In August 2000 I went to Jakarta to attend the Asia Pacific Research Network conference on "Poverty and Financing Underdevelopment" on behalf of GATT Watchdog. As I was going to Indonesia, I was also asked by friends in the Indonesian people’s movement to bring documents relating to the Suharto family and cronies’ New Zealand assets.

Sugeng Bahagijo from the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) had met Robert Reid from the Aotearoa/New Zealand Jubilee 2000 campaign at some of the NGO/peoples’ organisations meetings in Okinawa held during the July G8 (Group of Eight) summit there. Between then and my departure to Indonesia on 20 August, the idea grew into reality. INFID offered to capitalise on my time in Jakarta by organising a media conference on the issue and an appointment with Indonesia’s Attorney General, Marzuki Darusman, in order to present material and discuss the matter with him.

The credit for investigating and exposing the Suharto-connected tentacles in this part of the world and sticking with the issues must go to CAFCA and Australian-based Indonesian academic/activist, George Aditjondro. The issue has been well documented in Watchdog for several years. And most recently, further probing by Dr Aditjondro and CAFCA’s Bill Rosenberg has raised even more questions and concerns about the nature of the New Zealand connection in the global Suharto-linked asset empire.

The media conference at the INFID office in Jakarta on the morning of Friday 25 August exceeded my expectations. The hall was packed with between 30-40 journalists from Indonesia’s print, radio, and TV media. INFID, especially Sugeng, and Executive Secretary, Binny Buchori, who introduced me and translated into Bahasa Indonesia at the conference, did an excellent job and made me very welcome in their office where I was based from 9.30am till around 6.30pm. Several radio stations broadcast the media conference live. After the formal part of the press conference, I was quickly surrounded by journalists wanting clarifications, or one on one interviews, views about the impending trial, views about the role of both governments in relation to the NZ assets of the Suharto family and cronies. Other journalists came later or conducted interviews by phone, including Mathew Dearnaley from the New Zealand Herald, and the BBC’s East Asia service, and various Bahasa and English print media.

High Level Of Media Interest

I was floored by the high level of interest. No doubt this was in part because of the novelty of having someone based in Aotearoa on hand to answer questions and distribute material. INFID copied and distributed a number of documents, including George’s paper, material from CAFCA and the comprehensive Weekend Herald article by Mathew Dearnaley. Another explanation for the interest was the fact that as I spoke, preparations were being made to put Suharto senior on trial for corruption the following week. This was a headline story while I was in Indonesia. Suharto had been accused of funneling money – around $NZ1.37 billion - from tax-free charitable foundations back into the businesses of his family and friends. Such was the interest that reporters were still going to the INFID office for information after I had left Indonesia, and even phoning me for interviews when I was back home. The Press and CHTV’s Canterbury Today programme also interviewed me about the meeting with the Indonesian Attorney General and the issue of the Suhartos’ New Zealand connections.

I talked about the nature of the investments and the steps which organisations like CAFCA and East Timor solidarity groups had taken on the issues. I explained that there had already been calls for a specific Parliamentary inquiry into the Suharto family and crony assets in New Zealand, and that people from across the political spectrum, including Mackenzie Country farmers, East Timor solidarity campaigners, some politicians, and others felt strongly about this issue – symbolised by the controversy surrounding Tommy Suharto’s Lilybank Station. I also spoke about the open door policy towards overseas investment which successive New Zealand governments have pursued. The mere fact that overseas investors can purchase land in New Zealand was enough to raise eyebrows. I stressed that cooperation on several levels was necessary to see the campaign through and genuinely resolve the issue. Cooperation between peoples’ organisations in New Zealand and Indonesia, investigative journalists in both countries, researchers, and the two governments.

Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff went to Indonesia in late April 2000, after which he offered the Indonesian government help in investigating the Suharto family and cronies’ New Zealand assets. But New Zealand has not been very proactive in backing up its word. Firstly, it does not appear to have made any moves to investigate the murky corporate connections in the Suharto assets empire in New Zealand. Secondly, as the Indonesian Attorney General pointed out to me and to Indonesian media, it has not sent the Indonesian government any official documents, just information – news clippings from New Zealand media about the sale of Lilybank and Queenstown chalets, and some material about New Zealand laws and systems for asset confiscation in criminal cases. For its part, the New Zealand government claims that it has invited Indonesia to respond if it wanted more help, but has yet to receive a request.

For example, in a recent letter to East Timor independence activist Joe Davies (26/10/00), Mr Goff wrote:

"The Government fully supports those in Indonesia who are seeking to address the endemic corruption of the Suharto era…I have also confirmed that New Zealand would be responsive to a request for further assistance through formal channels should the Indonesian authorities conclude that assets held by the Suharto family were acquired illegally and those assets were located in New Zealand.

"The Indonesian Attorney General has yet to request such assistance. Given the ongoing uncertainties surrounding the outcome of the corruption trials of the ex-President and his youngest son (i.e. Tommy), it may be some time before the Attorney General and his staff are able to focus on any possible New Zealand angle. In the meantime, our offer of assistance remains on the table" (CAFCA received a virtually identical letter from Phil Goff. Ed.).

Without a doubt, the sales of the two highest profile Suharto family-related assets in NZ warrant a thorough investigation. The claim that the sale of Lilybank, for $1 in September 1999, to Hutomo Mandala Putra ("Tommy" Suharto)’s business associate Alan Poh was a standard business transaction must be held up to rigorous scrutiny. Likewise the sale of his sister Siti Hediyati ("Titiek" Suharto)’s luxury chalets in Queenstown – sold to a holding company registered in the Channel Islands and believed to be controlled by her and her husband, former Indonesian special forces commander, Prabowo Subianto. These transactions have been treated with deserved suspicion in New Zealand, and news of this was greeted with similar scepticism by many Indonesians with whom I spoke.

