret) Agus Widjojo '€” an enlightened and reformist general whose father was killed by PKI supporters in 1965, eloquently made a powerful call to the victims among the participants to look forward, since there were victims on both sides.

Hence, forgiving is just as important as apologizing. Should a society wish to not to dwell too much on its past, victims should try to open their hearts to forgive those who victimized them, even though the pain and suffering would never totally disappear. Indeed, making apologies and granting forgiveness are essential in any long-term resolution in dealing with past human rights abuses. Without them, it is all but impossible to achieve reconciliation and lasting peace.

A worthy effect of The Act of Killing is that is should contribute to the process of reconciliation through expediting the passing of a stronger law on truth and reconciliation, an apology from the government and sincere forgiveness from the victims. These will help us reach true reconciliation.

Of course forgiveness is not an effort to forget the past abuse. Reparation and remembrance are also keys to guarantee a non-repeat of similar events in the future. All the above are worth trying.

The author is a consul of the Indonesian Consulate General in New York. The above views are personal.