FLAWS OF RIOT MEDIA COVERAGE
By Ariel Heryanto.
No racial or ethnic groups in Indonesia, no matter how agitated, could
possibly inflict the systematic violence in which 1,198 lives (of which
27 died from gunfire) were lost, 150 females were raped, 40 shopping
malls and 4000 shops were burned down. And thousands of vehicles and
houses were set afire simultaneously in 27 areas in a capital city of 10
million inhabitants in less than 50 hours.
Jakarta (JP): The mid May violence in Jakarta and several other cities
could best be described as racialized state terrorism, rather than
racially motivated mass riots.
Failure to recognize the difference has bin alarmingly endemic in media
coverage. This is especially rampant in the foreign media, otherwise
sympathetic toward the victims and the future of Indonesia. Not only can
such misleading coverage boost racial antagonism, more seriously it
implicitly exonerate the real culprits.
State terrorism is a series of state-sponsored campaigns that induce
intense and widespread fear over a large population, involving minimally
these three elements. First, fear is derived from spectacularly and
severely violent actions conducted by state agents or it proxies.
Second, violence is directed against individuals or social groups, as
representatives of a larger population. Third, violence is displayed as
public spectacles, so that the intended message of victimization is
widely disseminated. The aim of state-terrorism is to spread greater
fear among the large population whom similar violence could happen at
any time.
At present we have less than unequivocal evidence to indicate who
exactly must bear the greatest responsibility for the violence in May.
Nonetheless, reports of independent investigations by non-governmental
organizations and testimonies from witnesses confirm a widespread
suspicion that the case has the qualities of state-terrorism as
characterized above.
Eyewitnesses described riot instigators as heavy-built males with
crewcuts who wore military boots. Some rape victims saw security
uniforms in vans which rape took place. While such testimonies may be
sincere, they are inadequate for any conclusions to be drawn. Other
indicators are called for.
Anyone familiar with Indonesia is fully aware that no social group
outside the state can possibly have even half of the violence of the
magnitude and effectiveness as took place in Jakarta and Surakarta two
months ago.
No racial or ethnic groups in Indonesia, no matter how agitated, could
possibly inflict the systematic violence in which 1,198 lives (of which
27 died from gunfire) were lost, 150 females were raped, 40 shopping
malls and 4,000 shops were burned down, and thousands of vehicles and
houses were set afire simultaneously in 27 areas in a capital city of 10
million inhabitants in less than 50 hours. All was done without the
culprits having to confront state security forces or face indictment.
The violence was just too perfect to leave any doubts about the narrow
range of potential suspects. To have a better perspective, the following
points are helpful. First, while no civilian groups in the affected
areas had either the power or experience to take any active involvement
in such violence, the Armed Forces has both in political-trouble spots
of the nation: Irian Jaya, Aceh and East Timor.
Second, May's violence was not the first of its kind in Java. It was a
recurrence of a series that followed a pattern. This century has
witnessed periodic attacks against the ethnic Chinese. None of these
attacks appeared to have been conducted spontaneously by local, angry
and poverty-stricken masses of other ethnic groups.
In 1993, thousands of known criminals across Java were systematically
slaughtered in front of their families, and their dismembered bodies
were displayed in the busiest spots of public places (schools, shops or
movie complexes)
The qualities of state-terrorism look glaringly obvious in many of these
events. Locals are aware of what happened. Yet, what appeared in the
media both inside and particularly outside Indonesia curiously betrays
the phenomenon. Most news reports, investigative journalism, interviews
or opinion columns on the events in may have focused only on racial
issues. The history of Chinese immigrants, their relationships with
locals and their disproportional control of the nation economy have all
been discussed.
Central to the dominant media coverage of Indonesia's riots is an
allegation of who was responsible for the mass destruction: ethnically
the so-called " pribumi" (natives), economically deprived and angry with
the Chinese.
These allegations sometimes come with condemnation, sometimes with
defense. The former portrays the ethnic Chinese as purely innocent
victims. The latter recite the problematic mantra to the effect that the
Chinese constitute only 3 percent of the population but control 70
percent of the nation's economy. Either way, society perceived to
consist of only the good and bad guys
Those blaming the poor masses are not only being unfair to the accused,
but also unwittingly helping the state-terrorism by protecting the
perpetrators. These high- moralizing journalist and observers are free
to expand their imagination, because the accuseds have no access to
rebuke their accusers, especially in foreign media. Those who defend the
Pribumi are being self-defeating. Underlying their act of defending the
"pribumi" by rationalizing the act of looting, burning or raping is an
acceptance of the accusation that it was "pribumi" masses who actually
committed the crimes.
Either way, both camps in the debate have missed the point. By locating
the riots in the racial framework, both intensify the familiar tendency
to radicalize the population and send peoples imagination in various
directions. Some militantly promote Chinese identities in culture, arts,
history' or party politics. Other emphasis exacerbating interracial
hostility. Both exempt state agents from serious questioning and
possible prosecution. No wonder gang rape continues well into the second
month following the mid-May unrest.
Once entangled in a racial framework, many commentators draw comparisons
from Indonesia's situation with unrest in Malaysia in 1969 or the Los
Angeles riots in 1992. Such comparison is useful, but for reasons that
are contrary to those commonly presented. In both Malaysia and Los
Angeles violent conflicts involved primarily segments within civil
society, each generally identified with ethnic markers. That is
precisely what distinguishes them from Indonesia's case.
In Indonesia the agent provocateurs had no ethnic identity. Nor did they
come from any particular groups within civil society. They victimized
more than one ethnic group, although those of Chinese descent were their
primary targets. In this sense, the violence can better be described as
racialized than racist. It adopted racial colorings, apart from
patriarchal brutality, but the motive was not genuine racism.
No wonder the " pribumi" were not left entirely untouched by the
violence. Many "pribumi" risked their own safety when offering a helping
hand to individual Chinese strangers both during the violence as well as
afterward.
Public condemnation of the state and aid campaigns for the victims have
flourished among "pribumi " activist.
As repeatedly aired in public, the state suspiciously came late with any
remarks about the gang rapes.
All the aforementioned is not to deny those racial problems in Indonesia
exist, more specifically the problems between the Chinese minority and
self-proclaimed "pribumi" majority.
What I am arguing am that existing racism among members of civil society
was not responsible for the recent riots, or most other major anti-
Chinese riots in past decades. This racism must be clearly distinguished
from the effective racialized, masculine and militarized,
state-terrorism that most analysts choose to ignore.
As elsewhere, racism in Indonesia flares up in household conversations,
jokes, and gossip or in private quarrels. Such pervasive sentiment
partly explains the ease with which terrorism evolved last May. However,
it did not cause the mass burning, raping or looting. It simply does not
have the capacity. Rather than causing the May riots, civilian racism
has been affected and intensified by both the patriarchal
state-terrorism and the racializing media coverage.
The writer is with the Jakarta-based feminist journal, Jurnal Perempuan. |