On the eve of the 50th anniversary of Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, President Jose Ramos-Horta of East Timor reflected on the profound impact of former Indonesian President Suharto’s legacy. Earlier this month, the government of Indonesia posthumously awarded Soeharto national hero status. This decision has generated unprecedented controversy given his stated decision-making background characterized by human rights abuses and authoritarianism. Before the December 1975 invasion, Ramos-Horta was the foreign minister of the new Democratic Republic of East Timor. In a statement, he expressed his worries over the importance of such an honor.
Soeharto, who ruled Indonesia from 1967 to 1998, is most commonly recalled for his military dictatorship’s repressive measures. His administration also imposed a draconian media blackout, preventing coverage of these widespread and systematic atrocities. This could be seen most clearly during the disruptive 1980s. The suppression of information surrounding these events has left a complex legacy that continues to affect East Timor’s struggle for recognition and justice.
In 1975, the people of East Timor declared independence from Portugal, later that year, were violently invaded by Indonesia. Diplomatic efforts Ramos-Horta was inarguably the principal player in the diplomatic push. He traveled by plane to the United Nations in New York to win international affirmation for East Timor’s tenuous new independence. He sailed in those stormy seas with an iron will. There, he witnessed first-hand how Soeharto’s regime destroyed East Timor’s sovereignty through repression, censorship, and propaganda.
The lack of proof of death soon became the major hurdle in the fight for recognition and accountability. Ramos-Horta reaffirmed this commitment. He despaired over how those tactics reflected Soeharto’s overall approach of quelling protests and shaping public perception. The 1991 Santa Cruz massacre revealed many of these East Timor atrocities. This event was a watershed moment — it significantly increased public knowledge of Indonesia’s murderous campaign across the region.
Ramos-Horta’s reflections are a useful reminder of the unfortunate and complex history of Indonesia and East Timor. Touching on a different theme of housing, Hendar said that during Soeharto’s reign he oversaw the building of hundreds, perhaps thousands of workers housing. This progress came at unbelievable human rights and personal liberty costs. The development versus oppression dichotomy is a continuing sore point in discussions about Soeharto’s legacy.
As Indonesia celebrates Soeharto with national hero status, the legacy of his authoritarian leadership still stirs deep passions today. Most folks in East Timor are just outraged and betrayed. They feel that this newfound appreciation forgets the hardship they experienced over decades of occupation and upheaval. Ramos-Horta’s reflections illustrate how the legacy of Soeharto’s regime endures. They call attention to the deep need to continue discussion towards accountability and reconciliation.