On Saturday 26 August, I met the Attorney General for an hour over lunch in the Regent Club, high up in the ritzy Regent Hotel in Jakarta. At the heart of the preparations for the impending Suharto trial, Marzuki Darusman was clearly a very busy man. I handed over various documents, including Overseas Investment Commission details of a number of investments. The package also included CAFCA’s submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee’s Review Of The Role Of Human Rights In New Zealand’s Foreign Policy and George Aditjondro’s paper presented at the April 2000 conference in Auckland organised by CAFCA and the Indonesian Human Rights Committee, which Phil Goff attended. My friends from INFID told me that under the previous Presidents, Habibie or Suharto, such a meeting with the Attorney General would have been unthinkable. Mr Darusman said that he was appreciative of the efforts to follow and investigate this issue and expressed a willingness to work with NGOs. He also feels that New Zealand is taking the lead among countries where the Suharto family and friends are believed to have investments that are the proceeds of corruption in pursuing this matter.

The very question of investigation and prosecution of Tommy Suharto has been an explosive one in Indonesia – quite literally. When Tommy, the former President’s youngest son, was brought in for questioning on suspicion of widescale corruption in June, a bomb exploded in the Attorney General’s office. He was also named as a suspect in the deadly bombing of the Jakarta Stock Exchange on September 13 – the eve of the second hearing in his father’s corruption case.

Pak Marzuki (as he is known in Indonesia) said that he was anxious to start out from a clear benchmark with regard to New Zealand law before taking further steps on this matter and asked if I could contact with Attorney General Margaret Wilson’s office seeking clearer guidelines about New Zealand legal procedures as they relate to this issue. He also requested a two page summary of the research findings and action on the Suharto-related investments in New Zealand, which Bill Rosenberg has recently supplied (see below. Ed.).

I wrote to Margaret Wilson immediately on my return, but have received no reply from her office.

Arguably the political latitude that the Indonesian Attorney General has to move on this and other issues is not very wide. He is from Suharto’s own party, Golkar, but is a reformist and is viewed with considerable respect by many activists. Many Indonesians are enthusiastic and cautiously optimistic about the "democratisation" process. Many speak highly of President Abdurrahman Wahid’s commitment to democracy. But tempering that viewpoint is the knowledge that there are too few Wahids and Marzukis to ensure speedy substantial change.

Powerful elements of the Indonesian army, and Suharto’s supporters outside the military, seem hellbent on a programme of destabilising the country. Human rights violations continue across the territories under Indonesian rule. The wars in West Papua and Aceh (Sumatra) continue. Many people spoke of the disappearance of activists like Jafar Siddiq Hamzah – chairman of the International Forum on Aceh. After my return home, his body was found alongside four other decaying unidentified bodies, some 80 km north of Medan - one month after he went missing. His sister and forensic experts confirmed soon after that one of the bodies was that of Jafar. He had been sadistically tortured and murdered.

The Suhartos’ wealth and corrupt dealings continue to be a rallying point for Indonesian social justice movements seeking meaningful reforms. Yet many activists and journalists expressed cynicism about the possibility of obtaining enough hard evidence to convict Suharto senior on corruption charges. But while moves to deal with the issue of the New Zealand assets may be frustratingly slow, that is all the more reason for continued pressure on the New Zealand and Indonesian governments for a full and thorough investigation, and a serious commitment to act to return those assets to the peoples of Indonesia and East Timor from whom the Suharto family and friends’ wealth has been taken.

One suggestion made at the meeting with Mr Darusman was a joint fact finding tour to New Zealand by representatives of Indonesian people’s organisations and officials to look into the question of Suharto-linked assets here. This idea was raised by INFID, and seems well worth exploring. A fact finding mission of Indonesian activists would certainly help maintain a focus on this issue and consolidate connections with organisations in Aotearoa which have campaigned together in the past.

So what happens now? Does the political will genuinely exist among New Zealand and Indonesian politicians to make a concerted effort to investigate and deal with the Suharto assets in NZ, and to return the proceeds to the peoples of Indonesia and East Timor? That is a good question. One thing is for sure, there must be renewed, ongoing pressure on both governments to deal with this issue conclusively.

After all, it seems likely that without the research and campaigning efforts of CAFCA, George Aditjondro and others, none of this would have come to light in the first place. The New Zealand government says it is ready to help the Indonesian government but that no request has been made. The Indonesian Attorney General believes that his government has requested help but not received much in the way of official documents and guidance as to the avenues that may be available to pursue the matter under New Zealand law.

Nothing much seems to be happening about this issue in official circles in Wellington. Is this a symptom of communication breakdown with Jakarta or a diplomatic technicality? The Government needs to bite the bullet and act. It is the least that they can do, after so many New Zealand governments have turned a blind eye to the genocide in East Timor and cosied up to Suharto.

It is easy enough to campaign against Asian dictators who have as appalling a track record as Suharto. But if there is to be international pressure to bring Suharto, his family and friends to justice, to investigate, freeze and return their ill-gotten wealth, then why stop within Indonesia? Western governments – notably the USA and Australia - actively supported the virulently anti-communist Suharto regime for most of its 32 years. They played an active role in the invasion, occupation, and plunder of East Timor and West Papua – the latter of which continues to be occupied by Indonesia.

Exposing and taking action against the Suharto-linked investments in New Zealand is a small part of a complex, bigger picture, but a vital one nonetheless. Much of the work has been done already – but when will we see some serious effort on the part of the Labour/Alliance government to address the issue?